Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Housing Service
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Nuclear Security Administration
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Office of Strategy, Policy and Plans, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Final rule.
This final rule amends the REAL ID regulation to clarify that the October 1, 2020, deadline by which Federal agencies may no longer accept non-compliant driver's licenses and identification cards for official purposes applies to all non-compliant cards, including state-issued driver's licenses and identification cards marked to indicate that they may not be used for official Federal purposes. This regulation is consistent with enforcement dates in previous DHS public statements, information posted on the DHS website, and communication with industry stakeholders.
Effective October 15, 2019.
Steve Yonkers, Director, Biometrics and Credentialing/REAL ID Program, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, telephone (202) 447-3274; email
You may obtain an electronic copy of the rule using the internet by—
(1) Searching the electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) web page at
(2) Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at
In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the individual in the
The REAL ID Act (the Act) sets minimum security requirements for the issuance and production of State and territory driver's licenses and identification cards in order for Federal agencies to accept these documents for official purposes.
On January 29, 2008, DHS published a final rule implementing the Act's requirements.
For state-based enforcement, the regulation prohibits Federal agencies from accepting cards issued by States and territories that are not compliant with the REAL ID standards.
Card-based enforcement begins October 1, 2020, pursuant to the regulation.
Under the REAL ID Act and regulation, once a State is REAL ID compliant, the State is permitted to continue issuing both compliant and non-compliant cards to residents.
The REAL ID regulation provides that beginning October 1, 2020, Federal agencies may only accept for official purposes State or territory-issued licenses and identification cards if those licenses and cards are REAL ID compliant.
Many REAL ID compliant states offer both compliant and non-compliant cards to their residents. Based on anecdotal information, DHS believes that a significant number of individuals are obtaining non-compliant “marked” cards instead of REAL ID compliant cards. Although non-compliant “marked” cards may be valid for some uses, such as driving, they will not be accepted by Federal agencies for official purposes—including boarding federally-regulated commercial aircraft—beginning October 1, 2020.
DHS is providing this clarification to avoid any potential public confusion as the final REAL ID deadline for card-based enforcement approaches. The clarification in this final rule is consistent with DHS's previous public messaging of the regulation's enforcement dates. For example, through press statements, website postings, and stakeholder outreach, DHS explained that Federal agencies may continue to accept all non-compliant cards issued by compliant states and territories (or those with an extension) until October 1, 2020.
Some Federal agencies may decide not to accept non-compliant “marked” cards for access to their Federal facilities sooner than the regulatory deadline pursuant to their own authorities and requirements. For example, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) recently finalized an update to its DoD-wide installation security policy that includes a prohibition on the acceptance of non-compliant “marked” cards for purposes of accessing its facilities and installations. Because Federal agencies may only accept compliant State or territory-issued driver's licenses and identification cards for official purposes beginning October 1, 2020, no agency will be able to accept non-compliant cards, including non-compliant “marked” cards for such purposes beginning on that date.
Many individuals rely on their State or territory-issued driver's license or identification card as identification to pass through TSA airport security checkpoints. Beginning October 1, 2020, travelers presenting a non-compliant State or territory-issued driver's license or identification card to TSA will be asked to provide an acceptable form of identification.
DHS encourages individuals to obtain REAL ID compliant cards as soon as possible, particularly if they wish to use a State or territory issued driver's license or identification card to board a federally-regulated commercial aircraft, or for any other official Federal purpose. DHS posted images of both compliant and non-compliant “marked” cards on its website, at
DHS takes this action without prior notice and public comment and with an effective date of less than 30 days after publication in the
Sections 553(b) and (d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) authorize agencies to dispense with certain notice procedures for rules when they find “good cause” to do so. Under section 553(b), the requirements of notice and opportunity for comment do not apply when the agency for good cause finds that these procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Section 553(d) allows an agency, upon finding good cause, to make a rule effective immediately, thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date requirement in section 553.
This final rule is consistent with DHS's previous messaging regarding the regulation's enforcement dates in public statements, information posted on the DHS website, and communication with industry stakeholders. In these communications, DHS explained that all non-compliant cards issued by compliant states and territories (or those with an extension) will be accepted until October 1, 2020. This final rule does not change when individuals will need to obtain a compliant driver's license or identification card. All individuals still have until October 1, 2020, to obtain a compliant card for official purposes, as defined by the Act and regulation. Given that this final rule simply clarifies what is already widely communicated, and does not change the date by which individuals may no longer use a non-compliant “marked” card, DHS assesses no additional burden to any party from this final rule.
Based on the above, DHS finds that notice and public comment to this final rule are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
As protection provided by the Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
In conducting these analyses, DHS determined that this rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule. DHS anticipates that the clarification of the existing enforcement date in this final rule will not increase REAL ID-related compliance costs to the affected agencies or to the public.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small businesses, small government jurisdictions, and small organizations during the development of their rules. This final rule, however, does not make changes for which notice and comment are necessary. Accordingly, DHS is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. DHS analyzed this rule under this Order and determined it does not have these implications for federalism.
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 Unfunded Mandates Reform 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 million (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. This final rule will not result in such an expenditure.
This rule does not have Tribal Implications under Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
DHS analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211 and determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
Document security, Driver's licenses, Identification cards, Motor vehicle administrations, Physical security.
For the reasons set forth above, the Department of Homeland Security amends 6 CFR part 37 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 30301 note; 6 U.S.C. 111, 112.
(c) Until September 30, 2020, Federal agencies may accept for official purposes a driver's license or identification card issued under § 37.71. On or after October 1, 2020, Federal agencies shall not accept for official purposes a driver's license or identification card issued under § 37.71.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Direct final rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is amending the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations, increasing the value assigned to imported cotton for the purposes of calculating supplemental assessments collected for use by the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. This amendment is required each year to ensure that assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products will be the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. In addition, AMS is updating the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) statistical reporting numbers that were amended since the last assessment adjustment in 2018.
This direct rule is effective December 16, 2019, without further action or notice, unless significant adverse comment is received by
Written comments may be submitted to the addresses specified below. All comments will be made available to the public. Please do not include personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publically disclosed. All comments may be posted on the internet and can be retrieved by most internet search engines. Comments may be submitted anonymously.
Comments, identified by AMS-CN-19-0007, may be submitted electronically through the
Shethir M. Riva, Director, Research and Promotion, Cotton and Tobacco Program, AMS, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia, 22406, telephone (540) 361-2726, facsimile (540) 361-1199, or email at
Amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act (7 U.S.C. 2101-2118) (Act) were enacted by Congress under Subtitle G of Title XIX of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-624, 104 Stat. 3909, November 28, 1990). These amendments contained two provisions that authorize changes in the funding procedures for the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. These provisions provide for: (1) The assessment of imported cotton and cotton products; and (2) termination of refunds to cotton producers. (Prior to the 1990 amendments to the Act, producers could request assessment refunds.)
As amended, the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (7 CFR part 1205) (Order) was approved by producers and importers voting in a referendum held July 17-26, 1991, and the amended Order was published in the
This direct final rule would amend the value assigned to imported cotton in the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations (7 CFR 1205.510(b)(2)) that is used to determine the Cotton Research and Promotion assessment on imported cotton and cotton products. The total value of assessment levied on cotton imports is the sum of two parts. The first part of the assessment is based on the weight of cotton imported—levied at a rate of $1 per bale of cotton, which is equivalent to 500 pounds, or $1 per 226.8 kilograms of cotton. The second part of the import assessment (referred to as the supplemental assessment) is based on the value of imported cotton lint or the cotton contained in imported cotton products—levied at a rate of five-tenths of one percent of the value of domestically produced cotton.
Section 1205.510(b)(2) of the Cotton Research and Promotion Rules and Regulations provides for assigning the calendar year weighted average price received by U.S. farmers for Upland cotton to represent the value of imported cotton. This is so that the assessment on domestically produced cotton and the assessment on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products is the same. The source for the average price statistic is
The current value of imported cotton as published in 2018 in the
An example of the complete assessment formula and how the figures are obtained is as follows:
One bale is equal to 500 pounds.
One kilogram equals 2.2046 pounds.
One pound equals 0.453597 kilograms.
The 2018 calendar year weighted average price received by producers for Upland cotton is $0.709 per pound or $1.563 per kg. (0.709 × 2.2046).
The total assessment per kilogram of raw cotton is obtained by adding the $1 per bale equivalent assessment of $0.004409 per kg. and the supplemental assessment $0.007813 per kg., which equals $0.012222 per kg.
The current assessment on imported cotton is $0.011905 per kilogram of imported cotton. The revised assessment in this direct final rule is $0.012222, an increase of $0.000317 per kilogram. This increase reflects the increase in the average weighted price of Upland cotton received by U.S. farmers during the period January through December 2018.
Import Assessment Table in section 1205.510(b)(3) indicates the total assessment rate ($ per kilogram) due for each Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number that is subject to assessment. This table must be revised each year to reflect changes in supplemental assessment rates and any changes to the HTS numbers. In this direct final rule, AMS is amending the Import Assessment Table.
AMS believes that these amendments are necessary to ensure that assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products are the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. Accordingly, changes reflected in this rule should be adopted and implemented as soon as possible since it is required by regulation.
As described in this
Also, this direct-final rulemaking furthers the objectives of Executive Order 13563, which requires that the regulatory process “promote predictability and reduce uncertainty” and “identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.”
AMS has used the direct rule rulemaking process since 2013 and has not received any adverse comments; however, if AMS does receives significant adverse comments during the comment period, it will publish, in a timely manner, a document in the
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 12 of the Act, any person subject to an order may file with the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the plan, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such person is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the District Court of the United States in any district in which the person is an inhabitant, or has his principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling, provided a complaint is filed within 20 days from the date of the entry of the Secretary's ruling.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has examined the economic impact of this rule on small entities. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such action so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121.201, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small “Other Farm Product Raw Material Merchant Wholesalers” (cotton merchants/importers) as having no more than 100 employees. The Cotton Board estimates 37,000 importers are subject to the rules and regulations issued pursuant to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order. According to the United States Census Bureau's “2016 Survey of SUSB Annual Data Tables by Establishment Industry,” most importers are considered small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR part 121.201). This rule would only affect importers of cotton and cotton-containing products and would increase the assessments paid by the importers under the Cotton Research and Promotion Order. The current assessment on imported cotton is $0.011905 per kilogram of imported cotton. The amended assessment would be $0.012222, which was calculated based on the 12-month weighted average of price received by U.S. cotton farmers. Section 1205.510, “Levy of assessments”, provides “The rate of the supplemental assessment on imported cotton will be the same as that levied on cotton produced within the United States.” In addition, section 1205.510 provides that the 12-month weighted average of prices received by U.S. farmers will be used as the value of imported cotton for the purpose of levying the supplemental assessment on imported cotton.
Under the Cotton Research and Promotion Program, assessments are used by the Cotton Board to finance research and promotion programs designed to increase consumer demand for Upland cotton in the United States and international markets. In 2017 (the last audited year), producer assessments totaled $49.4 million and importer assessments totaled $35.3 million. According to the Cotton Board, should the volume of cotton products imported into the U.S. remain at the same level in 2019, one could expect an increase of assessments by approximately $1,068,645.
Imported organic cotton and products may be exempt from assessment if eligible under section 1205.519 of the Order.
There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
In compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) the information collection requirements contained in the regulation to be amended have been previously approved by OMB and were assigned control number 0581-0093, National Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Programs. This rule does not result in a change to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved.
A 30-day comment period is provided to comment on the changes to the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations proposed herein. This period is deemed appropriate because an amendment is required to adjust the assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products to be the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. Accordingly, the change in this rule, if adopted, should be implemented as soon as possible.
Advertising, Agricultural research, Cotton, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS amends 7 CFR part 1205 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2101-2118; 7 U.S.C 7401.
(b) * * *
(2) The 12-month average of monthly weighted average prices received by U.S. farmers will be calculated annually. Such weighted average will be used as the value of imported cotton for the purpose of levying the supplemental assessment on imported cotton and will be expressed in kilograms. The value of imported cotton for the purpose of levying this supplemental assessment is $1.2222 cents per kilogram.
(3) * * *
7 U.S.C. 2101-2118.
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Rural Housing Service (RHS or Agency) published a proposed rule December 12, 2018, proposing to amend its regulation to eliminate the requirement for the annual publication of Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). Through this action, RHS finalizes the proposed rule without any substantive revisions.
Effective November 14, 2019.
Monica Cole, Finance and Loan Analyst, Multi-Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Division, Rural Housing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, STOP 0781—Room 1263S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0781, Telephone: (202) 720-1251 (this is not a toll-free number); email:
The annual publication of the NOFA is currently required by 7 CFR part 3565. Section 538 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1490p) (Housing Act) broadly requires a publication of the availability of funds, application procedures, and selection criteria in the
The delay caused by annually publishing a NOFA also creates problems regarding the timing of other funders' deadlines. The major funding source in the Section 538 portfolio is Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Of these properties that are financed with LIHTC, the LIHTC equity represents approximately 75 percent of the total development cost (TDC). Without the injection of LIHTC equity, rents would not be affordable to low income tenants. When developers use the Section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing (GRRH) program with LIHTC, they are required to submit a preliminary eligibility letter from Rural Development together with the LIHTC application. If the NOFA is published after the LIHTC application deadline, the developer will not be able to use LIHTC to finance the project.
In lieu of the NOFA process, the Section 538 GRRH program will continue to follow procedures similar to other Rural Development guaranteed loan programs and accept applications on a continuous basis. The Agency will make an announcement to the public when funds are available. Rural Development will use the standards from the last NOFA as published in the
Both Empowerment Zone (EZ) and Enterprise Community (EC) Initiatives have expired, so reference to those initiatives will also be removed from 7 CFR part 3565.
The Agency published a proposed rule on December 12, 2018 at 83 FR 64488-64490, proposing to amend its regulation to eliminate the requirement for the annual publication of the NOFA. One comment was received, and it was in support of the proposed regulatory change. Therefore, RHS is moving forward with finalizing this rule with only minor stylistic and grammatical changes that do not affect the substance of the proposed regulation.
This final rule has been determined to be non-significant and; therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
The GRRH program is administered subject to appropriations by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as authorized under the Housing Act of 1949 as amended, Section 538, Public Law 106-569, 42 U.S.C. 1490 p-2.
This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, subpart A, “Environmental Policies.” RHS determined that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
The rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The undersigned has determined and certified by signature on this document that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since this rulemaking action does not involve a new or expanded program nor does it require any more action on the part of a small business than required of a large entity.
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988. In accordance with this rule: (1) Unless otherwise specifically provided, all State and local laws that conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule except as specifically prescribed in the rule; and (3) administrative proceedings of the National Appeals Division of USDA (7 CFR part 11) must be exhausted before bringing suit in court that challenges action taken under this rule.
Title II of the UMRA, Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal Governments and on the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, Federal Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one-year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires a Federal Agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal Governments or for the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The information collection requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by OMB and have been assigned OMB control number 0575-0189. This final rule contains no new reporting and recordkeeping requirements that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
RHS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act by promoting the use of the internet and other Information Technologies in order to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information, services, and other purposes.
The program affected by this regulation is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under numbers 10.438—Rural Rental Housing Guaranteed Loans (Section 538).
This executive order imposes requirements on RHS in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. RHS has determined that the rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. If tribal leaders are interested in consulting with RHS on this rule, they are encouraged to contact USDA's Office of Tribal Relations or Rural Development's Native American Coordinator at:
These loans are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. RHS conducts intergovernmental consultations for each loan in accordance with 2 CFR part 415, subpart C.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, familial/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at:
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Conflict of interest, Credit, Fair housing, Loan programs-housing and community development, Low and moderate-income housing, Manufactured homes, Mortgages, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, RHS amends 7 CFR part 3565 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 42 U.S.C. 1480.
The Agency's authority to enter into commitments, guarantee loans, or
(b)
(c)
The interest rate for a guaranteed loan must not exceed the maximum allowable rate specified by the Agency. This interest rate must be fixed over the term of the loan.
The property may include new construction or rehabilitation of existing structures. The units may be attached, detached, semi-detached, row houses, modular or manufactured houses, or multifamily structures. Manufactured housing must meet Agency requirements contained in 7 CFR part 1924, subpart A. The Agency will guarantee proposals for new construction or acquisition with moderate or substantial rehabilitation of at least $6,500 per dwelling unit. The portion of guaranteed funds available for acquisition with rehabilitation may be limited.
(b)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for various transport airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of smoke and fumes in the flight deck. This AD requires modification of certain universal serial bus (USB) receptacles located in the flight deck. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 19, 2019.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 15, 2019.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0259R1, dated February 7, 2019 (“EASA AD 2018-0259R1”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the following airplanes on which certain USB receptacles were installed using certain Fokker service information:
• Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 050 airplanes.
• Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 3000 airplanes.
• Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and Mark 0100 airplanes.
• Airbus SAS Model A318-111 airplanes.
• Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -114, -115, and -132 airplanes.
• Airbus SAS Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -251N airplanes.
• Airbus SAS Model A321-211, -231, -232, -251N and -253N airplanes.
• Airbus SAS Model A330-202, -223, -243, -322 and -343 airplanes.
• Airbus SAS Model A340-312 and -313 airplanes.
• ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes.
• ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72-212 and -212A airplanes.
• The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, -500, -700, -800 and -900ER series airplanes.
• The Boeing Company Model 757-200 series airplanes.
• The Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes.
• The Boeing Company Model 777-200LR series airplanes.
• Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (601-3A, 601-3R, and 604 Variants) airplanes.
• Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) airplanes.
• Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-202, -311, -315 and -402 airplanes.
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to various transport airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The FAA is issuing this AD to address smoke and fumes in the flight deck, which could result in excessive flightcrew workload and injury to flight deck occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.
The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) indicated its support for the NPRM.
NetJets submitted two requests to revise the applicability of the proposed AD. The commenter's first request was to exclude Bombardier Model CL-650 airplanes having serial numbers 6071 and subsequent. The commenter provided a page from the Bombardier Model CL-650 Illustrated Parts Catalog, which shows that the USB part number delivered on airplanes with those serial numbers is not the affected USB part number addressed in the proposed AD. The commenter submitted a subsequent request asking that all Model CL-650 airplanes be removed from the applicability of the proposed AD. The commenter stated that it had conducted additional research and provided a list of airplane models that have the affected USB part installed that was created by Fokker and only one Bombardier Model CL-650 airplane, having serial number (S/N) 5651, has the affected part installed.
The FAA acknowledges the commenter's observation that a limited number of Bombardier Model CL-650 airplanes (also known as Challenger 650 airplanes; a marketing designation for the Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes beginning with S/N 6050 and subsequent) may have the affected part installed. However, the FAA does not agree with the commenter's request to revise the applicability of this AD. Since some of the CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes may have the affected part installed, the requirements of this AD apply to those airplanes. The FAA has determined that it is the operators' responsibility to conduct the necessary review to determine if an airplane in its fleet is affected by the requirements of this AD. This AD applies to the airplanes identified in figure 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, having an affected part (defined in paragraph (g) of this AD) installed as specified in the applicable service information identified in in figure 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD. The FAA has not revised this AD regarding this issue.
NetJets requested that the proposed AD include a provision to allow operators to do a records review to determine which airplanes have the affected USB part installed.
The commenter provided pages from the Bombardier Model CL-650 Illustrated Parts Catalog and pointed out that specific serial numbers of Bombardier Model CL-650 airplanes were delivered with factory-installed USB ports and are not affected by the modification specified in the proposed AD.
The FAA acknowledges the commenter's request. However, while the manufacturers Illustrated Parts Catalog is a valuable tool for operators to order replacement parts, it is not an FAA approved document that identifies an airplane delivered type design configuration. A records review is one way of determining if the affected part is installed on an airplane if the review can conclusively identify the affected part. Paragraph (h) of this AD requires modification of affected parts; this AD does not specify any required method for determining that an affected part is installed on an airplane. Therefore, operators can do an appropriate records review or they can inspect the airplane to determine if the affected part is installed. The FAA has not revised this AD regarding this issue.
Net Jets requested that the proposed AD include the STC number for any USB receptacle that was installed on an airplane using the FAA-approved STC process. The commenter observed that including the STC number would aid in its research to determine which airplanes in its fleet would be affected by the requirements specified in the proposed AD.
The FAA acknowledges the commenter's request. Figure 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD already includes the applicable STC numbers for USB receptacles installed using the FAA-approved STC process. Because a USB receptacle could have been installed using a means other than an STC, it is the operator's responsibility to conduct the review necessary to determine if an airplane in its fleet is affected by the requirements of this AD. The FAA has not revised this AD regarding this issue.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The agency has determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Fokker Services B.V. has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for modifying the electronic flight bag USB receptacles located in the flight deck, including current limiting and overheat protection. These documents are
• Fokker Services F28 Generic Service Bulletin SBF28-46-002, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
• Fokker Services F50/60 Generic Service Bulletin SBF50-46-006, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
• Fokker Services F100/700 Generic Service Bulletin SBF100-46-008, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
• Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA320-0167, Revision 2, Sequence 4, dated December 13, 2018.
• Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA330-0011, Revision 0, Sequence 9, dated July 27, 2018.
• Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA340-0005, Revision 0, Sequence 8, dated July 27, 2018.
• Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBAT72-0013, Revision 0, Sequence 7, dated July 27, 2018.
• Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB737-0156, Revision 3, Sequence 3, dated February 25, 2019.
• Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB757-0020, Revision 1, Sequence 3, dated October 2, 2018.
• Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB767-0023, Revision 1, Sequence 3, dated October 3, 2018.
• Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB777-0009, Revision 1, Sequence 3, dated October 3, 2018.
• Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBCL60-0010, Revision 1, Sequence 3, dated August 30, 2018.
• Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBDHC8-0035, Revision 1, Sequence 4, dated December 13, 2018.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 14 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective November 19, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in figure 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, certificated in any category, having an affected part (defined in paragraph (g) of this AD) installed as specified in the applicable service information identified in figure 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 46, Information systems.
This AD was prompted by reports of smoke and fumes in the flight deck. The FAA is issuing this AD to address smoke and fumes in the flight deck, which could result in excessive flightcrew workload and injury to flight deck occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purpose of this AD, an “affected part” is a universal serial bus (USB) receptacle manufactured by Lone Star Aviation, Corporation, having part number LS03-05050-A.
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, modify each affected part in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Fokker Services B.V. service information identified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (13) of this AD.
(1) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA320-0167, Revision 2, Sequence 4, dated December 13, 2018.
(2) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA330-0011, Revision 0, Sequence 9, dated July 27, 2018.
(3) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA340-0005, Revision 0, Sequence 8, dated July 27, 2018.
(4) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBAT72-0013, Revision 0, Sequence 7, dated July 27, 2018.
(5) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB737-0156, Revision 3, Sequence 3, dated February 25, 2019.
(6) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB757-0020, Revision 1, Sequence 3, dated October 2, 2018.
(7) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB767-0023, Revision 1, Sequence 3, dated October 3, 2018.
(8) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB777-0009, Revision 1, Sequence 3, dated October 3, 2018.
(9) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBCL60-0010, Revision 1, Sequence 3, dated August 30, 2018.
(10) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBDHC8-0035, Revision 1, Sequence 4, dated December 13, 2018.
(11) Fokker Services F28 Generic Service Bulletin SBF28-46-002, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
(12) Fokker Services F50/60 Generic Service Bulletin SBF50-46-006, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
(13) Fokker Services F100/700 Generic Service Bulletin SBF100-46-008, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
After modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no person may install an affected part on that airplane.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (7) of this AD.
(1) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA320-0167, Revision 1, dated August 30, 2018.
(2) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBDHC8-0035, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
(3) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB737-0156, Revision 1, dated August 30, 2018.
(4) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB737-0156, Revision 2, dated October 3, 2018.
(5) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB757-0020, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
(6) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB767-0023, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
(7) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB777-0009, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0259R1, dated February 7, 2019, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA320-0167, Revision 2, Sequence 4, dated December 13, 2018.
(ii) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA330-0011, Revision 0, Sequence 9, dated July 27, 2018.
(iii) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA340-0005, Revision 0, Sequence 8, dated July 27, 2018.
(iv) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBAT72-0013, Revision 0, Sequence 7, dated July 27, 2018.
(v) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB737-0156, Revision 3, Sequence 3, dated February 25, 2019.
(vi) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB757-0020, Revision 1, Sequence 3, dated October 2, 2018.
(vii) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB767-0023, Revision 1, Sequence 3, dated October 3, 2018.
(viii) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB777-0009, Revision 1, Sequence 3, dated October 3, 2018.
(ix) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBCL60-0010, Revision 1, Sequence 3, dated August 30, 2018.
(x) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBDHC8-0035, Revision 1, Sequence 4, dated December 13, 2018.
(xi) Fokker Services F28 Generic Service Bulletin SBF28-46-002, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
(xii) Fokker Services F50/60 Generic Service Bulletin SBF50-46-006, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
(xiii) Fokker Services F100/700 Generic Service Bulletin SBF100-46-008, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2018-15-01 for certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, Trent 1000-H, Trent 1000-A2, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000-D2, Trent 1000-E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-K2, and Trent 1000-L2 model turbofan engines. AD 2018-15-01 required certain engines susceptible to intermediate-pressure turbine (IPT) blade failure not be installed on an airplane together with other engines with IPT blades of the same cyclic life. This AD requires removal of the IPT blade set at lower cyclic life limits and replacing it with a blade set eligible for installation. This AD also expands the applicability to include additional Trent 1000 turbofan engine models. This AD was prompted by the determination that certain IPT blades are susceptible to shank corrosion which leads to cracking and possible blade separation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 30, 2019.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 30, 2019.
The FAA must receive any comments on this AD by November 29, 2019.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Martin Adler, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7157; email:
The FAA issued AD 2018-15-01, Amendment 39-19333 (83 FR 34755, July 23, 2018), (“AD 2018-15-01”), for certain RR Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, Trent 1000-H, Trent 1000-A2, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000-D2, Trent 1000-E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-K2, and Trent 1000-L2 model turbofan engines. AD 2018-15-01 prohibited the installation of engines susceptible to IPT blade failure on an airplane together with other engines with IPT blades of the same cyclic life. AD 2018-15-01 resulted from new operating restrictions
Since the FAA issued AD 2018-15-01, RR determined that unless new IPT blades are installed in accordance with RR Service Bulletin (SB) Trent 1000 72-H818, dated November 14, 2016, or RR SB Trent 1000 72-J559, dated November 27, 2017, each engine must remain subject to specific maintenance intervals to minimize the risk of IPT blade release. Both SBs introduced new IPT blades not subject to this AD. RR SB Trent 1000 72-J559 also applies to additional RRD Trent 1000 engines (Trent 1000 TEN engine standard). RR subsequently transferred its FAA type certificate for the subject model engines to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD).
Also, since the FAA issued AD 2018-15-01, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) issued EASA AD No. 2019-0135, dated June 11, 2019 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the “MCAI”). The MCAI states:
Occurrences were reported of IPTB [IPT blade] shank cracking. Analysis shows that this kind of failure is due to sulphidation corrosion.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to IPTB shank release, possibly resulting in engine in-flight shut-down (IFSD) and consequent reduced control of the aeroplane.
Prompted by these events, Rolls-Royce identified engines with a high level of sulphidation exposure using a corrosion fatigue life (CFL) model. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2017-0056 to require removal from service of certain engines, to be corrected in shop. In addition, to reduce the risk of dual IFSD, it was decided to introduce a new cyclic life limit to certain engines, determining when an engine can no longer be installed on an aeroplane in combination with certain other engines. Consequently, EASA issued Emergency AD 2017-0253-E, AD 2018-0086, and finally AD 2018-0139, each next AD superseding the previous one, to require de-pairing of the affected engines.
After EASA AD 2018-0139 was issued, prompted by further analyses of data provided by operators, Rolls-Royce developed an updated service management approach to minimise the risk of IPTB release and issued the NMSB, identifying those ESN at highest risk, and providing the corresponding cyclic limits for in-shop IPTB replacement. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2018-0257, superseding EASA AD 2017-0056 and AD 2018-0139, to require removal from service of certain engines, to be corrected in shop. That AD also required, for engines having SUM IPTB installed, the introduction of IPTB cyclic limits. Finally, that AD retained the optional terminating action as previously provided by EASA AD 2018-0139.
Since that AD was issued, it was determined that, unless mod/SB 72-H818 or mod/SB 72-J559 is embodied, each engine must remain subject to service management to minimise the risk of IPTB release. Rolls-Royce mod/SB 72-J559 applies to the Trent 1000 TEN engine standard, introducing IPTB P/N KH71526 and additional IPTB coating.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2018-0257, which is superseded, expands the Applicability by including Trent 1000 TEN engine models, and including reference to the NMSB, as defined in this AD.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
The FAA reviewed RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000 72-AK186, Revision 2, dated April 16, 2019. This service information establishes cyclic life limits for IPT blades and specifies removing RRD Trent 1000 engines with IPT blades that have a cyclic life exceeding the new cyclic life limits.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA reviewed RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J442, Revision 3, dated October 8, 2018, and RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J465, Revision 4, dated October 8, 2018. These NMSBs both describe procedures, as applicable to different sets of RRD Trent 1000 model turbofan engines, for cleaning and inspecting affected IPT blades so that they are suitable for reuse.
The FAA also reviewed RR SB Trent 1000 72-H818, dated November 14, 2016, and RR SB Trent 1000 72-J559, dated November 27, 2017. RR SB Trent 1000 72-H818 introduced a new IPT blade that is less susceptible to shank corrosion. RR SB Trent 1000 72-J559 introduced a new IPT blade with additional blade coating and applies to additional Trent 1000 engines (Trent 1000 TEN engine standard).
This product has been approved by EASA, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD because it evaluated all the relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires removal of the IPT blade set at lower cyclic life limits and its replacement with a blade set eligible for installation for affected RRD Trent 1000 model turbofan engines.
No domestic operators use this product. Therefore, the FAA finds that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for this same reason, the FAA finds that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and the FAA did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, the FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
In the event an affected engine becomes installed on a U.S.-registered product, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 30, 2019.
This AD replaces AD 2018-15-01, Amendment 39-19333 (83 FR 34755, July 23, 2018).
This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co KG (Type Certificate previously held by Rolls-Royce plc) (RRD) Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-A2, Trent 1000-AE, Trent 1000-AE2, Trent 1000-AE3, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000-CE, Trent 1000-CE2, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-D2, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-E2, Trent 1000-G, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-G3, Trent 1000-H, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-H3, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-J3, Trent 1000-K2, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L2, Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-N3, Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3 and Trent 1000-R3 model turbofan engines, with an engine serial number (ESN) listed in Appendix 1, 2, or 3 of Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000 72-AK186, Revision 2, dated April 16, 2019, except those engines that have incorporated the modifications in RR Service Bulletin (SB) Trent 1000 72-H818, dated November 14, 2016, or RR SB Trent 1000 72-J559, dated November 27, 2017.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Engine, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by the determination that certain intermediate-pressure turbine (IPT) blades are susceptible to shank corrosion which leads to cracking and possible blade separation. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent the simultaneous failure of both engines installed on an airplane, during flight. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a dual engine in-flight shutdown and loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For engines with an ESN listed in Appendix 1 of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK186, Revision 2, dated April 16, 2019 (“RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK186”), prior to reaching the blade cycle life limit listed in Appendix 1 of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK186, or within 30 days of the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, remove the IPT blade set and replace with an IPT blade set eligible for installation.
(2) For engines with an ESN listed in Appendix 2 of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK186:
(i) If the engine is in an engine shop visit on the effective date of this AD, remove the IPT blade set and replace with an IPT blade set eligible for installation prior to returning the engine to service; or
(ii) If the engine is not in an engine shop visit on the effective date of this AD and the IPT blade set was not replaced during the previous engine shop visit, remove the IPT blade set and replace with an IPT blade set eligible for installation within 30 days of the effective date of this AD.
(3) For engines that have replaced the IPT blade set per RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J442, Revision 3, dated October 8, 2018, or RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J465, Revision 4, dated October 8, 2018, as applicable, remove and replace those blades prior to reaching the “Permitted Cycles of operation since installation in accordance with NMSB 72-J442 or 72-J465” listed in Appendix 3 of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK186, as applicable for each ESN, or within 30 days of the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
An IPT blade set eligible for installation is a full set of new IPT blades, or a full set of blades that have been inspected per RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J442, Revision 3, dated October 8, 2018, or RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J465 Revision 4, October 8, 2018, as applicable by engine model.
For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine case flanges, except that the separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Martin Adler, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7157; email:
(2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0135, dated June 11, 2019, for more information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin Trent 1000 72-AK186, Revision 2, dated April 16, 2019.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For RR service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.
(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues regulations to implement catch handling and monitoring requirements to allow Pacific halibut (halibut) bycatch to be sorted on the deck of trawl catcher/processors (C/Ps) and motherships participating in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries off Alaska. Halibut bycatch must be discarded and returned to the sea with a minimum of injury in the directed groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) management areas. This final action includes additional minor regulatory changes that improve consistency and clarity of existing regulations, removes unnecessary and outdated regulations, and updates cross references to reflect these new regulations. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the GOA (GOA FMP), the FMP for Groundfish of the BSAI Management Area (BSAI FMP), and other applicable law.
This rule is effective November 14, 2019.
Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (referred to as the “Analysis”), the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this action, and the proposed rule may be obtained from
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted by mail to NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; by email to
Joseph Krieger, 907-586-7228 or
NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone under the GOA FMP and under the BSAI FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared these FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
NMFS published the proposed rule for this action on April 16, 2019 (84 FR 15566), with comments invited through May 16, 2019.
NMFS received two letters with eight distinct comments during the comment
The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage halibut fisheries through regulations established under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 773-773k). The IPHC adopts regulations governing the target fishery for halibut under the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979). For the United States, regulations governing the fishery for Pacific halibut developed by the IPHC are subject to acceptance by the Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce. After acceptance by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce, NMFS publishes the IPHC regulations in the
NMFS has implemented regulations that limit the amount of halibut bycatch in the directed groundfish fisheries in the BSAI and GOA. Regulations establish specific limits on the amount of halibut bycatch, prohibited species catch (PSC) limits, in specific groundfish fisheries in the BSAI and GOA. These PSC limits are based on the amount of halibut discard mortality estimated under specific monitoring procedures.
In recent years, catch limits for the commercial halibut fishery in the BSAI and GOA have declined in response to changing halibut stock conditions. Most recently, NMFS implemented Amendment 111 to the BSAI FMP (81 FR 24714, April 27, 2016) and Amendment 95 to the GOA FMP (79 FR 9625, February 20, 2014) to further reduce PSC limits for Pacific halibut in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries.
In this action, NFMS implements regulations for catch handling and monitoring requirements to allow halibut bycatch to be sorted on the deck of trawl C/Ps and motherships when operating in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries off Alaska. The monitoring requirements have been developed and tested on vessels participating in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries. The harvest of non-pollock groundfish fisheries may be limited by existing halibut PSC limits, and participating vessels are operationally different than vessels participating in pollock fisheries. As such, the scope of this action is limited to vessels participating in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries. This final rule does not modify existing halibut PSC limits, but it does allow halibut to be discarded faster than allowed under current monitoring requirements, which could reduce halibut discard mortality. Reducing halibut discard mortality could maximize prosecution of the directed non-pollock groundfish fisheries that otherwise might be constrained by halibut PSC limits, and may also benefit vessels participating in the directed halibut fishery by returning more live halibut to the water.
This final rule will allow any trawl C/P or mothership operating in the non-pollock groundfish fishery to participate in deck sorting provided it adheres to all requirements. Three categories of C/Ps and motherships are most likely to participate in deck sorting in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries as their existing monitoring requirements are most similar to those included in this action: (1) Vessels operating in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries in the BSAI and GOA under the Amendment 80 Program (72 FR 52667, September 14, 2007); (2) vessels harvesting non-pollock groundfish in the BSAI under the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program; and (3) C/Ps and motherships harvesting non-pollock groundfish in the BSAI trawl limited access sector (TLAS).
The BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery has been prosecuted mostly by a fleet of trawl C/Ps. These C/Ps are managed under the Amendment 80 Program. The Amendment 80 Program is a catch share program that allocates several BSAI non-pollock trawl species among fishing sectors, and facilitates the formation of harvesting cooperatives in the non-American Fisheries Act (AFA) trawl C/P sector. The AFA is a limited access program for Bering Sea pollock implemented by statute in 1998 (Pub. L. 105-277, 16 U.S.C. 1851 statutory note).
The Amendment 80 sector is composed of 28 C/Ps with history of harvesting non-pollock groundfish in the BSAI. The Amendment 80 cooperatives and vessels receive allocations of Pacific halibut and crab PSC limits while fishing in the BSAI to constrain bycatch, or unintended take, of these species while harvesting groundfish. These voluntary harvest cooperatives coordinate use of the target allocations, incidental catch allowances, and prohibited species allocations among active member vessels.
Some Amendment 80 vessels also participate in the Central GOA Rockfish Program (Rockfish Program). This final rule allows for vessels to deck sort halibut PSC while participating in the Rockfish Program (76 FR 81248, December 27, 2011).
When the Amendment 80 Program was implemented, it allocated specific amounts of Amendment 80 species, including PSC species, to non-Amendment 80 vessels that comprise the BSAI TLAS. The BSAI TLAS includes AFA C/Ps, AFA catcher vessels, and other non-AFA catcher vessels. The BSAI TLAS comprises all the trawl vessels in the BSAI except the Amendment 80 C/Ps. The BSAI TLAS fishery provides harvesting opportunities of some Amendment 80 species by non-Amendment 80 vessels.
Under this final rule, AFA vessels will not be eligible to participate in halibut deck sorting when operating in pollock fisheries. However, vessels participating in the BSAI TLAS fishery—which may include AFA vessels—may choose to participate in halibut deck sorting when operating in non-pollock fisheries in the BSAI TLAS.
The CDQ sector includes all trawl and non-trawl vessels that harvest groundfish under the CDQ Program. The CDQ Program consists of six different non-profit managing organizations (CDQ groups) representing different geographical regions in Alaska. Each CDQ group receives an apportionment of the halibut PSC limit as halibut prohibited species quota (PSQ), which is a specific amount of halibut that vessels fishing for that CDQ group may use in a year. The CDQ group manages the use of its halibut PSQ apportionment. The CDQ group has the responsibility to ensure that the vessels fishing its CDQ groundfish allocation do not use halibut PSQ in excess of the amount of the CDQ group's halibut PSQ.
Halibut PSC management is described in the preamble to the proposed rule for this action (84 FR 15566, April 16, 2019).
Current monitoring requirements are designed to allow observers to collect data and monitor for compliance as
NMFS uses observer data to provide reliable estimates of allocated species in catch share fisheries and reliable estimates of total catch and bycatch in non-catch share fisheries. Since 1999, vessels participating in groundfish catch share programs have been required to comply with additional monitoring requirements. Monitoring requirements may be imposed by NMFS or developed in consultation with the Council. These monitoring requirements are necessary because of the unique incentives to misreport catch that are created by the act of assigning quota, and therefore accountability, to individual entities (cooperatives or vessels). Vessels affected by this action participate in catch share and non-catch share fisheries including Amendment 80 Program, BSAI TLAS, and groundfish CDQ fisheries. Observer information is used in the NMFS Catch Accounting System to monitor catch of target and bycatch species on a daily basis. Current monitoring requirements for C/Ps and motherships participating in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries off Alaska vary, depending upon the specific fishery in which the vessel is participating. Each catch share program includes monitoring requirements designed to ensure that observer data produce reliable catch and bycatch estimates of allocated species.
Before catch is sorted or discarded on any trawl vessel, at-sea observers must collect data necessary to estimate halibut and groundfish catch amounts. Current halibut discard requirements state that an observer must first have access to sample the catch prior to sorting and discard. Observers sample the species composition of catch, and NMFS estimates the ratio of halibut to groundfish from each haul sampled and applies it to the official total catch of groundfish for each sampled haul. Once the estimated halibut catch for every haul is calculated, discard mortality rates (DMRs) are applied to calculate the amount of halibut PSC mortality accrued.
Current vessel equipment requirements are described in the preamble to the proposed rule for this action (84 FR 15566, April 16, 2019).
Amendment 111 to the BSAI FMP, published on April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24714), reduced halibut PSC limits in the BSAI groundfish fisheries in four groundfish sectors: The Amendment 80 sector; the BSAI TLAS (all non-Amendment 80 trawl fishery participants); the non-trawl sector (primarily hook-and-line C/Ps); and the CDQ Program. The purpose of Amendment 111 was to decrease BSAI halibut PSC to the extent practicable by the BSAI groundfish fisheries while continually achieving optimum yield from the BSAI groundfish fisheries.
Similarly, Amendment 95 to the GOA FMP, published on March 24, 2014 (79 FR 9625), reduced halibut PSC limits in the GOA groundfish fisheries in three sectors: The hook-and-line C/P sector, the hook-and-line catcher vessel sector, and the trawl sector. The purpose of Amendment 95 was to minimize halibut bycatch in the GOA to the extent practicable, while at the same time achieving optimum yield from the GOA groundfish fishery.
By reducing halibut PSC, the final rules for Amendment 111 and Amendment 95 aimed to increase harvest opportunities for the directed halibut fisheries. However, these reductions increased the potential for the halibut PSC limit to constrain the harvest of allocated species in groundfish fisheries, thereby potentially reducing the overall economic benefit of the fisheries if the directed fisheries were closed prior to harvesting all the allocated species.
Under current monitoring requirements for most vessels participating in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries, all halibut must be weighed along with the rest of the unsorted catch and made available for sampling by an observer prior to discard. This means that all halibut enter the fish bin and are weighed in the factory prior to observer data collection and discard, resulting in high DMRs. For several years, experiments conducted through Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs) have tested procedures to reduce halibut discard mortality by sorting. Results from these EFPs suggest that substantial amounts of halibut can be returned to the water alive and provide for additional harvest opportunity for the directed halibut fisheries. See Section 1.3.5 of the Analysis for additional detail on halibut deck sorting EFPs.
In order to accurately account for halibut sorted on deck during EFP fishing, additional catch handling and monitoring requirements were necessary to ensure that an observer had access to all halibut sorted on deck, as well as all other catch in the factory, for the collection of data and sampling. These requirements were necessary to ensure that observer data resulted in reliable estimates of catch and bycatch, as well as mitigated safety risks due to additional time spent on deck.
This final rule implements catch handling and monitoring requirements to allow halibut PSC to be sorted on the deck of trawl C/Ps and motherships participating in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries off Alaska. NMFS and EFP participants worked together to develop and test the monitoring and enforcement requirements required during EFP fishing and implemented with this final rule. These requirements allow halibut to be returned to the water faster while also ensuring that observer data continue to result in reliable estimates of halibut incidental catch rate and viability. Participation in halibut deck sorting is voluntary. However, any vessel choosing to participate in halibut deck sorting will be required to comply with all applicable monitoring requirements.
This final rule adds subpart K, § 679.120—Halibut Deck Sorting, to part 679 to specify halibut deck sorting catch handling and monitoring requirements. Additionally, existing catch handling and monitoring regulations are modified as necessary to be consistent with the catch handling and monitoring requirements included in this final rule. In addition to the primary action, this final rule also changes observer sampling station inspection requirements in Federal groundfish fisheries and makes minor changes to bin monitoring requirements for the Amendment 80 fleet. This final rule also makes minor changes in terminology, reorganizes regulatory text, and makes other technical changes that are described below.
This final rule defines the term “Halibut Deck Sorting” at § 679.2. The term “Halibut Deck Sorting” is used to specify the activity of separating or
This final rule adds requirements at § 679.51(a)(2)(vi)(F) to specify observer coverage requirements for vessels participating in halibut deck sorting. Vessels are required to carry on board at least two observers at all times when participating in halibut deck sorting. One of these observers must be endorsed as a lead level 2 observer. More than two observer are required if the observer workload restriction would otherwise preclude sampling as required, such as if an observer was needed to work longer than a 12 hour shift in order to monitor halibut deck sorting and/or fish being passed over the flow scale in the factory.
This final rule establishes prohibitions specific to halibut deck sorting at § 679.7(e). These regulations specify that when a vessel participates in halibut deck sorting, fish must not be spilled from the codend; halibut must not be sorted, discarded, or weighed on a NMFS-approved scale unless an observer is present on deck; and the vessel is in compliance with the requirements of § 679.120, which describe the vessel, crew, and catch handling and monitoring requirements for participation in halibut deck sorting. In addition, § 679.7(e) prohibits catch from being weighed on flow scales in the factory when the observer is monitoring halibut deck sorting, unless three or more observers are present on the vessel and at least two observers are on duty. In these circumstances, one observer will be required to monitor deck-sorting while another observer will be required to monitor the flow scale in the factory.
This final rule establishes requirements specific to halibut deck sorting at § 679.120(c) that require vessel owners and operators who choose to halibut deck sort to notify the North Pacific Observer Program (Observer Program) to schedule a pre-cruise meeting when they have an observer on board who has not previously been on board within the last 12 months. This meeting must minimally include the vessel operator or manager and any observer(s) assigned to the vessel. This requirement differs from pre-cruise meeting requirements under the EFP that did not require vessel owners and operators choosing to halibut deck sort to notify the Observer Program when they had on board an observer who had not previously been on board within the last 12 months.
This final rule adds requirements at § 679.120(d) to establish a Deck Safety Plan. Vessel owners and operators must develop an approved Deck Safety Plan prior to participating in halibut deck sorting. This Deck Safety Plan must be approved annually by NMFS. If the vessel owner or operator wishes to change an existing Deck Safety Plan, the vessel owner or operator may submit proposed changes in writing, and any changes must be approved by NMFS. Mandatory components of this Deck Safety Plan include a description of safe routes for the observer to access and/or leave the deck sampling station during gear retrieval and movement; description of hazardous areas and potentially hazardous conditions on deck the observer should be aware of; a list of personal protective equipment that must be worn by the observer while on deck; and a description of communication procedures to inform the observer when it is safe to access the deck, in order to ensure that the observer remains safe while working on the deck.
Vessel owners and operators will also be required to provide observers with a copy of the NMFS-approved Deck Safety Plan and conduct a deck sorting safety meeting prior to embarking on a trip when any one of the following—observer, vessel operator, or key crew member that will be responsible for providing notification or reasonable assistance during halibut deck sorting—boards the vessel. All elements of the vessel's Deck Safety Plan must be reviewed with the observer during this meeting.
If NMFS disapproves a Deck Safety Plan, the vessel owner and operator may resubmit a revised Deck Safety Plan or file an administrative appeal as set forth under the administrative appeals procedures set out at 15 CFR part 906.
This final rule adds several requirements at § 679.120(e). Vessel operators must notify the observer on duty at least 15 minutes prior to bringing fish on board that halibut deck sorting will occur. From the time the vessel operator notifies the observer that halibut deck sorting will occur until the codend from that haul is opened on deck, the vessel operator may choose not to engage in halibut deck sorting. Catch in the factory cannot be weighed during halibut deck sorting activities unless, as explained above, an additional observer is available to complete data collection duties in the factory. Vessels will be required to devise and use a visual signal to communicate to the crew when catch may not be weighed during deck sorting activities.
Each vessel's Observer Sampling Station Inspection Report will indicate the time limit for halibut deck sorting activities. The time limit may be vessel specific and will be based on factors including, but not limited to, deck space and configuration, and the best available halibut viability information. This time limit begins when the codend is opened on deck and must not exceed the time limit indicated on the Observer Sampling Station Inspection Report. When the time limit is reached, all halibut deck sorting must stop. After the time limit for halibut deck sorting is reached, all halibut not sampled by the observer on deck must be transferred to the live tank(s) and passed over the flow scale in the factory. In the future, the time limit may change in order to account for changes in vessel configuration, sampling technologies, and as new information on halibut viability becomes available. Observer Sampling Station Inspection Reports will be issued annually by NMFS.
This final rule adds § 679.51(e)(1)(viii)(G) to require vessel operators to provide reasonable assistance to observers during halibut deck sorting. When halibut deck sorting, vessel operators and crew will be required to provide halibut sorted on the deck to the observer, in order to facilitate timely sampling by the observer and reduce delays in onboard factory processing of fish.
This final rule modifies existing catch weighing and data sources requirements at §§ 679.32(c)(3)(i)(C)(
This final rule modifies regulations specifying methods used for CDQ catch estimation on C/Ps and motherships using trawl gear at § 679.32(c)(3)(ii)(C) to accurately describe catch accounting data sources including when halibut
This final rule also modifies § 679.28(d)(9) to outline and define requirements for an observer deck sampling station that must be on board motherships and C/Ps participating in halibut deck sorting described at § 679.120. The observer deck sampling station must be located on deck and will be required in addition to the observer sampling station in the factory. The observer deck sampling station must meet specifications and requirements similar to the existing observer sampling station, with the exception that vessels participating in halibut deck sorting will be required to have only a single pathway for halibut to be conveyed to an observer at an observer deck sampling station, as well as a single point of discard after each work table that is visible to the observer collecting the data on discarded halibut.
This final rule adds video monitoring requirements for vessels participating in halibut deck sorting at § 679.28(l). Vessels are required to record and retain video for the entire trip where halibut deck sorting may occur. Vessels are also required to maintain full video coverage of all areas on deck where halibut may be sorted from the catch and/or discarded. This requirement differs from the permit conditions in the 2019 EFP that require vessels to record and retain video only while halibut deck sorting is occurring. As stated in existing regulations at § 679.28(e)(1)(v), the video data must be retained onboard the vessel for no less than 120 days after the date the video is recorded unless otherwise notified by NMFS
This final rule modifies § 679.28(i)(1) to remove a monitoring provision known as Option 2—line of sight option for bin monitoring standards. This monitoring option facilitated an observer's view of fish holding bins, but is no longer used; thus, this regulation is unnecessary.
This final rule also modifies §§ 679.28(d)(10) and 679.28(i)(5) to remove the requirements that restrict the validity of the observer sampling station, bin monitoring inspection and associated reports to 12 months from the date of the inspection allows for additional flexibility for the Observer Program to determine the exact length of the approval and potentially synchronize sampling station and bin monitoring inspections with other applicable equipment inspection requirements. This change reduces the need for vessels to schedule multiple in-person inspections at different times of the year, thereby reducing costs of complying with regulations.
This final rule includes a number of regulatory edits to improve clarity and consistency, and to remove unnecessary or out of date regulations. These modifications do not impact vessel operations. Section 679.28(b)(5)(v) is removed because it describes calibration and log requirement regulations for printed reports from the fault log that were applicable to 2015 only. This final rule adds the word “views” when describing display requirements for cameras at § 679.28(e)(1)(vii) and (e)(1)(viii)(A), and also updates the website address for the NMFS Alaska Region in § 679.28(e)(2).
NMFS received two letters containing eight distinct comments on the proposed rule. A summary of relevant comments and NMFS' response follows. In addition to the written comments received from the public and the Council on the proposed rule, NMFS also received oral comments on the proposed rule during a public meeting held in Seattle, WA, on April 18, 2019 (84 FR 13252, April 4, 2019). The oral comments received during the public meeting mirrored the written comments and are included below.
NMFS intends to recommend that observer data collection procedures be added to the FMAC agenda for their September meeting. This would provide for public input of the observer data collection procedures and methodologies associated with halibut deck sorting that will be used in 2020.
NMFS agrees that the primary objective of the deck sorting program is to reduce halibut mortality, not
As noted in the previous comment, the Council and NMFS have a public process for communicating observer data collection procedures through the Council's FMAC. For 2020, NMFS intends to recommend to the FMAC that deck sorting protocols be added to the agenda for its September 2019 meeting. This practice can be continued annually as needed. The Council's FMAC is the established committee dedicated to monitoring programs and fishery-dependent data collections. Minutes from each FMAC meeting are provided to the Council, and the FMAC reports directly to the Council. In addition, Section 679.51(c)(3) states that vessel, shoreside processor, and stationary floating processor owners and operators, as well as observers and observer providers, may contact NMFS in writing to request assistance in improving observer data quality and resolving observer sampling issues. Through these established processes, the public and stakeholders can receive information and provide input on all NMFS monitoring programs, including any new sampling procedures involving deck sorting. As such, it is not necessary for NMFS to provide updates about halibut deck sorting activities continually throughout the year at each Council meeting.
Vessel-specific time limits may become necessary to ensure that differences in fishing practices and catch handling techniques can be considered in setting deck sorting time limits. Further, including the time limit on the Observer Sampling Station Inspection Reports ensures that the operator has this information in writing from NMFS and that all observer-related requirements are in a single document for the vessel operator.
As responses to comments 2, 3 and 4 indicated, changes to observer data collection procedures can be vetted through established public processes, beginning with the FMAC. The Council typically requests the FMAC to review changes to observer sampling procedures but the Council may decide to directly take up any specific issues that are on the FMAC's agenda.
During the course of halibut deck sorting under the EFP, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement has noted EFP participant actions that would be considered violations under a fully regulated program but were outside of their enforcement responsibilities under the EFP. Instead, these violations were reported to NMFS and solutions were developed based on discussions with EFP participants. If a participant was routinely found in violation of EFP parameters, they would then be excluded from the EFP altogether.
In addition, allowing vessels to resume deck sorting without video monitoring could effectively prevent NOAA Office of Law Enforcement from enforcing other video monitoring requirements associated with halibut deck sorting and could create a disincentive for vessels to maintain their video monitoring equipment in good working order. In other words, if a vessel were allowed to continue to deck sort halibut when its video monitoring system stopped working properly, what motivation would there be to repair the system?
This requirement will not prevent the vessel from fishing altogether if all or part of its video monitoring system malfunctions. If a deck camera fails, the vessel will be required only to stop halibut deck sorting activities until the system is repaired.
NMFS does not intend to apply the interpretation that a vessel will be in violation any time a system breaks during a trip with any deck sorting. If the video monitoring system is not working properly, §§ 679.28(l) and 679.7(e)(12) require that all halibut deck sorting activities be terminated until such a time that the system is repaired. In these cases, the vessel will be required to retain video recordings from the time when the video monitoring system was functional. The language in § 679.28(l)(1) is consistent with other video monitoring requirements that require vessels to record and retain video throughout the extent of various specified fishing activities (see § 678.28(j) and (k)). From an enforcement perspective, consistencies in the intent and language of comparable regulations is critical to ensure compliance and enforceability of applicable regulations. For these and the preceding reasons, NMFS disagrees with the comment to revise the regulatory language at § 679.28(l)(1).
This final rule does not alter the amount or type of equipment provided to observers by NMFS or their observer providers. Observers should already possess all required personal protective equipment prior to embarking on the vessel. The Observer Program currently provides observers with personal floatation vests, hard hats and hearing protection. In the event that an observer loses or damages their equipment, the vessel may be asked to provide a temporary spare if they are able in order to allow for continued halibut deck sorting activities. This final rule does not change the personal protective equipment that observers are already required to wear, which is described in the annual observer sampling manual (AFSC 2019).
Section 3507(c)(B)(i) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires that agencies inventory and display a current control number assigned by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for each agency's information collection. Section 902.1(b) identifies the location of NOAA regulations for which OMB approval numbers have been issued. Because this final rule adds and revises collection-of-information requirements, 15 CFR 902.1(b) is revised to reference correctly the sections resulting from this final rule.
NMFS made three changes to this final rule. The first change adds the words “participating in” to the applicability definition at § 679.120(a) so that it now reads “The owner and operator of a mothership or catcher/processor using trawl gear in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area must comply with the requirements of this section when participating in halibut deck sorting as defined at § 679.2.”. This change reduces ambiguity associated with when catch handling and monitoring requirements for halibut deck sorting apply.
The second change removes a duplicate comma in the last sentence in § 679.28(d)(10)(iii)(A).
The third change added the word “annually” to the submission requirement for the Deck Safety Plan at § 679.120(d)(1). It now reads “Annually submit and have an approved Deck Safety Plan prior to participating in halibut deck sorting. The owner and operator must comply with all the requirements described in the NMFS-approved Deck Safety Plan.” This change clarifies that the owner and operator of a vessel choosing to deck sort halibut must annually submit a Deck Safety Plan for approval by NMFS. This requirement was described in detail in the preamble of the proposed rule but was not clearly stated the regulatory text.
These changes do not substantively modify the regulations as proposed.
Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the BSAI and GOA FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NMFS published a proposed rule on April 16, 2019 (84 FR 15566). An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared and included in the “Classification” section of the proposed rule. The comment period closed on May 16, 2016. No comments were received on the IRFA or regarding this certification.
The factual basis for certification is described below. This action implements catch handling and monitoring requirements to allow halibut PSC to be sorted on the deck of trawl C/Ps and motherships participating in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries off Alaska. These requirements build upon existing monitoring and enforcement requirements and are designed to allow halibut to be returned to the sea faster while also ensuring that observer data continue to result in reliable estimates of halibut incidental catch rate and viability. Participation in halibut deck sorting will be voluntary. However, any vessel operator choosing to participate in halibut deck sorting will be required to comply with all applicable monitoring requirements.
In addition to the primary action, this action also changes observer sampling station inspection requirements in Federal groundfish fisheries and makes minor changes to bin monitoring requirements in the Amendment 80 fleet. This action also makes minor changes in terminology, reorganizes regulatory text, and makes other technical changes. The IRFA identified 40 C/Ps, owned by 10 firms, whose owners and operators will potentially be directly regulated by this action. A review of ownership affiliations, and resulting aggregate revenue, reveals that the combined revenue of all but one of the co-owned C/Ps in each of the 10 fishing corporations that own these C/Ps
Although one C/P-owning firm potentially directly regulated by this action is a small entity under the RFA, the vessel's participation in the formal deck sorting program is doubtful given current operations and constraints. However, if this C/P did choose to sort halibut PSC on deck in the future, they would do so voluntarily and only if the benefits of accounting for reduced halibut mortality outweigh the costs of compliance with program requirements. This statement is also true for the three mothership corporations that are potentially directly regulated small entities under this action.
This action also directly regulates the owners and operators of C/Ps and motherships subject to requirements for line of sight bin monitoring and timing of the observer sampling stations. However, this element of this final rule will not affect the one C/P that is a small entity because unsorted fish are not held below deck in bins on this vessel. In addition, none of these vessels have used line of sight bin monitoring since 2011, and then only in conjunction with other still available monitoring options. Therefore, revisions to bin monitoring regulations and slight relaxation of regulations affecting the timing of observer sampling will not impose any additional costs or restrictions or create any impacts that would be considered significant adverse economic impacts on small entities.
For all of these reasons, this action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) which has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Number 0648-0318 (North Pacific Observer Program) and Control Number 0648-0330 (Alaska Region, Scale and Catch Weighing Requirements). The public reporting burden for these collection-of-information requirements includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
This final rule requires vessel owners or operators of trawl C/Ps and motherships who choose to sort halibut PSC on deck to have a NMFS-approved Deck Safety Plan prior to participating in halibut deck sorting. Currently24 vessels have participated in halibut deck sorting with a fully developed Deck Safety Plan. NMFS estimates approximately three new vessels may choose to participate in deck sorting over the next three years. Public reporting burden for the development of a new Deck Safety Plan during the first (initial) year a vessel participates in halibut deck sorting is estimated to average 12 hours. After the first year, the public reporting burden for a respondent to modify or renew an existing Deck Safety Plan is estimated to be one hour.
For vessel owners or operators of trawl C/Ps and motherships who choose to sort halibut PSC on deck, the public reporting burden per response to notify the Observer Program by phone is estimated to be five minutes, the burden to notify the observer is estimated at two minutes, and appeal of a disapproved Deck Safety Plan is estimated at 4 hours.
When this action takes effect, 24 vessels will have participated in halibut deck sorting with installed deck video monitoring systems and observer deck sampling stations in compliance with regulations. NMFS estimates approximately three new vessels may choose to participate in deck sorting over the next three years. This final rule requires vessel owners or operators of trawl C/Ps and motherships who choose to sort halibut PSC on deck to install an observer sampling station on deck for use by the observer when deck sorting halibut. Public reporting burden for the installation of the observer deck sampling station during the first (initial) year a vessel participates in halibut deck sorting is estimated to average 12 hours. After the first year, annual maintenance of observer sampling stations both in the factory and on deck is expected to be minimal and will likely be done with other factory modifications initiated by the vessel to improve processing efficiency. Annual public reporting burden after the first year is estimated at one minute.
In addition, these vessels must install a deck sorting video monitoring system on deck. Public reporting burden for the installation of the video monitoring system is estimated to average 12 hours. After the first year, annual maintenance of the video monitoring system, including routine inspection and time required to call out for any needed repair, is estimated at one minute.
Public reporting burden for the Inspection Request for Observer Sampling Station, At-sea Scales, Video Monitoring Deck Sampling Station, and Deck Video Monitoring is estimated at 8 minutes.
Send comments on these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS Alaska Region (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Alaska, Fisheries, Pacific halibut, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR part 679 as follows:
44 U.S.C. 3501
(b) * * *
16 U.S.C. 773
The addition reads as follows:
(e)
(2) For any haul for which the notification at § 679.120(e)(2) is provided, allow fish to be spilled from the codend without an observer being present to monitor halibut deck sorting.
(3) Sort halibut from the catch prior to weighing except in compliance with requirements at § 679.120.
(4) Sort halibut on deck without an observer present to monitor halibut deck sorting.
(5) Discard halibut sorted on deck prior to the observer's completion of data collection for each halibut.
(6) Sort or discard any species other than halibut during halibut deck sorting.
(7) Conduct halibut deck sorting past the time limit set by NMFS in the vessel's Observer Sampling Station Inspection Report.
(8) Conduct halibut deck sorting without complying with the observer deck sampling station requirements at § 679.28(d)(9).
(9) Fail to have an approved Deck Safety Plan before conducting halibut deck sorting.
(10) Fail to notify the Observer Program for purposes of the pre-cruise meeting when required by § 679.120(c).
(11) Weigh catch on a NMFS-approved scale that complies with the requirements at § 679.28(b) when halibut deck sorting unless three or more observers are present on the vessel and an observer has been notified and is available to complete data collection duties in the factory.
(12) Sort halibut without a video monitoring system meeting requirements at § 679.28(l).
(13) Fail to comply with any other requirement or restriction specified in this part or violate any provision of this part.
The revisions and additions to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(9)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(B)
(v)
(10)
(iii)
(A)
(B) [Reserved].
(i) * * *
(1)
(ii)
(A) Records and retains all video for all periods when fish are inside the bin; and
(B) Provides sufficient resolution and field of view to see crew activities from any location within the tank where crew could be located.
(2)
(5)
(l)
(1) Record and retain video for an entire trip when halibut deck sorting may occur; and
(2) Provide sufficient resolution and field of view to monitor all areas on deck where halibut may be sorted from the catch and discarded, and all crew actions in these areas.
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(
(ii) * * *
(C)
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) * * *
(F)
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) * * *
(G) During halibut deck sorting, providing halibut to the observer on deck.
(a) * * *
(1)
(c) * * *
(1)
(c) * * *
(1)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(i) Describe the route for observers to safely access and leave the deck sampling station and specify locations where observers may shelter during gear retrieval and movement.
(ii) Describe hazardous areas and potentially hazardous conditions that could be encountered on deck.
(iii) Describe communication procedures to inform the observer when it is safe to access the deck. These procedures must identify who will tell the observer it is safe to access the deck, how that communication will happen, and how they will communicate with the observer if a new safety hazard arises while on deck.
(iv) List personal protective equipment that must be worn by the observer while on deck.
(v) List all personnel the observer may contact to report safety issues, including safety hazards identified by the observer that are not covered by the Deck Safety Plan, deviations from the Deck Safety Plan, and any conditions that would require the suspension of halibut deck sorting.
(vi) Provide procedures to ensure the observer's safety while working in the deck sampling station.
(vii) Include a scale drawing showing the deck sampling station, the routes to access and exit the deck sampling station, emergency muster location, and safety hazards that could be encountered on deck.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The Commission is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Effective October 21, 2019.
Sheila Dombal Swartz, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-5545; Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-7010.
In FR Doc. 19-13609 appearing on page 43872 in the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans to prescribe certain interest assumptions under the regulation for plans with valuation dates in November 2019. These interest assumptions are used for paying certain benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.
Effective November 1, 2019.
Gregory Katz (
PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminated single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's website (
PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4022 (“Lump Sum Interest Rates for PBGC Payments”) to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Because some private-sector pension plans use these interest rates to determine lump sum amounts payable to plan participants (if the resulting lump sum is larger than the amount required under section 417(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 205(g)(3) of ERISA), these rates are also provided in appendix C to part 4022 (“Lump Sum Interest Rates for Private-Sector Payments”).
This final rule updates appendices B and C of the benefits payment regulation to provide the rates for November 2019 measurement dates.
The November 2019 lump sum interest assumptions will be 0.25 percent for the period during which a benefit is (or is assumed to be) in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for October 2019, these assumptions represent an increase of 0.25 percent in the immediate rate and are otherwise unchanged.
PBGC updates appendices B and C each month. PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to issue new interest assumptions promptly so that they are available for plans that rely on our publication of them each month to calculate lump sum benefit amounts.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during November 2019, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), DoD.
Direct final rule.
This direct final rule removes DoD's regulation on the voluntary state income tax withholding from the monthly retired or retainer pay of any member or former member of the uniformed Services. That regulation is unnecessary because it restates current law; sets forth internal policy and procedures; and conveys to the public administrative and procedural information that does not require rulemaking. Accordingly, DoD will remove this part and publish a document in the
This rule is effective November 25, 2019 without further action, unless adverse comment is received by November 14, 2019. If adverse comment is received, DoD will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or RIN number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Kellie Allison at 703-614-0410.
DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because the removal of 32 CFR part 78, last amended on July 18, 2006 (71 FR 40657), does not change in any way the procedures for the voluntary withholding of State tax from the monthly retired or retainer pay of any member or former member of the uniformed Services, and therefore DoD expects no opposition to it. However, if DoD receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the
Congress authorized the Department in 10 U.S.C. 1045 to establish this program. This part restates that law and otherwise contains internal instruction. DoD internal procedures for the voluntary withholding of this state tax are contained in DoD's Financial Management Regulation (FMR), Volume 7B, Chapter 26, available at
This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” Therefore, the requirements of E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” do not apply.
Income taxes, Intergovernmental relations, Military personnel, Pensions.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a temporary safety zone between mile marker (MM) 96.7 and MM 95.7 above Head of Passes, Lower Mississippi River, LA. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near New Orleans, LA, during a fireworks display. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.845 will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. through 10:15 p.m. on January 18, 2020.
If you have questions about this document, call or email Lieutenant Commander Corinne Plummer, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 504-365-2375, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone regulation found in 33 CFR 165.845(a) for the Host-Global New Orleans Fireworks Display event from 9:15 p.m. through 10:15 p.m. on January 18, 2020. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event, which will be located between MM 96.7 and MM 95.7, above Head of Passes, Lower Mississippi River, LA. During the enforcement periods, if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
In addition to the publication of this document in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Rio Vista Bass Derby Fireworks Display in the Captain of the Port, San Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM) or other Federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies on scene to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the regulated area.
The regulation in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 23, will be enforced from noon through 9:30 p.m. on October 12, 2019.
If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email Chief Warrant Officer Mickey Price, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-7442, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone established in 33 CFR 165.1191 Table 1, Item number 23, for the Rio Vista Bass Derby Fireworks Display from noon through 9:30 p.m. on October 12, 2019, or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The safety zone will extend to all navigable waters of the Sacramento River, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 100 feet out from the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge from the loading location to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From noon through 4 p.m. October 12, 2019, the fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics from the Dutra Group, 160 River Road, Rio Vista, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at the loading location until its transit to the display location. From 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. on October 12, 2019 the loaded fireworks barge will transit from the Dutra Group to the launch site off of Rio Vista, CA in approximate position 38°09′15.53″ N, 121°41′17.01″ W (NAD 83), where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display. During the15-minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at approximately 8:45 p.m. on October 12, 2019, and 30 minutes after the conclusion of the fireworks display, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass all navigable waters of the Sacramento River, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 1000 feet out from the fireworks barge near Rio Vista, CA in approximate position 38°09′15.53″ N, 121°41′17.01″ W (NAD 83). This safety zone will be enforced from noon until 9:30 p.m. on October 12, 2019, or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
In addition to this notification in the
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM or other Official Patrol defined as a Federal, state, or local law enforcement agency on scene to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the regulated area. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by the PATCOM or Official Patrol shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM or Official Patrol may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice of enforcement, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is issuing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 29 chemical substances which are the subject of 28 premanufacture notices (PMNs). The chemical substances are subject to Orders issued by EPA pursuant to section 5(e) of TSCA. This action requires persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of these 29 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. Persons may not commence manufacture or processing for the significant new use until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required by that determination.
This rule is effective on December 16, 2019. For purposes of judicial review, this rule shall be promulgated at 1 p.m. (e.s.t.) on October 29, 2019.
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Manufacturers or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110),
This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and Orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to these SNURs must certify compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this rule on or after November 14, 2019 are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see 40 CFR 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
The docket includes information considered by the Agency in developing the proposed and final rules. The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0567, is available at
EPA is finalizing these SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for 29 chemical substances which were the subject of 28 PMNs. These SNURs require persons who intend to manufacture or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.
In the
TSCA section 5(a)(2) (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in Unit III.
General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same SNUN requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). These requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA sections 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA sections 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury under the conditions of use for the chemical substance or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination before the manufacture or processing for the significant new use can commence. In the case of a determination other than not likely to present unreasonable risk, the applicable review period must also expire before manufacturing or processing for the new use may commence. If EPA determines that the use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to make public, and submit for publication in the
When the Agency issues an Order under TSCA section 5(e), section 5(f)(4) requires that the Agency consider whether to promulgate a SNUR for any use not conforming to the restrictions of the TSCA section 5(e) Order or publish a statement describing the reasons for not initiating the rulemaking. TSCA section 5(a)(2) states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:
• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.
In determining what would constitute a significant new use for the chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.
EPA received public comments on the proposed rule from eight identifying entities. The Agency's responses are in the Response to Public Comments document in the public docket for this rule, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0567.
EPA is establishing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for 29 chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In Unit IV. of the original direct final rule (83 FR 47004, September 17, 2018) (FRL-9983-14), EPA provides the following information for each chemical substance:
• PMN number.
• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).
• Basis for the TSCA section 5(e) Order.
• Potentially Useful Information. This is information identified by EPA that would help characterize the potential health and/or environmental effects of the chemical substance in support of a request by the PMN submitter to modify the TSCA section 5(e) Order, or if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use designated by the SNUR.
• CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this rule.
The regulatory text section of each rule specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including exceedance of production volume limits (
These final rules include 29 chemical substances that are subject to Orders under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I) where EPA determined that activities associated with the PMN substances may present unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. Those Orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The SNURs identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).
Where EPA determined that the PMN substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health via inhalation exposure, the underlying TSCA section 5(e) Order usually requires that potentially exposed employees wear specified respirators unless actual measurements of the workplace air show that air-borne concentrations of the PMN substance are below the New Chemical Exposure
During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are subject to these SNURs, EPA concluded that regulation was warranted under TSCA section 5(e), pending the development of information sufficient to make reasoned evaluations of the health or environmental effects of the chemical substances. The basis for such findings is outlined in Unit IV. Based on these findings, TSCA section 5(e) Orders requiring the use of appropriate exposure controls were negotiated with the PMN submitters. As a general matter, EPA believes it is necessary to follow TSCA section 5(e) Orders with a SNUR that identifies the absence of those protective measures as Significant New Uses to ensure that all manufacturers and processors—not just the original submitter—are held to the same standard.
EPA is issuing these SNURs because the Agency wants:
• To identify as significant new uses any manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the underlying Orders, consistent with TSCA section 5(f)(4).
• To receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.
• To have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.
• To be able to either determine that the prospective manufacture or processing is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, or to take necessary regulatory action associated with any other determination, before the described significant new use of the chemical substance occurs.
Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the internet at
To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this rule have undergone premanufacture review. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement (NOC) and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. Therefore, for chemical substances for which an NOC has not been submitted, EPA concludes that the designated significant new uses are not ongoing.
When chemical substances identified in this rule are added to the TSCA Inventory, EPA recognizes that, before the rule is effective, other persons might engage in a use that has been identified as a significant new use. However, TSCA section 5(e) Orders have been issued for all the chemical substances, and the PMN submitters are prohibited by the TSCA section 5(e) Orders from undertaking activities which will be designated as significant new uses. The identities of the 29 chemical substances subject to this rule have been claimed as confidential. Based on this, the Agency believes that it is highly unlikely that any of the significant new uses described in the regulatory text of this rule are ongoing.
Furthermore, EPA designated September 17, 2018 (the date of public release of the original direct final and proposed rules) as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. The objective of EPA's approach has been to ensure that a person could not defeat a SNUR by initiating a significant new use before the effective date of the final rule.
In the unlikely event that a person began commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substances for a significant new use identified as of September 17, 2018, that person will have to cease any such activity upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, these persons will have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required with that determination.
EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any particular new information (
In the absence of a rule, Order, or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit information in their possession or control and to describe any other information known to or reasonably ascertainable (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing under 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In Unit IV. of the original direct final rule (83 FR 47004, September 17, 2018) (FRL-9983-14), the EPA lists potentially useful information that will be useful to EPA's evaluation. Companies who are considering submitting a SNUN are encouraged, but not required, to develop the information on the substance. EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency. Furthermore, pursuant to TSCA section 4(h), which pertains to reduction of testing on vertebrate animals, EPA encourages consultation with the Agency on the use of alternative test methods and strategies (also called New Approach Methodologies, or NAMs), if available, to generate the recommended test data. EPA encourages dialog with Agency representatives to help determine how best the submitter can meet both the data needs and the objective of TSCA section 4(h).
In some of the TSCA section 5(e) Orders for the chemical substances regulated under this rule, EPA has established production volume limits.
Any request by EPA for the triggered and pended testing described in the Orders was made based on EPA's consideration of available screening-level data, if any, as well as other available information on appropriate testing for the PMN substances. Further, any such testing request on the part of EPA that includes testing on vertebrates was made after consideration of available toxicity information, computational toxicology and bioinformatics, and high-throughput screening methods and their prediction models.
The potentially useful information identified in Unit IV. of the original direct final rule may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substance. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data or other information may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f). EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.
SNUN submitters should provide detailed information on the following:
• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
• Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.
By this rule, EPA is establishing certain significant new uses which have been claimed as CBI subject to Agency confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR part 2 and 40 CFR part 720, subpart E. Absent a final determination or other disposition of the confidentiality claim under 40 CFR part 2 procedures, EPA is required to keep this information confidential. EPA promulgated a procedure to deal with the situation where a specific significant new use is CBI, at 40 CFR 721.1725(b)(1).
Under these procedures a manufacturer or processor may request EPA to determine whether a proposed use would be a significant new use under the rule. The manufacturer or processor must show that it has a
If EPA determines that the use identified in the
According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notification requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances subject to this rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0567.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action establishes SNURs for several new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs and TSCA section 5(e) Orders. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
According to the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection activities in this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and
Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including using automated collection techniques, to the Director, Regulatory Support Division, Office of Mission Support (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.
Pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601
Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this action. As such, EPA has determined that this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This action does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) does not apply to this action.
This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 135
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(A) As an alternative to the respirator requirements in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, a manufacturer or processor may choose to follow the new chemical exposure limit (NCEL) provision listed in the TSCA section 5(e) Order for this substance. The NCEL is 0.04 mg/m
(B) [Reserved]
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of Pacific cod by vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary because the 2019 total allowable catch of Pacific cod allocated to vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA has been reached.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), October 9, 2019, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2019.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2019 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod allocated to vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 2,148 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2019 and 2020 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (84 FR 9416, March 14, 2019).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2019 TAC of Pacific cod allocated to vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will be reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that Pacific cod caught by vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b). This closure does not apply to fishing by vessels participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program for the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting the retention of Pacific cod by vessels using trawl gear and not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 7, 2019.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain General Electric Company (GE) CF34-1A, CF34-3A, CF34-3A1, CF34-3A2, CF34-3B, and CF34-3B1 model turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by an in-flight failure of a fan blade that led to an in-flight shutdown. This proposed AD would require removal and replacement of the affected fan blades. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 29, 2019.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
The FAA was notified of an in-flight failure of a fan blade installed on a GE CF34-3B1 engine. As a result of this failure, the crew shut down the engine and performed an air turnback and a safe landing. A review by GE determined that a lance peen was not performed on certain fan blades after a repair done at a repair station between 2007 and 2009. Fan blades can lose their compressive residual stress during certain electron beam weld repairs and hot form repairs. The loss of mechanical properties is restored with the lance peening process called out in these repairs. During an audit, GE identified the fan blades referenced in paragraph (c) of this AD as suspected of missing lance peening. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.
The FAA reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) CF34-BJ S/B 72-0306, dated September 27, 2017, and GE SB CF34-AL S/B 72-0314, dated September 27, 2017. GE SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-0306 describes procedures for removal and replacement of affected fan blades installed on CF34-1A, -3A, -3A1, -3A2, and -3B model turbofan engines. GE SB CF34-AL S/B 72-0314 describes procedures for removal and replacement of affected fan blades installed on CF34-3A1 and -3B1 model turbofan engines.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA also reviewed GE SB CF34-AL S/B 72-0148, Revision 05, dated July 23, 2015; and GE SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-0123, Revision 04, dated October 21, 2015. GE SB CF34-AL S/B 72-0148 describes procedures for repair of fan blades installed on GE CF34-3A1 and -3B1 model turbofan engines. GE SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-0123 describes procedures for repair of fan blades installed on GE CF34-1A, -3A, -3A1, -3A2, and -3B model turbofan engines.
The FAA is proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require removal and replacement of the affected fan blades.
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 121 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by November 29, 2019.
None.
This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CF34-1A, CF34-3A,CF34-3A1, CF34-3A2, CF34-3B, and CF34-3B1 model turbofan engines having a fan blade with a part number listed in Planning Information, paragraph 1.A., of GE Service Bulletin (SB) CF34-AL S/B 72-0314, dated September 27, 2017 or of GE SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-0306, dated September 27, 2017, and with any serial number listed in paragraph 4., Appendix A, of GE SB CF34-AL S/B 72-0314 or of GE SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-0306.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7220, Turbine Engine Inlet Section.
This AD was prompted by an in-flight failure of a fan blade that led to an in-flight shutdown. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fan blade. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Remove the affected fan blades from service within 90 days after the effective date of this AD and replace with a part eligible for installation.
A part that is eligible for installation is any fan blade other than those identified by paragraph (c) of this AD or a fan blade that has been repaired per GE SB CF34-AL S/B 72-0148, Revision 05, dated July 23, 2015; or GE SB CF34-BJ S/B 72-0123, Revision 04, dated October 21, 2015.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Proposed rule; notice of hearing.
This document provides a notice of public hearing on proposed regulations relating to the tax qualification of plans maintained by more than one employer. These plans, maintained pursuant to section 413(c) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), are often referred to as multiple employer plans or MEPs.
The public hearing is being held on Wednesday, December 11, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. The IRS must receive speakers' outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing by Monday, November 25, 2019. If no outlines are received by November 25, 2019, the public hearing will be cancelled.
The public hearing is being held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present a valid photo identification to enter the building.
Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-121508-18), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-121508-18), Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the regulations, Pamela Kinard at (202) 317-6000 or Jamie Dvoretzky at (202) 317-4102; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers),
The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-121508-18) that was published in the
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing that submitted written comments by October 1, 2019, must submit an outline of the topics to be addressed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic by Monday, November 25, 2019.
A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing or by contacting the Publications and Regulations Branch at (202) 317-6901(not a toll-free number).
Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the 156,389-acre “Royal Slope” viticultural area in Adams and Grant Counties, in Washington. The proposed viticultural area lies entirely within the existing Columbia Valley viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.
Comments must be received December 16, 2019.
You may electronically submit comments to TTB on this proposal, and view copies of this document, its supporting materials, and any comments TTB receives on it within Docket No. TTB-2019-0008 as posted on
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013, (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes the standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon;
• An explanation of the proposed AVA is sufficiently distinct from an existing AVA so as to warrant separate recognition, if the proposed AVA is to be established within, or overlapping, an existing AVA; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Dr. Alan Busacca, a licensed geologist and founder of Vinitas Vineyard Consultants, LLC, on behalf of the Royal Slope Wine Grower's Association, proposing the establishment of the “Royal Slope” AVA. The proposed Royal Slope AVA is located in east-central Washington and covers portions of Adams and Grant Counties. The proposed AVA lies entirely within the established Columbia Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.74) and does not overlap any other existing or proposed AVA, although a small portion of the proposed AVA's northern boundary is shared with the southern boundary of the established Ancient Lakes of Columbia Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.227). The proposed Royal Slope AVA covers 156,389 acres and contains 1 winery and 13 commercially-producing vineyards that cover a total of approximately 14,100 acres. Approximately 100 additional acres of wine grapes were planted in 2016, and winegrowers report that they plan to plant about 200 additional acres of wine grapes in 2017 (Table 1).
The distinguishing features of the proposed Royal Slope AVA are its climate, topography, geology, and soils. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this document are from the petition for the proposed Royal Slope AVA and its supporting exhibits.
The proposed Royal Slope AVA is a heavily farmed region of rolling hills that gently slope towards the south. According to the petition, one story of the origin of the region's name is that a pair of Scotsmen climbed the nearby Saddle Mountains in the early 1900's. As they surveyed the topography below, with its south-facing slopes that were desirable for farming, one of the men was purported to have exclaimed, “Now that's a royal slope!”
The petition included examples of the use of the term “Royal Slope” to describe or refer to the region of the proposed AVA. The petition noted that the region of the proposed AVA is labeled as “Royal Slope” on U.S.G.S. maps dating back to 1951. A search of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names database
The petition also included several examples of use of the term “Royal Slope” to refer to the region of the proposed AVA in printed and online media. For example, a 1996 thesis from Central Washington University is entitled “Mid-Twentieth Century Pioneering of the Royal Slope, Central Washington.”
The proposed Royal Slope AVA is a rectangular region with an east-west orientation. It is located on the south-facing slopes of a range of hills known as the Frenchman Hills. The northern boundary of the proposed AVA mainly follows the southern boundary of the
The distinguishing features of the proposed Royal Slope AVA are its climate, topography, geology, and soils.
The petition included data on several aspects of climate gathered between 2009 and 2016 from three locations within the proposed Royal Slope AVA and five nearby locations outside the proposed AVA. The petition also included the same climate data for a location within the established Red Mountain AVA (27 CFR 9.167), which is approximately 40 miles south of the proposed AVA, and a separate location within the established Horse Heaven Hills AVA (27 CFR 9.188), which is approximately 67 miles south of the proposed AVA. Due to the distance of both the Red Mountain AVA and the Horse Heaven Hills AVA from the proposed AVA, as well as the availability of sufficient climate data from sources closer to the proposed AVA, TTB does not consider the climate data from these two established AVAs to be relevant to the proposed Royal Slope AVA petition and is not including that data in this document.
Within
The GDD totals from within the proposed AVA show a more significant difference between the climate of the proposed AVA and the surrounding regions. Two of the three stations within the proposed AVA have greater GDD totals than all of the surrounding regions except the region to the south, while the third station's GDD total is greater than all the surrounding regions except the region to the south and the Quincy station to the north. According to the petition, all three stations within the proposed AVA are classified as being within the Winkler Region II, which includes regions with GDD totals between 2,501 and 3,000. The petition states that locations classified as Winkler Region II are suitable for growing all but the latest of the late-ripening grape varietals.
The average CCVSI number for the three locations within the proposed Royal Slope AVA is 234, indicating a long growing period without hard freezes. Only the region to the south has a greater CCVSI number than any of the stations within the proposed AVA, while the Quincy station to the north has the same CCVSI number as the warmest station within the proposed AVA. The remaining stations outside of the proposed AVA have, on average, CCVSI numbers indicating between 30 and 70 fewer growing season days than the locations within the proposed AVA. According to the petition, larger CCVSI numbers correlate with better sites to fully ripen grapes.
In addition to having a long period of time between hard freezes, the proposed AVA also has fewer days per year with temperatures below 32 degrees Fahrenheit (F) than most of the surrounding regions. The only location with fewer days with temperatures below 32 degrees F than all of the locations within the proposed AVA is the region to the south. The Quincy station, to the north, has more days with temperatures below 32 degrees F than two of the stations within the proposed AVA and the same number of days with temperatures below 32 degrees F as one of the stations. This data shows the proposed AVA is at less risk of vine-damaging freezes due to having a smaller number of days per year with temperatures below 32 degrees F than most of the surrounding regions.
Finally, the petition included information about the number of days with temperatures above 95 degrees F within the proposed AVA and surrounding regions. The proposed AVA has an average of only 9 days a year with temperatures over 95 degrees F, whereas the region to the south is
The petition also provided information on the average minimum nighttime temperature during veraison, mean minimum temperature, and mean annual wind run for each of the locations. However, because the petition did not discuss the viticultural effects of those aspects of climate, TTB was unable to determine if they were distinguishing features of the proposed AVA, and they are not discussed in this document. All of the climate data is available in the online docket for this proposed AVA, Docket No. TTB-2019-0008, at
The proposed Royal Slope AVA is located on the gentle, south-facing slopes of an east-west trending range of hills called the Frenchman Hills. Elevations within the proposed AVA range from 610 feet in the extreme southeastern portion of the proposed AVA to 1,756 feet in the extreme northeastern portion. The majority of the slope angles within the proposed AVA are less than 15 percent, but very few slopes have angles less than 3 percent. The slopes are gentle enough for agricultural purposes, including vineyards, and are not as freeze-prone as flatter terrains such as valley floors.
To the north of the proposed AVA, the Frenchman Hills fall away to the Quincy Basin, a large, flat-floored valley. The portion of the Quincy Basin along the northeastern edge of the proposed AVA is also covered with sand dunes and “pothole” ponds that formed in the low areas between dune crests. This region of pothole ponds and dunes is also part of the Columbia Basin State Wildlife Area and is therefore unavailable for commercial agricultural purposes.
To the east, south, and west of the proposed AVA are the Crab Creek Coulee and the canyon of the Columbia River, respectively. The topography of these regions is characterized by large areas of craggy, exposed bedrock with steep slopes that are mostly greater than 35 percent. The petition describes Crab Creek Coulee as a “moonscape of bedrock-dominated scabland” that is suitable only for wildlife habitat and light livestock grazing. The floor of the coulee is significantly lower than the elevations within the proposed AVA, with the lowest point within the coulee being 490 feet. Along the Columbia River, the elevations are also lower than within the proposed AVA, and the terrain is generally too steep and rocky for cultivation. West of the Columbia River, the topography quickly rises to form the foothills of the Cascade Range, which has higher elevations and steeper slopes than the proposed AVA and lacks the climate, slope orientation, or soils suitable for cultivation.
According to the petition, the entire Columbia Valley AVA, including the region of the proposed Royal Slope AVA, is underlain with Miocene-era basaltic bedrock and has been affected by Ice Age megafloods. However, the petition states that these floods affected the various sub-regions of the Columbia Valley AVA in different ways. For example, in the region of the proposed Royal Slope AVA, floodwaters followed flood channels to the east and northeast of the proposed AVA, within the Frenchman Hills. The waters entered the region in a relatively smooth fashion, and the proposed AVA remained largely above the floodwaters. As a result, the region of the proposed AVA was not heavily eroded and remained a landscape of gentle hills with deep soils suitable for cultivation.
By contrast, the regions to the east and south of the proposed AVA were affected by very fast, deep, and turbulent flood waters that flowed into the valley separating the Frenchman Hills and the proposed Royal Slope AVA from the Saddle Mountains. As these fast-moving waters flowed through the narrow valley, they cut deeply into the landscape and formed the eroded “scablands” of the Crab Creek Coulee. Similarly strong floodwaters flowed through the Columbia River, to the west of the proposed AVA, and created a steep, deeply-scarred river canyon. To the north of the proposed AVA, the floodwaters flowed more gently and smoothly over the flat landscape of the Quincy Basin, depositing vast amounts of sand that formed depths of over 100 feet in places and creating a landscape of dunes and “pothole” lakes.
Farther south of the Crab Creek Coulee is the established Wahluke Slope AVA (27 CFR 9.192) on the southern slopes of the Saddle Mountains. Although the Wahluke Slope AVA is a gently sloping region with a gently undulating surface, the petition states that the Wahluke Slope AVA has a different geologic history than the proposed Royal Slope AVA. According to the petition, the Wahluke Slope AVA is located on an alluvial fan or fan delta. The fan formed when the repeated Ice Age megafloods flowing in the many floodways and coulees around the region of the proposed Royal Slope AVA combined in the channel of the Columbia River and traveled south. These floodwaters then broke through a narrow watergap in the Saddle Mountains, known as Sentinel Gap. Since the gap is only about a mile wide, it restricted the flow of the floodwaters, which backed up to great depth upstream of the gap and eventually jetted through the gap with great force. The floodwaters carried sand, silt, cobbles, gravels, and boulders through the gap and deposited them in a widening fan-shaped triangle that formed the slope on which the Wahluke Slope AVA is located.
The soils within the proposed Royal Slope AVA are a combination of sediments and soils from glacial floods and wind-blown post-glacial sand and silt (loess). The soils within the proposed AVA are generally deep enough for vines to extend their roots far into the soil before encountering bedrock or other impediment. The predominant soils are classified as Aridisols, which are characterized by loamy-to-sandy textures and very low amounts of humified organic material, so vine vigor is naturally low. The soils are also well drained and have naturally low soil moisture, so growers can easily control vine development via the timing and amounts of drip irrigation applied during the growing season. The petition states that the major soil series are Warden, Sagemoor, Adkins, and Kennewick, which together comprise approximately 59 percent of the total soil in the proposed AVA and approximately 75 percent of the vineyard acreage.
To the immediate east, west, and south of the proposed AVA are the scablands of the Crab Creek Coulee and the Columbia River Valley. In these regions, the Ice Age floodwaters stripped away most of the soil, leaving behind exposed bedrock. Normal erosion processes in post-glacial times have continuously removed any loose soil materials, maintaining the scabland characteristics and leaving behind a rocky landscape unable to support agricultural activities.
Farther south of the proposed AVA, within the established Wahluke Slope AVA, the soils are deep and fertile enough for agricultural purposes, including viticulture. However, the petition states that the soils of the
To the north of the proposed AVA, within the established Ancient Lakes of Columbia Valley AVA, the soils are also predominately Entisols. The Quincy soil series is also the most common soil series in this region, making up approximately 19 percent of the soils.
In summary, the climate, topography, geology, and soils of the proposed Royal Slope AVA distinguish it from the surrounding regions. The following table summarizes the differences between the proposed AVA and the surrounding regions.
T.D. ATF-190, which published in the
The proposed Royal Slope AVA is located in the western central portion of the Columbia Valley AVA and shares some broad characteristics with the established AVA. For example, the proposed AVA is also a treeless region of undulating hills and is adjacent to the Columbia River. Additionally, the growing season of the proposed AVA is longer than 150 days, with an average growing season length of 234 days. Furthermore, although precipitation is not a distinguishing feature of the proposed AVA, the petition notes that annual rainfall amounts within the proposed Royal Slope AVA average 6.5 inches, which is within the range of the annual precipitation amounts for the Columbia Valley AVA. However, the smaller proposed AVA is much more uniform in its climate, topography, geology, and soils than the much larger established Columbia Valley. For example, the proposed Royal Slope AVA does not contain any “scablands” or other regions with large amounts of exposed bedrock. The proposed AVA also has a more limited variety of soils than the more diverse Columbia Valley AVA.
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately 156,389-acre Royal Slope AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this notice of proposed rulemaking.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule.
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the proposed regulatory text.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, “Royal Slope,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Royal Slope” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule.
The approval of the proposed Royal Slope AVA would not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using “Columbia Valley” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the Royal Slope AVA would not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the proposed Royal Slope AVA would allow vintners to use “Royal Slope” and “Columbia Valley” as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the proposed Royal Slope AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Royal Slope AVA's location within the existing Columbia Valley AVA, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the existing Columbia Valley AVA. TTB is also interested in comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding Columbia Valley AVA that the proposed Royal Slope AVA should no longer be part of that AVA. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Royal Slope AVA on wine labels that include the term “Royal Slope” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed AVA name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name for the AVA.
You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the following three methods:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 186 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB considers all comments as originals.
In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2019-0008 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal,
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of
You may also view copies of this notice, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or other similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's Regulations and Rulings Division at the above address, by email at
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The point of the beginning is on the Priest Rapids map at the intersection of the 250 meter elevation contour and the northern boundary of Section 8, T17N/R23E. From the beginning point, proceed east for approximately 7 miles along the northern boundaries of Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, T17N/R23E, and Sections 7 and 8, T17N/R24E to the northeast corner of Section 8, T17N/R24E; then
(2) Proceed south for approximately 1 mile along the eastern boundary of Section 8 to the southeast corner of Section 8, T17N/R24 E; then
(3) Proceed east for approximately 4 miles along the southern boundaries of Sections 9, 10, 11, and 12, T17N/R24E, to the southeastern corner of Section 12, T17N/R24E; then
(4) Proceed north for approximately 1.8 miles along the eastern boundaries of Sections 12 and 1, T17N/R24E, to the intersection of the eastern boundary of Section 1 and the southern boundary of the Desert Unit of the Columbia Basin State Wildlife Area; then
(5) Proceed easterly for approximately 20 miles along the boundary of the Desert Unit of the Columbia Basin State Wildlife Area to the intersection of the wildlife area boundary with O'Sullivan Dam Road/State Highway 262; then
(6) Proceed east for approximately 1.5 miles along O'Sullivan Dam Road/State Highway 262 to the intersection of the road with an unnamed road known locally as H Road SE; then
(7) Proceed southeasterly for approximately 1.6 miles along H Road SE to the intersection of the road with the southern boundary of Section 16, T17N/R28E; then
(8) Proceed east for approximately 0.4 mile along the southern boundary of Section 16 to the intersection of the southeastern corner of Section 16, T17N/R28E, and the western boundary of the Columbia National Wildlife Refuge; then
(9) Proceed southerly, then southwesterly, for approximately 8 miles along the western boundary of the Columbia National Wildlife Refuge and the concurrent western boundary of the Goose Lakes Unit of the Columbia Basin State Wildlife Area to the intersection of the wildlife refuge boundary with the eastern boundary of Section 14, T16N/R27E; then
(10) Proceed south along the eastern boundaries of Sections 14, 23, 26, and 35, T16N/R27E, to the intersection of the eastern boundary of Section 35 with State Highway 26; then
(11) Proceed northwesterly for approximately 3 miles along State Highway 26 to the intersection of the highway with the 250-meter elevation contour in the southwest corner of Section 21, T16/R27E; then
(12) Proceed westerly for approximately 28 miles along the 250-meter elevation contour to the intersection of the elevation contour with the eastern boundary of Section 26, T16N/R23E; then
(13) Proceed north for approximately 1,100 feet along the eastern boundary of Section 26 to the northeast corner of Section 26, T16N/R23E; then
(14) Proceed west for 1 mile along the northern boundary of Section 26, T16N/R23E, to the intersection with the eastern boundary of Section 22, T16N/R23E; then
(15) Proceed north for 1 mile along the eastern boundary of Section 22 to the northern boundary of Section 22, T16N/R23E; then
(16) Proceed west for approximately 1.05 miles along the northern boundary of Section 22, T16N/R23E, to the intersection of the section boundary with the 250-meter elevation contour; then
(17) Proceed northerly for approximately 10 miles along the 250-meter elevation contour to return to the beginning point.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the approximately 5,774-acre “Alisos Canyon” viticultural area in Santa Barbara County, California. The proposed viticultural area lies entirely within the established Central Coast viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.
Comments must be received by December 16, 2019.
You may electronically submit comments to TTB on this proposal, and view copies of this document, its supporting materials, and any comments TTB receives on it within Docket No. TTB-2019-0007 as posted on
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013, (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes the standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon;
• If the proposed AVA is to be established within, or overlapping, an existing AVA, an explanation that both identifies the attributes of the proposed AVA that are consistent with the existing AVA and explains how the proposed AVA is sufficiently distinct from the existing AVA and therefore appropriate for separate recognition; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Wesley D. Hagen, on behalf of local vineyard owners and winemakers, proposing the establishment of the “Alisos Canyon” AVA. The proposed Alisos Canyon AVA is located within Santa Barbara County, California. The proposed AVA lies entirely within the established Central Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.75) and contains approximately 5,774 acres. Nine commercially-producing vineyards are planted within the proposed AVA and cover a total of approximately 238 acres. There is also one winery within the proposed AVA.
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Alisos Canyon AVA include its climate and soils. The petition also listed topography and geology as distinguishing features of the proposed AVA. However, based on the petition's descriptions, topography and geology appear to be too integral to the region's climate and soils, respectively, to be considered separately from those features. Therefore, TTB does not consider topography and geology to be separate distinguishing features of the proposed AVA. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this document are from the petition for the proposed Alisos Canyon AVA and its supporting exhibits.
The proposed Alisos Canyon AVA derives its name from a geographical feature that runs through the region. U.S.G.S. maps identify the feature as “Cañada de los Alisos,” which translates to “Canyon of the White Alder Trees.” The petition states that residents more commonly refer to the canyon as “Alisos Canyon.” As evidence of use of the proposed name to describe the region, the petition notes that a road running through the proposed AVA is known as “Alisos Canyon Road,” and a popular biking route is known as the “Alisos Canyon Loop.” The petition also included a page from a website for motorcycle enthusiasts that states, “Alisos Canyon also provides you with some looping opportunities utilizing Foxen Canyon, Hwy. 154 and Hwy. 101.”
The petition also provided evidence that the name “Alisos Canyon” is used by the wine industry to describe the region of the proposed AVA. An article on a Santa Barbara County wine blog notes that, “Starting in the east, near the northern boundary of the Santa Ynez Valley AVA, we find perhaps the area's most acclaimed sub-region: Alisos Canyon.”
The proposed Alisos Canyon AVA is located in Santa Barbara County north of U.S. Highway 101. The established Santa Maria Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.28) lies to the north of the proposed AVA, and the established Santa Ynez Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.54) is located to the south. The climate of the proposed Alisos Canyon AVA is influenced by the San Antonio Creek drainage system, and the proposed northern boundary separates this drainage system from the Santa Maria River drainage system. The eastern boundary approximates the limit of the marine-cooled air flowing inland from the Pacific Ocean via the San Antonio Creek drainage system. Additionally, the petition notes that the region east of the proposed AVA is a different geological feature commonly known as Foxen Canyon. The southern boundary separates the proposed AVA from the region of the Santa Ynez Valley AVA, whose climate is influenced by the Santa Ynez River drainage system. The western boundary separates the proposed AVA from the coastal region of Santa Barbara County, whose climate is more strongly influenced by marine air. The petition also notes that the western boundary separates the proposed AVA from a separate geological feature known as Cat Canyon.
The distinguishing features of the proposed Alisos Canyon AVA are its climate and soils.
The proposed Alisos Canyon AVA is located along the drainage system of San Antonio Creek, which flows into the Pacific Ocean. Cool marine air travels inland via the drainage system and affects temperatures. As the air travels up the San Antonio Creek and its drainage system, it becomes warmer. The proposed AVA is approximately 25 miles from the ocean and situated in a transitional region, between the cooler coastal regions and the warmer inland areas. According to the petition, the proposed AVA's location is a “Goldilocks Rhone Zone,” meaning that temperatures are neither too hot nor too cold for growing Rhone wine varietals such as Syrah, which is the most common varietal grown in the proposed AVA.
The petition included information on the average growing degree day
To the northwest and southwest of the proposed AVA, the GDD accumulations are lower due to the proximity of the Pacific Ocean and the greater cooling influence of the marine air. To the immediate north of the proposed AVA in Sisquoc, GDD accumulations are higher than within the proposed AVA because ridges and hills trap warm air and block the cool marine air from entering that region. East and southeast of the proposed AVA, GDD accumulations become significantly higher as one moves beyond the extent of the marine influence. South of the proposed AVA, within the existing Ballard Canyon AVA (27 CFR 9.230), the GDD accumulations are also higher. According to the petition, the east-west valleys that bring cool marine air inland end prior to reaching the Ballard Canyon AVA, resulting in warmer temperatures than are found in the proposed Alisos Canyon AVA.
According to the petition, the soils of the proposed Alisos Canyon AVA are primarily derived from sandstone and shale. The most common soils within the proposed AVA are the Paso Robles Formation and Careaga Sandstone, which comprise 63 percent and 13 percent of the total soils, respectively. The petition describes the Paso Robles Formation as conglomerate or gravel composed mostly of siliceous shale pebbles in sandy to somewhat clayey matrix. The petition states that the high calcium content from the shale pebbles increases the thickness of the skins of red varietal wine grapes, which in turn increases the color and tannin levels in the resulting wine. The clay content
Careaga sandstone is described as soft, fine-grained sandstone or sand, along with small marine shell fragments or pebbles. The petition states that the high sand content of the soil provides excellent drainage in vineyards, thus reducing the risks from certain pests such as nematodes and phylloxera. The low level of clay in the Careaga sandstone soils reduces the uptake of nutrients and reduces the vigor of the vines. As a result, the vines produce grapes that are smaller and have a higher skin-to-juice ratio than grapes of the same varietal grown in different soil.
The petition states that the soils to the north of the proposed Alisos Canyon AVA, in the Santa Maria Valley, have sandier topsoils than are found within the proposed AVA. South of the proposed AVA, the soils are characterized by Metz fine sandy loam. To the east of the proposed AVA, the soils are primarily derived from serpentine and chert, rather than sandstone and shale. To the west of the proposed AVA, the soils are described as deep, sandy soils of the Shedd, Chamise, and Point Sal Formation series.
In summary, the climate and soils of the proposed Alisos Canyon AVA distinguish it from the surrounding regions. The proposed AVA has GDD accumulations that are higher than the marine-influenced regions to the northwest and southwest and are lower than the regions to the north, south, east, and southeast. The soils of the proposed AVA are derived primarily from sandstone and shale, and the most common soils are the Paso Robles Formation and Careaga sandstone. By contrast, the soils to the north of the proposed AVA contain more sand in the topsoil. The soils to the west of the proposed AVA are deeper and sandier than those of the proposed AVA, while the soils to the south of the proposed AVA are very fine sandy loams of the Mertz series. The soils to the east of the proposed AVA are derived from geologic parent materials that are not found within the proposed AVA.
The Central Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF-216, published in the
The proposed Alisos Canyon AVA is located within the Central Coast AVA and shares the basic viticultural feature of that established AVA—the marine influence that moderates growing season temperatures in the area. The moderate GDD accumulations within the proposed AVA reflect a marine-influenced climate. However, the proposed AVA experiences a much smaller range of GDD accumulations within its proposed boundaries than the diverse, multicounty Central Coast AVA.
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the 5,774-acre Alisos Canyon AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this notice of proposed rulemaking.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule.
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the proposed regulatory text.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, “Alisos Canyon,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Alisos Canyon” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule.
The approval of the proposed Alisos Canyon AVA would not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using “Central Coast” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the Central Coast AVA would not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the proposed Alisos Canyon AVA would allow vintners to use “Alisos Canyon” and “Central Coast” as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the proposed Alisos Canyon AVA if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Alisos Canyon AVA's location within the existing Central Coast AVA, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the existing AVA. TTB is also interested in comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding Central Coast AVA that the proposed Alisos Canyon AVA should no longer be part of that AVA. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Alisos Canyon AVA on wine labels that include the term “Alisos Canyon” as discussed above under Impact on
You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the following three methods:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 185 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB considers all comments as originals.
In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2019-0007 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal,
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for posting.
You may also view copies of this notice, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Public Reading Room, 1310 G Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or other similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's Regulations and Rulings Division at the above address, by email at
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(1) Foxen Canyon, CA, 1995; and
(2) Zaca Creek, Calif., 1959.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is on the Foxen Canyon map at an unnamed hilltop with a marked elevation of 1,137 feet, located west of the Cañada de los Coches in the La Laguna Grant. From
(2) Proceed east-southeast in a straight line for approximately 1.2 miles to an unnamed hilltop with a marked elevation of 1,424 feet in the La Laguna Grant; then
(3) Proceed southwest in a straight line for approximately 1.7 miles, crossing onto the Zaca Creek map, to a point designated “Oil,” adjacent to the north fork of San Antonio Creek and the intersection of three unnamed light-duty roads in the Cañada del Comasa, La Laguna Grant; then
(4) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line for approximately 1.56 miles to the intersection of the north fork of San Antonio Creek and the 800-foot elevation contour in the Cañada del Comasa, La Laguna Grant; then
(5) Proceed west in a straight line 1.95 miles to an unnamed rectangular structure northeast of the terminus of an unnamed, unimproved road north of U.S. Highway 101 and BM 684 in the La Laguna Grant; then
(6) Proceed northwesterly in a straight line 0.32 mile to the intersection of Alisos Canyon Road and an unnamed, unimproved road east of the Cañada de los Coches in the La Laguna Grant; then
(7) Proceed north-northwest in a straight line for 1.68 miles, crossing onto the Foxen Canyon map, to an unnamed hilltop with a marked elevation of 997 feet in the La Laguna Grant; then
(8) Proceed northeast in a straight line for 0.5 mile to return to the beginning point.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend the portion of the Schedule for Rating Disabilities that addresses the genitourinary system. The purpose of this change is to update current medical terminology, incorporate medical advances that have occurred since the last review, and provide well-defined criteria in accordance with actual, standard medical clinical practice. In fashioning this proposed rule, VA considered the most up-to-date medical knowledge and clinical practice of nephrology and urology specialties. Contact information for that office is noted in the
Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2019.
Written comments may be submitted through
Ioulia Vvedenskaya, M.D., M.B.A., Medical Officer, Part 4 VASRD Regulations Staff (211D), Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9752. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)
As part of VA's ongoing revision of the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), VA proposes changes to the portion of the VASRD that addresses the genitourinary system, which was last revised in 1994.
Currently, 38 CFR 4.115 (“Nephritis”) does not adequately reflect current concepts of renal and urinary tract diseases and conditions. Regardless of specific disease pathology, kidney conditions generally produce the same symptomatology and lead to the same functional impairment. Therefore, for rating purposes, analysis of pathology, such as is currently presented in the first three sentences of § 4.115, is unnecessary and VA proposes to remove this language.
However, VA proposes to retain the remainder of the language in § 4.115, which addresses the assignment of ratings when both renal and cardiovascular conditions are present, but to replace the reference to “nephritis” in the first sentence of the proposed revised section with “renal disease” to more accurately reflect the applicability of the provision. VA proposes to retitle this provision as “Co-existence of renal and cardiovascular conditions” to better address the amended content.
Under the current VASRD, diseases of the genitourinary system are listed at 38 CFR 4.115b with instructions directing rating personnel to various rating criteria found at 38 CFR 4.115a, when appropriate. The rating criteria in § 4.115a address impairment of the genitourinary system, including renal dysfunction, voiding dysfunction, and infections.
The introductory paragraph in § 4.115a states that when the VASRD refers a decision-maker to these areas of dysfunction, only the predominant area of dysfunction will be considered for rating purposes. VA proposes clarifying this statement by noting that distinct disabilities may be assigned separate evaluations under this section, consistent with the anti-pyramiding provisions in § 4.14. This statement is intended to reflect that when a particular diagnostic code refers to multiple dysfunctions, only the predominant dysfunction will be evaluated for that diagnostic code.
VA also proposes to make changes to the rating criteria found in § 4.115a; these proposed changes are discussed below.
Currently, VA evaluates renal dysfunction as follows:
A 100 percent evaluation is assigned for any of the following: Requiring regular dialysis, or precluding more than sedentary activity from one of the following: Persistent edema and albuminuria; or, BUN more than 80 mg%; or, creatinine more than 8 mg%; or, markedly decreased function of kidney or other organ systems, especially cardiovascular.
An 80 percent evaluation is assigned for any of the following: Persistent edema and albuminuria with BUN 40 to 80 mg%; or, creatinine 4 to 8 mg%; or, generalized poor health characterized by lethargy, weakness, anorexia, weight loss, or limitation of exertion.
A 60 percent evaluation is assigned for any of the following: Constant albuminuria with some edema; or, definite decrease in kidney function; or, hypertension at least 40 percent disabling under diagnostic code 7101.
A 30 percent evaluation is assigned for any of the following: Albumin constant or recurring with hyaline and granular casts or red blood cells; or, transient or slight edema or hypertension at least 10 percent disabling under diagnostic code 7101.
A 0 percent evaluation is assigned for either albumin and casts with a history of acute nephritis; or, hypertension non-compensable under diagnostic code 7101.
Subjective terms such as “markedly,” “some,” and “slight” in the current evaluation criteria contribute to inconsistent evaluation of genitourinary disabilities rated under these criteria. Therefore, VA proposes to replace these subjective criteria with specific, objective laboratory findings, such as the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR). Modern medicine states that the “[GFR] is widely accepted as the best overall measure of kidney function in health and disease.” Nat'l Kidney Found., “KDIGO 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease,” 3(1) Kidney Int'l Suppl. 19 (Jan. 2013), available at
Based on the level of kidney function generally associated with a specific GFR, VA proposes assigning a 100 percent evaluation for chronic kidney disease with GFR less than 15 mL/min/1.73 m
VA proposes assigning a 0 percent evaluation for certain markers of kidney damage for at least three consecutive months: A GFR between 60 and 89 mL/min/1.73 m
These levels of evaluation correlate to a modified staging classification of chronic kidney disease by the National Kidney Foundation. At the 100 percent evaluation, the designated GFR is associated with kidney failure and, at the 0 percent evaluation, the designated GFR and proteinuria are associated with an increased risk of kidney damage even without a diagnosis of chronic kidney disease. Intermediate levels of evaluation at the 30, 60, and 80 percent levels correspond to the remaining stages of chronic kidney disease as they increase in severity as manifest by declining GFR.
VA proposes to preserve the existing rating criteria for urinary tract infection with little change. VA does, however, propose to clarify the criteria for a 30 percent evaluation by specifying that drainage would be by stent or nephrostomy tube. This differentiates drainage via catheterization. Stent or nephrostomy tube insertion are surgical procedures and require more intensive medical management than drainage via catheterization. Catheterization is not medically consistent with the remainder of the criteria required for a 30 percent evaluation because the need for catheterization is not generally accompanied by frequent hospitalization (greater than two times/year) or continuous intensive management.
For the 10 percent evaluation, VA proposes to replace the ambiguous phrase “intermittent intensive management” with “suppressive drug therapy lasting six months or longer.” Antibiotic and suppressive medications are typically the treatment used to treat urinary tract infections. Charles Kodner et al., “Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections in Women: Diagnosis and Management,” 82(6) Am. Family Physician 638-43 (2010); B. Lee et al., “Methenamine hippurate for preventing urinary tract infections,” The Cochrane Library (Oct. 17, 2012),
The addition of a 0 percent evaluation is also proposed and would be
VA proposes to amend these DCs based on a better understanding of the disease process and the impact of treatment. When imbalances occur in the body, substances in urine can form solid pieces within the urinary tract. These pieces are commonly referred to as stones. Nephrolithiasis, to which diagnostic code 7508 currently applies, is another name for kidney stones. Ureterolithiasis (current DC 7510) refers to stones in the ureter, which is the tube that carries urine from the kidney to the bladder.
Regardless of whether the stone is in the kidney or the ureter, symptoms may include abdominal and/or back pain and blood in the urine. This shared symptomology leads to similar functional impairment. Therefore, VA proposes to delete existing DC 7510 and to evaluate stones in either the kidney or the ureter under diagnostic code 7508.
Nephrocalcinosis, a disorder in which excess calcium accumulates in the kidneys, does not result in symptoms. Rather, if the accumulation of calcium leads to the creation of stones, the stones themselves may cause symptoms. This condition is commonly evaluated under DC 7508 as analogous to nephrolithiasis, and VA proposes that it continue to be evaluated under this code, but that it be expressly added to the diagnostic code for ease of field application. Therefore, to better express the conditions to be evaluated under DC 7508, VA proposes to rename it as “Nephrolithiasis/Ureterolithiasis/Nephrocalcinosis.”
Proposed DC 7508 would provide a 30-percent rating for recurrent stone formation requiring invasive or non-invasive procedures more than two times per year, as current DC 7508 does, but would no longer require diet or drug therapy, because such therapies have no specific relationship to these disabilities and are widely recommended for the majority of medical diseases and conditions.
Current DCs 7520 and 7521 provide compensation for actual physical removal of the penis or glans. An evaluation of 30 percent is provided when there is removal of half or more of the penis under DC 7520. In addition, a 20 percent evaluation is assigned when there is removal of the glans under DC 7521. Current DCs 7520 and 7521 also permit rating these conditions alternatively as voiding dysfunction in § 4.115a. VA proposes to no longer rate these conditions as voiding dysfunction, which pertains to issues of leakage and frequency and the use of an appliance or absorbent materials. VA also proposes to revise DCs 7520 and 7521 to include a footnote reference to consider entitlement to Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) for loss of a creative organ under § 3.350. This is meant to correct the omission of this note from previous versions of the VASRD. Removal of half or more of the penis, or removal of the glans, may result in loss of a creative organ. Therefore, although consideration of SMC is considered with application of these diagnostic codes under current policy, this change would ensure consistent consideration of SMC for loss of a creative organ.
VA proposes to revise DC 7522 to encompass erectile dysfunction (ED), regardless of etiology. In making this change, VA intends to retitle this diagnostic code, “Erectile dysfunction, with or without penile deformity.” ED can occur with or without deformity of the penis, and is a symptom of many systemic, psychological, and metabolic diseases. W. Ludwig, “Organic causes of erectile dysfunction in men under 40,” 92(1) Urologia Internationalis 1-6 (2014).
VA proposes to no longer provide a 20-percent rating for this condition, whether with or without penile deformity. VA provides disability compensation for conditions that result in reduced earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. 1155. Erectile dysfunction, with or without penile deformity, is not associated with reductions in earning capacity. Therefore, VA proposes to provide a 0 percent evaluation for this condition. Section 4.115b's footnote regarding consideration of SMC for loss of use a creative organ where warranted would continue to apply to DC 7522. Similarly, 38 CFR 4.116, DC 7632, provides a 0 percent evaluation for female Veterans with service-connected female sexual arousal disorder (FSAD) without physical damage to female genitalia, with a note directing rating personnel to consider eligibility for SMC.
VA does not propose any substantive changes to current DC 7524. However, it does intend to correct a typographical error in the last sentence of the existing note, which refers to “underscended” rather than “undescended” testis.
Currently, each of these diagnostic codes identifies one or more conditions that have similar symptomatology and functional impairment. The conditions identified are not an exclusive list; therefore, other conditions are often rated as analogous to one of these diagnostic codes. To assist the field in ensuring that the appropriate diagnostic criteria is used to evaluate other conditions not currently listed, VA proposes to rename each of these diagnostic codes and/or include a note identifying those conditions not currently listed.
First, VA proposes to rename DC 7525 as “Prostatitis, urethritis, epididymitis, orchitis (unilateral or bilateral), chronic only,” as these diagnoses all refer to urinary tract infections that do not involve the kidneys and have similar symptoms. Prostatitis would not be included in proposed revised DC 7527, “Prostate gland injuries, infections, hypertrophy, postoperative residuals, bladder outlet obstruction,” because it is rarely caused by a bacterial infection and generally results in repeated bladder infections. J. Stevermer et al., “Treatment of Prostatitis,” 61(10) Am. Family Physician 3015-22 (2000). The diagnoses contained in DC 7527 are not consistent with non-bacterial prostatitis. In addition, the symptoms caused by prostatitis—recurrent bladder infections—are more similar to the diagnoses contained in DC 7525. There is no change to the evaluation criteria for this DC.
VA also proposes to rename DC 7527 to include bladder outlet obstruction, which has the same functional impairment and symptomatology as the other conditions currently encompassed in this code. Bladder outlet obstruction is not included in current DC 7517, “Bladder, injury of,” because this condition is not caused by an injury to the bladder, but is generally caused by another condition, such as benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), which is addressed in DC 7527. R. Dmochowski, “Bladder Outlet Obstruction: Etiology and Evaluation,” 7(Supp. 6) Reviews in Urology S3-S13 (2005). In addition, the
VA proposes to add a note to DC 7533 to identify some of the most common cystic kidney diseases seen in the Veteran population, to include polycystic disease, uremic medullary cystic disease, medullary sponge kidney, and similar conditions such as Alport's syndrome, cystinosis, primary oxalosis, and Fabry's disease. M. Bisceglia et al., “Renal cystic diseases: a review,” 13(1) Advances in Anatomic Pathology 26-56 (2006). These diseases are being added as a medical update and would ensure proper field application of this DC. There is no change to the evaluation criteria for this DC.
Regarding DC 7534, which deals with atherosclerotic renal disease, VA proposes to specifically identify another atherosclerotic renal disease—large vessel disease, unspecified. Renal Failure: Diagnosis and Treatment 65 (J. Gary Abuelo ed. 1995). This disease is being added as a medical update and would ensure proper field application of this DC. There is no change to the evaluation criteria.
Finally, VA proposes to retitle DC 7537 to identify the most common forms of interstitial nephritis resulting from the high prevalence of the disease, including gouty nephropathy and disorders of calcium metabolism. There is no change to the evaluation criteria.
VA proposes to move all conditions contained in DC 7541 over to DC 7539, with the exception of renal involvement in diabetes mellitus, to encompass all systemic conditions that impact the kidneys. All of these conditions are, as amyloid diseases, systemic diseases with renal involvement and therefore are more appropriately evaluated under a single DC. For clarity and ease of field application, VA proposes to add a note to DC 7539 to identify all forms of glomerulonephritis, nephritis, and renal vasculitis encountered with systemic diseases. There is no change to the evaluation criteria.
As for renal involvement in diabetes mellitus (
Based on modern clinical findings, neurogenic bladder should continue to be rated as a voiding dysfunction. However, due to high rate of urinary tract infections, VA proposes that this condition may be rated as voiding dysfunction or urinary tract infection, whichever is predominant. D. Sauerwein, “Urinary tract infection in patients with neurogenic bladder dysfunction,” 19(6) Int'l J. of Antimicrobial Agents 592-97 (2002).
VA proposes the introduction of new DC 7543, “Varicocele/Hydrocele,” to reflect related conditions of the urinary tract that have not previously been recognized for disability evaluation purposes. Varicocele is a dilatation of the veins along the cord that receives blood from the testicles. Hydrocele is a collection of fluid in the scrotum.
The medical community now recognizes that these conditions may be associated with a decrease in fertility and, in rare instances, may be associated with infertility. Center for Male Reproductive Medicine and Vasectomy Reversal, “Varicocele Repair,”
VA proposes the introduction of new DC 7544, “Renal disease caused by viral infection such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C,” to reflect renal dysfunctions associated with HIV and hepatitis because of increasing prevalence and incidence of diseases caused by these viruses. Perico Norberto et al., “Hepatitis C Infection and Chronic Renal Diseases,” 4(1) Clinical J. Am. Soc'y of Nephrology 207-20 (2009). Hepatitis A, an acute liver disease, does not cause chronic renal disease and is therefore not included in this DC.
VA proposes to evaluate this DC as renal dysfunction under § 4.115a because, when the liver is damaged due to Hepatitis B or C infection, the accumulation of toxins in the blood can damage the kidneys, causing renal dysfunction. HIV-associated renal dysfunctions have several different etiologies, but can include direct HIV infection of the kidney, kidney damage caused by drugs used to treat HIV, and fluid loss caused by various processes associated with the advanced disease process. Moro O. Salifu, “HIV-Associated Nephropathy,” Medscape,
VA proposes the introduction of new DC 7545, “Bladder, diverticulum of.” Currently, there is no DC for diverticulum of the bladder and, as such, it is generally evaluated in the field as analogous to fistula of the bladder. A bladder fistula is an abnormal connection between the bladder and another organ of the body (
The proposed addition of this new DC would ensure that the condition is more appropriately rated. VA proposes to rate DC 7545 as voiding dysfunction or urinary tract infection, whichever is predominant, because these criteria best capture the functional impairment associated with this condition.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The VA is the only entity involved with the provisions of this rulemaking. There are no outside or small entities involved, impacted and/or affiliated with VA's authorization to evaluate and and revise disability compensation criteria. Therefore, VA is exempt from the intial and final requlatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This proposed rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles affected by this document are 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability.
Disability benefits, Pensions, Veterans.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on June 4, 2019, for publication.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 4 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 1155, unless otherwise noted.
Separate ratings are not to be assigned for disability from disease of the heart and any form of renal disease, on account of the close interrelationships of cardiovascular diseases. If, however, absence of a kidney is the sole renal disability, even if removal was required because of nephritis, the absent kidney and any hypertension or heart disease will be separately rated. Also, in the event that chronic renal disease has progressed to the point where regular dialysis is required, any coexisting hypertension or heart disease will be separately rated.
Diseases of the genitourinary system generally result in disabilities related to renal or voiding dysfunctions, infections, or a combination of these. The following section provides descriptions of various levels of disability in each of these symptom areas. Where diagnostic codes refer the decision maker to these specific areas of dysfunction, only the predominant area of dysfunction shall be considered for rating purposes. Distinct disabilities may be evaluated separately under this section, pursuant to § 4.14, if the symptoms do not overlap. Since the areas of dysfunction described below do not cover all symptoms resulting from genitourinary diseases, specific diagnoses may include a description of symptoms assigned to that diagnosis.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
The additions and revisions to read as follows:
The revisions and additions read as follows:
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Whenever a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard is promulgated, the Clean Air Act requires states to submit plans for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such standard, commonly referred to as infrastructure requirements. On October 25, 2018, the State of Alaska submitted such a plan for the ozone standard revised on October 1, 2015. In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the Alaska plan as meeting applicable infrastructure requirements.
Comments must be received on or before November 14, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0810, at
Kristin Hall, (206) 553-6357,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it refers to the EPA.
On October 1, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the existing ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and secondary standards from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to 0.070 ppm, among other changes.
The CAA provides the procedure and timing for infrastructure SIP submissions and lists the required elements, set forth at sections 110(a)(1) and (2), respectively. The EPA has issued guidance to help states address these requirements, most recently on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and applicable requirements of part D.
• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.
• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
The 2013 Guidance restated the EPA's interpretation that two elements are not governed by the three-year submission deadline in CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are due on separate schedules.
Due to ambiguity in some of the language of CAA section 110(a)(2), the EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret these provisions in the specific context of acting on infrastructure SIP submissions. The EPA has previously provided comprehensive guidance on the application of these provisions in the 2013 Guidance and through regional actions on infrastructure submissions.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA.
• Article 1 Ambient Air Quality Management (18 AAC 50.005-18 AAC 50.110);
• Article 2 Program Administration (18 AAC 50.200-18 AAC 50.260);
• Article 3 Major Stationary Source Permits (18 AAC 50.300-18 AAC 50.390);
• Article 4 User Fees (18 AAC 50.400-18 AAC 50.499);
• Article 5 Minor Permits (18 AAC 50.502-18 AAC 50.560);
• Article 7 Transportation Conformity (18 AAC 50.700-18 AAC 50.750); and
• Article 9 General Provisions (18 AAC 50.900-18 AAC 50.990).
The Alaska PSD permitting program is governed by 18 AAC 50, Article 3, references a suite of regulations approved into the Alaska SIP, and makes use of certain Federal PSD requirements set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and incorporated by reference into the Alaska SIP in 18 AAC 50.040. See 40 CFR 52.96. The EPA most recently approved updates to the Alaska PSD permitting program on August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45419). The current SIP-approved Alaska PSD permitting program incorporates by reference specific Federal requirements in 40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, and 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, as of July 1, 2017. The program has been updated for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and regulates NO
Turning to minor sources, Article 5 of 18 AAC 50 requires pre-construction permitting for subject new and modified minor stationary sources. SIP-approved minor NSR programs and revisions to such programs must be consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164. Alaska's minor NSR program was originally approved into the Alaska SIP on July 5, 1983 (48 FR 30623). We have approved subsequent revisions, most recently on August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45419).
Alaska has no areas designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. We note, however, as highlighted in Section II of this proposal, the EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the nonattainment area mandates in part D, title I of the CAA to be governed by the submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1). Regulations and other control measures for purposes of attainment planning under part D, title I of the CAA are due on a different schedule than infrastructure SIPs.
In addition to permitting requirements, Alaska's SIP contains rules that also serve to limit NO
CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for the establishment and operation of
The submission references ADEC's revised
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources, including a program to meet PSD and nonattainment NSR requirements.
To generally meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources, states are required to have PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As explained above, we are not evaluating nonattainment related provisions, such as the nonattainment NSR program required by part D, title I of the CAA.
For the PSD portion of element 110(a)(2)(C) (as well as for the PSD portions of elements (D)(i)(II) and (J)) the EPA interprets the CAA to require an infrastructure submission that demonstrates a complete PSD permitting program meeting current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. Alaska has a SIP-approved PSD program, and the EPA most recently approved updates to the program on August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45419). The current SIP-approved Alaska PSD permitting program incorporates by reference specific Federal requirements in 40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, and 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, as of July 1, 2017. We note the Alaska SIP includes the recent changes to air quality model guidelines in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, promulgated by the EPA on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 5182). The most recent version of the appendix W model guidelines is referenced in 18 AAC 50.215
Turning to the minor NSR requirement, the EPA originally approved Alaska's minor NSR program into the SIP on July 5, 1983 (48 FR 30623). As described previously under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), we have approved revisions to Alaska's program as consistent with Federal minor NSR requirements set forth at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164. We have determined that the program regulates construction of new and modified minor sources for purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) is known as the “good neighbor” provision and generally requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on other states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four so-called “prongs” within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs 1 and 2, while section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and 4. This proposed action addresses prongs 3 and 4 only. We proposed action on the portion of the submission addressing CAA section
Prongs 3 and 4 of the good neighbor provision require that a SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions which will interfere with any other state's required measures to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of its air quality (prong 3) or which will interfere with any other state's required measures to protect visibility (prong 4). The EPA believes, as noted in the 2013 Guidance, that where a state has a SIP-approved PSD program, the state may rely on such a program to meet prong 3. Likewise, where a state's regional haze plan has been approved as meeting all current obligations, a state may rely upon those provisions in support of its demonstration for prong 4.
As stated in the analysis for element CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) in this proposal, the Alaska SIP-approved PSD permitting program regulates NO
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement). CAA section 126 requires notification to neighboring states of potential impacts from a new or modified major stationary source and specifies how a state may petition the EPA when a major source or group of stationary sources in a state is thought to contribute to certain pollution problems in another state. CAA section 115 governs the process for addressing air pollutants emitted in the United States that cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare in a foreign country.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires each state to provide (i) necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision of Federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or portion thereof), (ii) requirements that the state comply with the requirements respecting state boards under CAA section 128 and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such SIP provision.
With respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), the submission states that Alaska's regulations on conflict of interest are found in Title 2
With respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) and assurances that the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the plan where the State has relied on local or regional government agencies, the submission references statutory authority and requirements for establishing local air pollution control programs found at AS 46.14.400
The submission also states that ADEC provides technical assistance and regulatory oversight to local jurisdictions to ensure that the State Air Quality Control Plan and SIP objectives are satisfactorily carried out. ADEC has formal agreements with local entities to control emissions and improve air quality in specific localities.
For purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), we previously approved Alaska's conflict of interest disclosure and ethics regulations as meeting the requirements of CAA section 128 on October 22, 2012 (77 FR 64427). This prior approval action fully satisfies the state board requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
Finally, with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), AS 46.14.400 makes clear that, where the State has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any SIP provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP. According to statute, ADEC enters into cooperative agreements with local entities to implement specific air quality control requirements. ADEC has done so with the Municipality of Anchorage and the Fairbanks North Star Borough. The State retains authority and oversight of local entities as specified in AS 46.14.400 and may terminate an inadequate local program in accordance with AS 46.14.401. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to the CAA, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
Additionally, states are required to submit emissions data to the EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through the EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. As required, Alaska reports emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their associated precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. The EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the website
CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency plans to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of the plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of a national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining the standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph 110(a)(3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements under the CAA.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers with respect to NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to section 121. CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to meet applicable requirements of part C, title I of the CAA related to prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection.
ADEC routinely coordinates with local governments, states, Federal Land Managers and other stakeholders on air quality issues including transportation conformity and regional haze and provides notice to appropriate agencies related to permitting actions. Alaska regularly participates in regional planning processes including the Western Regional Air Partnership, which is a voluntary partnership of states, tribes, Federal Land Managers, local air agencies and the EPA, whose purpose is to understand current and evolving regional air quality issues in the West. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for consultation with government officials for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires the public to be notified if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. ADEC is a partner in the EPA's AIRNOW and Enviroflash Air Quality Alert programs, which provide air quality information to the public for five major air pollutants regulated by the CAA: Ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. Alaska also provides real-time air monitoring information to the public on the ADEC air quality website, in addition to air advisory information. We are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for public notification for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Turning to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, we have evaluated this requirement in the context of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and permitting. Alaska has a SIP-approved PSD program, and the EPA most recently approved updates to the program on August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45419). As described is this proposal as part of the analysis section for element CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), the Alaska SIP-approved PSD permitting program regulates NO
With respect to visibility protection under element (J), the EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we find that there is no new applicable requirement related to visibility triggered under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the performance of air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a NAAQS, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the Administrator.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) directs SIPs to require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit.
In addition, Alaska SIP-approved regulations at 18 AAC 50.306(d)(2) and 18 AAC 50.311(d)(2) require fees for purposes of major new source permitting as specified in 18 AAC 50, Article 4. Therefore, we are proposing to conclude that Alaska has satisfied the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
We are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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 it does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
Comments must be received on or before November 14, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0597, at
Matthew Jentgen, (206) 553-0340,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated a portion of Franklin County, Idaho nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM
The EPA responded to the Court's decision, in part, by retracting the March 2012 guidance on SIP requirements for meeting the 2006 24-hour PM
Following our January 4, 2017, action, in an April 25, 2017 letter, Idaho committed to make a SIP submission that would further address the RFP, QM, and MVEB requirements. Because Idaho committed to address these requirements within one year, in specific ways that the EPA considered appropriate, the EPA conditionally approved the RFP, QM, and MVEB elements of the Idaho attainment plan on August 8, 2017 (82 FR 37025). In that same action, we also finalized approval of the Idaho attainment demonstration and the 2014 MVEBs as early progress budgets. Based on quality-assured, quality-controlled data for the period 2015-2017 showing that the area attained the 2006 24-hour PM
On July 31, 2018, Idaho submitted a SIP revision to further address the RFP, QM, and MVEB elements that EPA conditionally approved on August 8, 2017 (Cache SIP Amendment or submission). The submission can be found in the docket for this action. An RFP plan or analysis must include four components, summarized as follows: (1) An implementation schedule for control measures on sources in the nonattainment area; (2) RFP projected emissions for each applicable quantitative milestone year; (3) an
The first control measure discussed in Idaho's submission, residential wood combustion (RWC) ordinances, were adopted within Franklin County and all six Idaho cities on the Idaho side of the Logan UT-ID area (Franklin, Preston, Weston, Dayton, Clifton, and Oxford). Key elements in the current RWC ordinances include mandatory burn bans issued when PM
As stated in the submission, these Idaho cities and counties have implemented the ordinances and mandatory burn bans since 2012.
Idaho also implemented three wood stove change-out programs on the Idaho side of the Logan UT-ID area. These programs were conducted in 2006-2007, 2011-2012, and 2013-2014. Accordingly, Idaho demonstrated in the submission that a total of 209 uncertified RWC devices have been changed-out since 2006. In addition, 39 stoves were removed and destroyed through Idaho's Alternative Energy Device tax deduction program. In total, 256 wood stoves have been changed out on the Idaho side of the Logan UT-ID area since 2006. As described in the submission (applying the appropriate temporal profile to convert to tons per day), Idaho stated these change-outs have led to reductions of 0.05 tpd direct PM
The final control measure implemented on the Idaho side of the Logan UT-ID area is road sanding agreements. Franklin County Road and Bridge, the City of Preston, and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) entered into road sanding agreements which were submitted to the EPA and approved into the Idaho SIP on March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16201). According to records submitted to Idaho and summarized in the submission, ITD used salt in 2014 (409 tons), 2015 (340 tons), and 2016 (109 tons) and did not use sand. Franklin County Road and Bridge historically used a 10:1 ratio of sand and salt; however, in the Idaho attainment plan, Franklin County committed to use a 4:1 ratio of sand and salt when anti-skid treatment is required. Franklin County also agreed to apply brine when temperatures are above 22°F, a measure that further reduces the amount of sand required by approximately 50%. The City of Preston now uses a 2:1 ratio of sand and salt at an average of 700 tons total per year.
Finally, in Section 4.5 of the Cache SIP Amendment, Idaho provided an analysis that demonstrates sufficient progress on an annual basis toward attainment between the applicable baseline year to the attainment year. The analysis demonstrates that Idaho achieved emissions reductions consistent with RFP. Idaho's RFP analysis is supported by EPA's October 19, 2018 determination of attainment (83 FR 52983). Therefore, we propose to approve the RFP element submitted by Idaho as part of its Moderate area plan for the Logan UT-ID area.
With respect to QMs, EPA regulations require that the attainment plan contain quantitative milestones to be achieved by the milestone dates that provide for objective evaluation of reasonable further progress toward timely attainment. See 40 CFR 51.1013. For areas designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM
Idaho's submission includes a detailed implementation schedule, estimated emissions reductions, and 2017 QM reporting metrics for the control measures discussed above. For the wood combustion ordinances, Idaho included in the submission a summary of the wood stove and open burning curtailment days issued per year since 2012 as a means of demonstrating implementation of this measure. The objective measure to determine the progress of implementation of the wood stove change-out program is the total number of wood stove change-outs completed. For road sanding agreements, the objective metrics used to track progress are tons of sand and salt used and changes in the sand-salt ratio. On March 7, 2018, Idaho submitted a Quantitative Milestone Report to demonstrate that all emission reduction measures have been implemented, and Idaho has achieved milestones demonstrating progress toward attainment.
Lastly, with respect to MVEBs, an attainment plan must include in its RFP submission an inventory of on-road mobile source emissions in the nonattainment area for each milestone year.
The revised MVEBs were determined for direct PM
The MVEB is comprised of on-road mobile sources and vehicle emissions (exhaust, tire, and brake wear). The EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model was used to develop vehicle emissions estimates for the MVEB (Idaho used the most current version of MOVES available at the time, MOVES 2014a, for its analysis). The MVEB will apply when the EPA determines the budget is adequate for transportation conformity. According to the EPA's conformity rule, the emissions budget acts as a ceiling on emissions in the year for which it is defined or until a SIP revision modifies the budget. Based on the analysis, Idaho set the following emissions budgets for 2015, applicable to the Idaho side of the Logan UT-ID area: 0.033 tpd direct PM
We find that Idaho has evaluated the appropriate pollutants in its MVEB analysis and included MVEBs for the appropriate milestone years. According to the EPA's conformity rule, ammonia is a pollutant that is not required to be included in a PM
Based on Idaho's submission and our evaluation discussed above, the EPA is proposing to approve the RFP and QM elements and revised MVEBs in the Cache SIP Amendment. If this proposed approval is finalized, the EPA's prior conditional approval will be removed and these elements will become fully approved.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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 it does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Montana on May 24, 2018. The revision would remove a prohibition on the open burning of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials located in the SIP-approved Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) Title 17, chapter 8, subchapter 6 and the similar provision in the SIP-approved Lincoln County Air Pollution Control Program. The revision would also remove a corresponding cross-reference located in SIP-approved ARM Title 17, chapter 8, subchapter 3 (concerning wood-waste burners). The EPA is taking this action pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before November 14, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0163, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal:
Crystal Ostigaard, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6602,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
ARM Title 17, chapter 8, subchapter 6 contains Montana's open burning provisions, which make up the Montana smoke management plan. The smoke management plan regulates open burning across the state in order to limit smoke impacts on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The plan separates open burning into “major” and “minor” categories: Open burning that emits more than 500 tons per year (tpy) of carbon monoxide or 50 tpy of any other pollutant is major.
ARM 17.8.320 regulates wood-waste burners and generally prohibits the burning or disposal of certain products and materials in wood-waste burners, including asbestos and asbestos-containing materials, ARM 17.8.320(9) (cross-referencing other prohibited materials specified in ARM 17.8.604(1), including (1)(w)).
On August 13, 2001 (66 FR 42427), the EPA initially approved Montana's ARM 17.8.604—Open Burning (formerly ARM 16.8.1302), and Montana's ARM 17.8.320—Wood-Waste Burners. On August 20, 2015 (80 FR 50584), the EPA approved revisions to ARM 17.8.604, and on February 26, 2008 (73 FR 10150), the EPA approved revisions to ARM 17.8.320.
The Libby, Montana area was designated nonattainment for coarse particulate matter (PM
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses the EPA's actions on submissions of revisions to a SIP. The CAA requires states to observe certain procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to the EPA. Section 110(l) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision submitted by a state be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. Additionally, the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
Montana's May 24, 2018 submittal explains that some rules or provisions that are not specifically NAAQS-protective had been submitted and approved into the SIP. For example, while Montana's smoke management plan generally protects the NAAQS from smoke impacts, the list of prohibited materials in ARM 17.8.604 itself does not specifically address criteria pollutants. In other words, the regulation of open burning in general is intended to mitigate smoke impacts, not to specifically prohibit burning of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials. Accordingly, Montana requests that the prohibition be removed from the SIP although it would remain as a state and local regulation.
Montana's submittal provides an air quality analysis to show that removal of the prohibition in ARM 17.8.604(1)(w) and Lincoln County Ordinance 75.1.405(2)(w) would not interfere with the NAAQS, specifically for PM
As further support, the State examined recent ambient air quality data for 2016 in the areas that historically have had PM
Montana asserts that all of the State's particulate matter nonattainment areas are currently attaining the standard for which they were designated, and most (as identified in Table 1) have received a determination of attainment from the EPA. The EPA will work with DEQ to redesignate the nonattainment areas that are attaining; however, the EPA will not reach any final conclusions until the State of Montana provides a formal submittal for a redesignation request for PM
Montana's submittal then notes that in the areas that have been designated nonattainment for PM
The submittal also notes that open burning continues to be controlled generally under Montana's smoke management plan. The program generally requires open burning to be controlled using BACT; a number of techniques are listed that may be included in BACT, see ARM 17.8.601. Another feature of the program is DEQ's evaluation of meteorological conditions during the winter months. Depending on those conditions, even minor open burning in areas such as mountain valleys may be prohibited if it may risk increasing PM
The EPA has reviewed the State's submission and proposes to approve the SIP revision. The Agency agrees that removing the prohibition on burning asbestos or asbestos-containing materials from Montana's SIP will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
First, the EPA notes that the disposal of asbestos-containing waste material is regulated under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).
Second, the EPA proposes to conclude that removal of the prohibition will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP. The State's submittal explains that Montana's open burning program, as revised by removal of the prohibition, is adequate to protect the NAAQS at the same level of stringency as the current SIP. Open burning is generally controlled under ARM 17.8, subchapter 6.
The State recognizes, nonetheless, that the prohibition in ARM 17.8.604(1)(w) may have had a secondary result of “essentially banning open burning of any wood” from asbestos-contaminated forests in the Libby nonattainment area. Thus, the EPA is mindful that removing the prohibition could increase the total acreage of land that may be subjected to prescribed burns in the State. However, the Libby nonattainment area includes the city of Libby and other developed areas (
As noted above, Montana's submittal included an air quality analysis the State believes would demonstrate that the revised SIP will be adequate to maintain the NAAQS. In particular, Montana's analysis excludes certain monitor days flagged by the State as potentially impacted by activities that are atypical or not expected to occur again in the future. At this time, however, the State has not prepared any demonstrations and EPA has not made any determination regarding whether the flagged data should be excluded from the Air Quality System database or any future regulatory determinations. While we take no position on the flagged data at this time, for the reasons discussed above, we agree that removing the prohibition in ARM 17.8.604(1)(w) will not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. With respect to the removal of the corresponding provision for Lincoln County, we note that we fully approved the PM
As discussed above, PM
Finally, section 110(l) requires that each revision to the SIP submitted by a state shall be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing. The DEQ held a public comment period from October 18, 2017, to November 17, 2017, on the proposed revision and received no public comments or requests for a public hearing.
We are proposing to approve the following revisions to the Montana SIP that were submitted on May 24, 2018: Removal of ARM 17.8.604(1)(w), removal of the reference to ARM17.8.604(1)(w) in ARM 17.8.320(9), and removal of 75.1.405(2)(w) in the Lincoln County Air Pollution Control Program.
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to remove ARM 17.8.604(1)(w), including the reference to ARM 17.8.604(1)(w) in ARM 17.8.320(9), and 75.1.405(2)(w) in the Lincoln County Air Pollution Control Program from the Montana SIP. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
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, via a letter dated July 31, 2018. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve typographical changes to Georgia's SIP-approved regulations regarding its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) state trading programs. 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 November 14, 2019.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. at EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0462 at
Steven Scofield, 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) 562-9034. Mr. Scofield can also be reached via electronic mail at
GA EPD submitted a SIP revision through a letter dated July 31, 2018,
Georgia's submittal makes several typographical edits to Rule 391-3-1-.02(12)—“
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 Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(12)—“
EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned changes to Georgia's SIP at Rule 391-3-1-.02(12)—“
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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule; correction.
On September 20, 2019, DoD, GSA, and NASA published a document proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to add two new clauses that notify contractors of requirements relating to Afghanistan taxes or similar charges when contracts are being performed in Afghanistan. The document heading carried an incorrect Regulation Identifier Number (RIN). This document carries the correct RIN.
Comments for the proposed rule published September 20, 2019, at 84 FR 49502, continue to be accepted on or before November 19, 2019, to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2018-023 by any of the following methods:
•
•
For clarification of content, contact Mr. Kevin Funk, Procurement Analyst, at 202-357-5805 or
On September 20, 2019, at 84 FR 49502, DoD, GSA, and NASA published a proposed rule to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to add two new clauses that notify contractors of requirements relating to Afghanistan taxes or similar charges when contracts are being performed in Afghanistan. The document's heading contained the incorrect RIN, “RIN 9000-AN68.” The correct RIN is “RIN 9000-AN81” and is in the heading of this correction.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) proposes to clarify its regulations governing exemptions for certain miscellaneous commodities and boxcar transportation so that those regulations unambiguously state that demurrage continues to be subject to Board regulation. The Board also proposes to revoke, in part, the exemption that currently covers certain agricultural commodities so that the exemption would not apply to the regulation of demurrage, thereby making the agricultural commodities exemption consistent with similar exemptions covering non-intermodal transportation.
Comments on the proposed rule are due by November 6, 2019. Reply comments are due by December 6, 2019.
Comments and replies may be filed with the Board either via e-filing or in writing addressed to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 760, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. Comments and replies will be posted to the Board's website at
Amy Ziehm at (202) 245-0391. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
The Board's regulations exempt from the provisions of subtitle IV of title 49 of the U.S. Code the rail transportation of certain miscellaneous commodities (
The rail transportation of certain agricultural commodities is also exempt.
This notice of proposed rulemaking arises, in part, as a result of the testimony and comments submitted in
Numerous parties, including those involved in rail transportation subject to class exemptions, submitted comments and testified at the hearing.
Demurrage is subject to Board regulation under 49 U.S.C. 10702, which requires railroads to establish reasonable rates and transportation-related rules and practices, and under 49 U.S.C. 10746, which requires railroads to compute demurrage charges, and establish rules related to those charges, in a way that will fulfill national needs related to freight car use and distribution and maintenance of an adequate car supply. Demurrage is a charge that both compensates rail carriers for the expense incurred when rail cars are detained beyond a specified period of time (
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(a), the Board is required to exempt a person, class of persons, or a transaction or service whenever the Board finds that the application in whole or in part of 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV (1) is not necessary to carry out the transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 10101, and (2) either the transaction or service is of limited scope, or the application of the statute is not needed to protect shippers from the abuse of market power.
However, after an exemption is granted, the agency continues to “monitor the effects of the exemption to assure that continued regulation is not needed.”
The class exemptions for miscellaneous commodities and boxcar transportation already exclude the regulation of demurrage. Specifically, the regulations state that the exemption for miscellaneous commodities “shall not be construed as affecting in any way the existing regulations . . . regarding the use of equipment, whether shipper or railroad owned or leased, including car hire, per diem and mileage allowances.” 49 CFR 1039.11(a). The Board has also explained that the exemption “does not affect regulation regarding the use of equipment,” and
Similarly, under the boxcar transportation exemption, the Board retains jurisdiction over “[c]ar hire and car service” and “[c]ar supply,” 49 CFR 1039.14(b)(1), (4). The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in 1997 that these terms encompassed demurrage, stating “the terms `car supply' and `car service' are defined in the [Interstate Commerce Act] as encompassing demurrage charges.”
The Board proposes to amend 49 CFR 1039.11 and 1039.14, consistent with the Second Circuit's ruling in
Court and agency decisions have concluded that the exemptions in 1039.11 and 1039.14 do not apply to the regulation of demurrage.
As noted above, numerous parties, including shippers and receivers of certain agricultural commodities subject to 1039.10, have expressed to the Board serious concerns about demurrage rules and charges. Those concerns, including those expressed in the extensive testimony and written submissions in
The concerns expressed suggest that certain carrier demurrage rules and charges may not be reasonable and may not fulfill the overarching purpose of demurrage, and therefore may render freight rail service less likely to meet the needs of the public. The Board is concerned about the imposition of demurrage charges for circumstances beyond the shipper's or receiver's reasonable control. Such charges—which may arise in connection with the transportation of a wide range of commodities, including agricultural commodities—do not incentivize behavior on the part of shippers or receivers that would encourage the efficient use of rail assets (both equipment and track), and therefore would not fulfill the overarching purpose of demurrage. Therefore, the Board finds that this partial revocation is necessary to “ensure the development and continuation of a sound rail transportation system . . . to meet the needs of the public,” 49 U.S.C. 10101(4); to foster “sound economic conditions in transportation,” 10101(5); and to “encourage honest and efficient management of railroads,” 10101(9). Further, if demurrage is exempt from regulation, then agricultural shippers or receivers seeking to bring a demurrage-related action before the Board would need to request, and the Board would need to grant, partial revocation of the class exemption as it applies to demurrage in every individual case, which may add to the complexity, length, and cost of such proceedings to the parties and the Board. The proposed partial revocation is therefore necessary to “require fair and expeditious regulatory decisions when regulation is required,” 10101(2), and to “provide for the expeditious handling and resolution of all proceedings required or permitted to be brought under this part,” 10101(15). There does not appear to be any significant conflict between the proposed partial revocation of the exemption for transportation of agricultural commodities and the other aspects of the rail transportation policy of 10101.
This proposed partial revocation is consistent with longstanding agency practice and precedent. The Board, and the ICC before it, have long regulated demurrage, including as related to certain transportation otherwise exempt under 10502, and have declined to exclude demurrage from regulation. For example, in 1996, the Board considered but rejected two proposals that would have largely eliminated the regulation of demurrage, finding that they did not
Given that exemptions for certain miscellaneous commodities and boxcar transportation do not apply to the regulation of demurrage, it is reasonable to conclude that demurrage should be excluded from the exemptions in 1039.10 as well. The Board finds no reason why demurrage claims should be permitted under 1039.11 and 1039.14 but barred under 1039.10, given that all three exemptions are otherwise substantially similar and were promulgated for similar reasons.
Leaving 1039.10 unchanged could have undesirable effects. Shippers and receivers of certain agricultural commodities might interpret the absence of the exclusion of demurrage in 1039.10 (especially when contrasted with the exclusions with respect to certain miscellaneous commodities and boxcar transportation) to mean that the Board lacks the authority (unless it revokes the exemption) to hear demurrage disputes related to transportation of certain agricultural commodities. Although the Board has a process for case-specific revocations, the Board finds no basis for treating only this segment of exempt transportation differently from other exempt, non-intermodal transportation.
Because the Board finds that regulation of demurrage is necessary to carry out the rail transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 10101, the Board proposes to amend 1039.10, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(d), by partially revoking the exemption to permit the regulation of demurrage related to non-intermodal transportation of certain agricultural commodities. The Board proposes to add the following sentence to 1039.10: “Consistent with the exemptions in 1039.11 and 1039.14, this exemption shall not apply to the regulation of demurrage, except the regulation of demurrage related to transportation that is subject to 1039.13.” By stating that 1039.10 is “[c]onsistent with the exemptions in 1039.11 and 1039.14,” the Board intends to clarify that all three provisions permit the regulation of demurrage. The proposed language also clarifies that this revocation is not intended to authorize the regulation of demurrage related to intermodal transportation.
The proposed rule could potentially have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Board instituted this proceeding to address an issue related to the Board's recent proceeding,
The objective of the proposed rule is (1) to clarify the Board's regulations governing exemptions for certain miscellaneous commodities and boxcar transportation to ensure that the regulations unambiguously state that demurrage continues to be subject to Board regulation and (2) to revoke, in part, the exemption for the transportation of certain agricultural commodities (except grain, soybeans, and sunflower seeds, which are already subject to the Board's regulation) to provide that the exemption does not apply to the regulation of demurrage. Partial revocation is necessary to carry out the rail transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 10101. Partial revocation also would make the agricultural commodities exemption consistent with similar exemptions for certain miscellaneous commodities and boxcar transportation, neither of which applies to the regulation of demurrage. Partial revocation would help ensure that this segment of exempt transportation is not treated differently from other exempt, non-intermodal transportation. The legal basis for the proposed rule is 49 U.S.C. 10502(d), which gives the Board authority to revoke an exemption, in whole or in part, when necessary to carry out the rail transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 10101.
The proposed rule would apply to rail carriers charging demurrage in connection with the transportation of certain agricultural commodities, certain miscellaneous commodities, and boxcar transportation, subject to the exemptions at 49 CFR 1039.10, 1039.11, and 1039.14, respectively. It therefore could potentially apply to approximately 656 small rail carriers.
The proposed rule would subject rail carriers that charge demurrage in connection with the transportation of certain agricultural commodities to the Board's statutes and regulations regarding demurrage. Regulation would not impose new reporting requirements directly or indirectly on small entities because the ICC Termination Act of 1995 removed regulatory paperwork burdens (with limited exceptions) on rail carriers to file tariffs or contract summary filings for rail shipments, exempt or non-exempt.
The Board is unaware of any duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting federal rules. The Board seeks comments and information about any such rules.
One alternative to the proposed rule would be to exempt certain or all small rail carriers from coverage or compliance with the rule, in whole or in part (partially revoking the exemption from demurrage regulation for larger carriers but keeping the exemption in place for some or all small carriers or excepting small carriers from certain compliance obligations). This alternative, however, would greatly complicate cases involving demurrage disputes that involve both large and small carriers, and it could thwart the principles announced in the Board's proposed policy statement in Docket No. EP 757 and its other notice of proposed rulemaking regarding demurrage in Docket No. EP 759. Another alternative would be to take no action—thereby implementing no changes to the current regulations—however, this would also thwart the aforementioned principles. Neither alternative would accomplish the proposed rule's objective of making the agricultural commodities exemption consistent with similar exemptions for miscellaneous commodities and boxcar transportation, neither of which applies to the regulation of demurrage. Commenters should, if they advance any of these alternatives in their comments, address how such alternatives would be consistent or inconsistent with the goals envisioned by the proposed rules, particularly whether such alternatives carry out the rail transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 10101.
1. The Board proposes to amend its rules as set forth in this decision. Notice of the proposed rules will be published in the
2. Comments are due by November 6, 2019. Reply comments are due by December 6, 2019.
3. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
4. This decision is effective on its service date.
Agricultural commodities, intermodal transportation, railroads.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, and Oberman.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend part 1039 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 10502, 13301.
* * * Consistent with the exemptions in § 1039.11 and § 1039.14, this exemption shall not apply to the regulation of demurrage, except the regulation of demurrage related to transportation that is subject to § 1039.13. * * *
(a) * * * Consistent with the exemptions in § 1039.10 and § 1039.14, this exemption shall not apply to the regulation of demurrage, except the regulation of demurrage related to transportation that is subject to § 1039.13.
(d) Carriers must continue to comply with Board accounting and reporting requirements. Railroad tariffs pertaining to the exempted transportation of commodities in boxcars will no longer apply. Consistent with the exemptions in § 1039.10 and § 1039.11, this exemption shall not apply to the regulation of demurrage, except the regulation of demurrage related to transportation that is subject to § 1039.13. This exemption shall remain in effect, unless modified or revoked by a subsequent order of the Board.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) proposes changes to the Board's regulations governing demurrage liability. Specifically, the Board proposes certain requirements regarding Class I carriers' demurrage invoices, as well as a requirement that a Class I carrier directly bill the shipper if the shipper and warehouseman agree to that arrangement and have so notified the rail carrier.
Comments are due by November 6, 2019. Reply comments are due by December 6, 2019.
Comments and replies may be filed with the Board either via e-filing or in writing addressed to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 759, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. Written comments and replies will be posted to the Board's website at
Sarah Fancher at (202) 245-0355. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) arises, in part, as a result of the testimony and comments submitted in
The purpose of the hearing was “to receive information from railroads, shippers, receivers, third-party logistics providers, and other interested parties about their recent experiences with demurrage and accessorial charges, including matters such as reciprocity, commercial fairness, the impact of operational changes on such charges, capacity issues, and effects on network fluidity.”
The Board now proposes rules intended to address several issues with demurrage billing practices raised by many stakeholders. Specifically, the Board proposes: (1) Certain requirements regarding Class I carriers' demurrage invoices, such as minimum information to be included on or with those invoices, and (2) a requirement that Class I carriers send any demurrage invoice related to transportation involving a warehouseman to the shipper if the shipper and warehouseman have agreed to that arrangement and have so notified the rail carrier. The Board also invites comments on this proposal and any other measures that might be appropriate to help further clarify demurrage billing practices; to ensure that the party responsible for causing the delays that result in demurrage charges is the party that pays for such charges; and to promote timely resolution of related disputes.
Demurrage is subject to Board regulation under 49 U.S.C. 10702, which requires railroads to establish reasonable rates and transportation-related rules and practices, and under 49 U.S.C. 10746, which requires railroads to compute demurrage charges, and establish rules related to those charges, in a way that will fulfill national needs related to freight car use and distribution and maintenance of an adequate car supply.
In the simplest demurrage case, a railroad assesses demurrage on the consignor (the shipper of the goods) for delays in loading cars at origin and on the consignee (the receiver of the goods) for delays in unloading cars and returning them to the rail carrier at destination.
In addition to the concerns the Board heard about the adequacy of railroad demurrage invoices generally, the Board also heard—before, during, and after the hearing in Docket No. EP 754—concerns specific to warehousemen involving application of the Board's regulations at 49 CFR part 1333, which were adopted in 2014 in
Before 2014, agency precedent had held that a tariff could not lawfully impose demurrage charges on a warehouseman that was not the owner of the freight, that was not named as a consignor or consignee in the bill of lading, and that was not otherwise party to the contract of transportation.
After reviewing the comments responding to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and an NPRM, the Board issued its final rule in 2014.
Shippers, warehousemen, and railroads provided comments and/or testimony in Docket No. EP 754 regarding the adequacy of demurrage invoices generated by Class I carriers.
Shippers (or their representatives) stated repeatedly that invoices from some rail carriers often lack information needed to assess the validity of demurrage charges. For example, the National Coal Transportation Association (NCTA) said that “invoices contain woefully inadequate documentation specific to the charges to allow assessment and evaluation of [the] validity of the charges,” which “increases the burden on the [s]hipper to document and track any remotely possible situation that might result in charges to allow a means for identifying and disputing charges applied.” NCTA Comments 8-9, May 8, 2019,
Likewise, several warehousemen (or their representatives) expressed dissatisfaction with the adequacy of demurrage invoices. Kinder Morgan Terminals (Kinder Morgan), a terminal operator, and the International Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA), an organization representing third-party intermediary liquid terminal operators, said in their written submissions and oral testimony that the demurrage invoices received from rail carriers do not include sufficient detail or information, making it difficult to challenge the charges or seek compensation from shippers when appropriate.
For example, in its May 8, 2019 written testimony, ILTA stated: Most terminals include clauses in their contracts requiring shippers to pay any demurrage fees that were incurred by no fault of the terminal operators. However, terminal operators now
The demurrage invoices provided by the railroads to terminals include railcars related to numerous shippers. The limited detail provided makes it difficult or even impossible to determine which specific railcars and shippers were at issue in each case of demurrage. The individual shippers are often not listed, and the railcars and commodities are frequently in error. While the railroads have access to the appropriate information related to the demurrage charges, the terminal—lacking a contractual relationship with the railroad—has no access to information it would need to confirm or dispute the charges.
Similarly, Kinder Morgan stated that demurrage invoices issued to warehousemen are inadequate to allow warehousemen to allocate costs to shippers:
The railroads send numerous pages of computer-generated invoices each month. The invoices are not separated by railroad customer, and in fact do not identify the individual shippers associated with the shipment, significantly impeding Kinder Morgan's ability to orderly review and attempt to pass through charges to our responsible customers. Reviewing each of the numerous line items for billing and car errors imposes significant costs and burdens on receivers for tariff compliance, review, and objection. Moreover, to adequately review the invoices, a party receiving the bills needs additional train movement and other traffic data which the railroads do not make public.
Rail carriers generally asserted that their customers have access to the information they need to assess the basis of demurrage charges, either in the invoices or in other tools that the rail carriers offer. For example, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), stated that it “does not have the current technology in place” to provide the date and time of constructive placement on individual invoices but instead makes the information available through its ShipCSX tool. CSXT Suppl. 12, June 6, 2019,
The warehousemen (or their representatives) also addressed the circumstances under which, in their view, a rail carrier should bill shippers directly for demurrage without requiring warehousemen to assume responsibility for any charges left unpaid by the shipper. Some cited the regulations previously adopted by the Board in Docket No. EP 707 as the source of their inability to effectively address the problems described in their submissions.
Kinder Morgan asked the Board to clarify that, if requested by a shipper and warehouseman, a rail carrier “shall agree to bill the shipper directly for demurrage, and without requiring the [warehouseman] to assume responsibility for any unpaid demurrage assessments as a condition of such agreement.” Kinder Morgan Comments 4, 19, May 8, 2019,
In response to Kinder Morgan's letters,
From February 2016 to May 2019, at Kinder Morgan's request, BNSF billed Kinder Morgan shippers approximately $3.4M out of a total of approximately $5.4M in demurrage charges incurred at Kinder Morgan terminals; the remaining $2M in charges were invoiced directly to Kinder Morgan entities who presumably own the receiving locations, and those Kinder Morgan entities paid $1.96M of the charges.
Kinder Morgan Comments, Attach. 3 at 1, June 6, 2019,
ILTA also argued that direct billing of shippers is a possible solution, but it said that terminal operators, shippers,
In other cases, terminal operators have joined with shipping customers in asking the railroads to return to the previous practice of assessing demurrage charges to the shipping customer, with whom they have a direct contractual relationship. Unfortunately, to our knowledge, none of these negotiations have met with success.
ILTA Comments 2, May 8, 2019,
The Board proposes two changes to its existing demurrage regulations.
The overarching purpose of demurrage is to encourage the efficient use of rail assets (both equipment and track) by holding rail users accountable when their actions or operations use those resources beyond a specified period of time.
The same holds true for warehousemen. Warehousemen, which typically work with multiple shippers, argued in Docket Nos. EP 707 and EP 754 that they should be able to pass the costs on to shippers (without resorting to litigation) when the shippers were the cause of the delay.
Accordingly, the Board proposes a requirement applicable to Class I carriers that the following minimum information be provided on or with any demurrage invoices:
• The unique identifying information (
• The following shipment information, where applicable:
○ The date the waybill was created;
○ The status of each car as loaded or empty;
○ The commodity being shipped (if the car is loaded);
○ The identity of the shipper, consignee, and/or care-of party, as applicable;
○ The origin station and state of the shipment;
• The dates and times of (1) actual placement of each car, (2) constructive placement of each car (if applicable and different from actual placement), (3) notification of constructive placement to the shipper, consignee, or third-party intermediary (if applicable), and (4) release of each car; and
• The number of credits and debits attributable to each car (if applicable). In addition, the Board proposes that prior to sending a demurrage invoice, Class I carriers shall take appropriate action to ensure that the demurrage charges are accurate and warranted,
These proposed requirements are intended to ensure that the recipients of demurrage invoices will be provided sufficient information to readily assess the validity of those charges without having to undertake an unreasonable effort to gather information that can be provided by the railroad in the first instance, to properly allocate demurrage responsibility, and to modify their behavior if their own actions led to the demurrage charges.
The Board does not propose at this time to require Class II or Class III
The Board invites comment on this proposal, including the exclusion of Class II and Class III carriers. The Board also specifically invites comment on whether there is additional information that rail carriers could reasonably provide on or with demurrage invoices and that would enable recipients to more effectively evaluate those invoices.
The Board also proposes a requirement that serving Class I carriers send demurrage invoices directly to the shipper instead of the warehouseman if the shipper and warehouseman agree to such an arrangement and notify the rail carrier of the agreement. As noted above, the Board's rules at part 1333, adopted in
Although this proposed rule would amend the Board's current regulations to
For the same reasons described above regarding the requirements for demurrage invoices, the Board does not propose at this time to require Class II or Class III carriers to comply with the requirement that the rail carrier must bill the shipper when the shipper and warehouseman have agreed to that arrangement and have so notified the rail carrier. The Board invites comment on this proposal, including the exclusion of Class II and Class III carriers.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires a description and analysis of new rules that would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In drafting a rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that its regulation will have on small entities, (2) analyze effective alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact, and (3) make the analysis available for public comment. Sections 601-604. In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency must either include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, section 603(a), or certify that the proposed rule would not have a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities,” section 605(b). Because the goal of the RFA is to reduce the cost to small entities of complying with federal regulations, the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates those entities. The impact must be a direct impact on small entities “whose conduct is circumscribed or mandated” by the proposed rule.
The proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(3), and the Appendix, the Board seeks comments about the impact of the revisions in the proposed rules to the currently approved collection of the Demurrage Liability Disclosure Requirements (OMB Control No. 2140-0021) regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information, as modified in the proposed rule and further described below, is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate.
The proposed rules would modify the hourly burden in the existing, approved information collection in three ways. First, the Board estimates that the proposed invoicing requirements for Class I carriers would add a total one-
Penalties, Railroads.
1. The Board proposes to amend its rules as set forth in this decision. Notice of the proposed rules will be published in the
2. Comments are due by November 6, 2019. Reply comments are due by December 6, 2019.
3. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
4. This decision is effective on its service date.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, and Oberman.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend part 1333 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 1321
(a) * * *
(b) If the rail cars are delivered to a third-party intermediary that has reached an agreement with a shipper (or consignee) that the shipper (or consignee) shall be liable for demurrage, then the serving Class I carrier shall, after being notified of the agreement by the shipper, consignee, or third-party intermediary, bill the shipper (or consignee) for demurrage charges without requiring the third-party intermediary to act as a guarantor, unless and until a party to the agreement notifies the serving Class I carrier that the agreement is no longer in force.
(a) The following information shall be provided on or with any demurrage invoices issued by Class I carriers:
(1) The unique identifying information (
(2) The following information, where applicable:
(i) The date the waybill was created;
(ii) The status of each car as loaded or empty;
(iii) The commodity being shipped (if the car is loaded);
(iv) The identity of the shipper, consignee, and/or care-of party, as applicable; and
(v) The origin station and state of the shipment;
(3) The dates and times of:
(i) Actual placement of each car,
(ii) Constructive placement of each car (if applicable and different from actual placement),
(iii) Notification of constructive placement to the shipper or third-party intermediary (if applicable); and
(iv) Release of each car; and
(4) The number of credits and debits attributable to each car (if applicable).
(b) Prior to sending a demurrage invoice, Class I carriers shall take appropriate action to ensure that the demurrage charges are accurate and warranted.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The total hour burdens are also set forth in the table below.
A railroad and its customers may enter into demurrage contracts without providing notice, but, in the absence of such contracts, demurrage will be governed by the railroad's demurrage tariff. Under 49 CFR 1333.3, a railroad's ability to charge demurrage pursuant to its tariff is conditional on its having given, prior to rail car placement, actual notice of the demurrage tariff to the person receiving rail cars for loading and unloading. Once a shipper receives a notice as to a particular tariff, additional notices are required only when the tariff changes materially. The parties rely on the information in the demurrage tariffs to avoid demurrage disputes, and the Board uses the tariffs to adjudicate demurrage disputes that come before the agency.
As described in more detail above in the NPRM, the Board is amending the rules that apply to this collection of demurrage disclosure requirements to require the inclusion of additional information in the billing invoices issued by Class I carriers, to require Class I carriers to ensure that demurrage charges are accurate and warranted, and to require Class I carriers to invoice the shipper when the warehouseman and the shipper reach agreement for the Class I carrier to do so. The collection by the Board of this information, and the agency's use of this information, enables the Board to meet its statutory duties.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter the Service or we) proposes to establish annual hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds for the 2020-21 hunting season. We annually prescribe outside limits (frameworks) within which States may select hunting seasons. This proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule, announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee (SRC) meetings, describes the proposed regulatory
You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the following methods:
•
•
We will not accept emailed or faxed comments. We will post all comments on
Ron W. Kokel at: Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; (703) 358-1714.
Beginning in the summer of 2015, with the development of the 2016-17 hunting seasons, we now make decisions for migratory bird harvest management based on predictions derived from long-term biological information and established harvest strategies. Under this process, we develop proposed hunting season frameworks for a given year in the fall of the prior year. We then finalize those frameworks a few months later, thereby enabling the State agencies to select and publish their season dates in early summer. This proposed rule is the first in a series of proposed and final rulemaking documents for the establishment of the 2020-21 hunting seasons.
Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in conventions between the United States and several foreign nations for the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to determine when “hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or export of any * * * bird, or any part, nest, or egg” of migratory game birds can take place, and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These regulations are written after giving due regard to “the zones of temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such birds” and are updated annually (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This responsibility has been delegated to the Service as the lead Federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States. However, migratory game bird management is a cooperative effort of State, Tribal, and Federal governments.
The Service develops migratory game bird hunting regulations by establishing the frameworks, or outside limits, for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting. Acknowledging regional differences in hunting conditions, the Service has administratively divided the Nation into four Flyways for the primary purpose of managing migratory game birds. Each Flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a formal organization generally composed of one member from each State and Province in that Flyway. The Flyway Councils, established through the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, also assist in researching and providing migratory game bird management information for Federal, State, and Provincial governments, as well as private conservation entities and the general public.
The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations, located in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at part 20, is constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the rulemaking process will last. Most importantly, however, the biological cycle of migratory game birds controls the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the dates on which these results are available for consideration and deliberation. For the regulatory cycle, Service biologists gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey data and provide this information to all those involved in the process through a series of published status reports and presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested parties. Because the Service is required to take abundance of migratory game birds and other factors into consideration, the Service undertakes a number of surveys throughout the year in conjunction with Service Regional Offices, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and State and Provincial wildlife-management agencies. To determine the appropriate frameworks for each species, we consider factors such as population size and trend, geographical distribution, annual breeding effort, condition of breeding and wintering habitat, number of hunters, and anticipated harvest. After frameworks are established for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting, States may select season dates, bag limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States may always be more conservative in their selections than the Federal frameworks, but never more liberal.
The SRC conducted an open meeting on April 23, 2019, to discuss preliminary issues for the 2020-21 regulations, and will conduct another meeting on October 8-9, 2019 to review information on the current status of migratory game birds and develop 2020-21 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for these species. In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to public observation. You may submit written comments to the Service on the matters discussed. See
This document announces our intent to establish open hunting seasons and daily bag and possession limits for certain designated groups or species of migratory game birds for 2020-21 in the contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K of 50 CFR part 20. For the 2020-21 migratory game bird hunting season, we will propose regulations for certain designated members of the avian families Anatidae (ducks, geese, and swans); Columbidae (doves and pigeons); Gruidae (cranes); Rallidae (rails, coots, moorhens, and gallinules); and Scolopacidae (woodcock and snipe). We describe these proposals under Proposed 2020-21 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) in this document. We annually publish definitions of flyways and management units, and a description of the data used in and the factors affecting the regulatory process (see June 4, 2018,
This document is the first in a series of proposed, supplemental, and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will publish additional supplemental proposals for public comment in the
Later sections of this and subsequent documents will refer only to numbered items requiring your attention. Therefore, it is important to note that we will omit those items requiring no attention, so remaining numbered items will be discontinuous, making the list appear incomplete.
The proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2020-21 duck hunting seasons are contained at the end of this document. We plan to publish final duck regulatory alternatives and proposed season frameworks in mid-December 2019. We plan to publish final season frameworks in late February 2020.
This proposed rulemaking contains the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2020-21 duck hunting seasons. This proposed rulemaking also describes other recommended changes or specific preliminary proposals that vary from the 2019-20 regulations and issues requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the States or tribes. We will publish responses to all proposals and written comments when we develop final frameworks for the 2020-21 season. We seek additional information and comments on this proposed rule.
For administrative purposes, this document consolidates the notice of our intent to establish open migratory game bird hunting seasons and the request for tribal proposals with the preliminary proposals for the annual hunting regulations-development process. We will publish the remaining proposed and final rulemaking documents separately. For inquiries on tribal guidelines and proposals, tribes should contact: Tina Chouinard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 606 Browns Church Road, Jackson, TN 38305; 731-432-0981;
Beginning with the 1985-86 hunting season, we have employed guidelines described in the June 4, 1985,
(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal members, with hunting by nontribal members on some reservations to take place within Federal frameworks, but on dates different from those selected by the surrounding State(s);
(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of usual Federal frameworks for season dates, season length, and daily bag and possession limits; and
(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands, outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.
In all cases, tribal regulations established under the guidelines must be consistent with the annual March 11 to August 31 closed season mandated by the 1916 Convention Between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds (Convention). The guidelines are applicable to those tribes that have reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. They also may be applied to the establishment of migratory game bird hunting regulations for nontribal members on all lands within the exterior boundaries of reservations where tribes have full wildlife-management authority over such hunting, or where the tribes and affected States otherwise have reached agreement over hunting by nontribal members on non-Indian lands.
Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory game bird hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to our approval. The question of jurisdiction is
One of the guidelines provides for the continuation of tribal members' harvest of migratory game birds on reservations where such harvest is a customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest, provided it does not take place during the closed season required by the Convention, and it is not so large as to adversely affect the status of the migratory game bird resource. Since the inception of these guidelines, we have reached annual agreement with tribes for migratory game bird hunting by tribal members on their lands or on lands where they have reserved hunting rights. We will continue to consult with tribes that wish to reach a mutual agreement on hunting regulations for on-reservation hunting by tribal members. Tribes should not view the guidelines as inflexible. These guidelines provide appropriate opportunity to accommodate the reserved hunting rights and management authority of Indian tribes while also ensuring that the migratory game bird resource receives necessary protection. The conservation of this important international resource is paramount. Use of the guidelines is not required if a tribe wishes to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which the reservation is located.
Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting regulations for the 2020-21 migratory game bird hunting season should submit a proposal that includes: (1) The requested migratory game bird hunting season dates and other details regarding the proposed regulations; (2) harvest anticipated under the proposed regulations; and (3) tribal capabilities to enforce migratory game bird hunting regulations. For those situations where it could be shown that failure to limit tribal harvest could seriously impact the migratory game bird resource, we also request information on the methods employed to monitor harvest and any potential steps taken to limit level of harvest. A tribe that desires the earliest possible opening of the migratory game bird season for nontribal members should specify this request in its proposal, rather than request a date that might not be within the final Federal frameworks. Similarly, unless a tribe wishes to set more restrictive regulations than Federal regulations will permit for nontribal members, the proposal should request the same daily bag and possession limits and season length for migratory game birds that Federal regulations are likely to permit the States in the Flyway in which the reservation is located.
We will publish details of tribal proposals for public review in later
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will take into consideration all comments we receive. Such comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment periods. We will consider, but may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in any final rules.
The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the
Before issuance of the 2020-21 migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will comply with provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter the Act), to ensure that hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species designated as endangered or threatened or modify or destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with conservation programs for those species. Consultations under section 7 of the Act may cause us to change proposals in future supplemental proposed rulemaking documents.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed this rule and has determined that this rule is significant because it would have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
An economic analysis was prepared for the 2019-20 season. This analysis was based on data from the 2011 and 2016 National Hunting and Fishing Survey, the most recent years for which data are available (see discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section below). This analysis estimated consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting (estimates for other species are not quantified due to lack of data). The alternatives are (1) issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those issued during the 2018-19 season, (2) issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2018-19 season. For the 2019-20 season, we chose Alternative 3, with an estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $263-$347 million with a mid-point estimate of $305 million. We also chose alternative 3 for the 2009-10 through 2018-19 seasons. We will select regulations for the 2020-21 season in December. The analysis is part of the record for this rule and is available at
The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
We are required by E.O. 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
This proposed rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule would establish hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. This rule does not contain any new collection of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
• 1018-0019, “North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey” (expires 6/30/2021, and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10, an agency may continue to conduct or sponsor this collection of information while the submission is pending at OMB).
• 1018-0023, “Migratory Bird Surveys, 50 CFR 20.20” (expires 8/31/2020). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.
• 1018-0171, “Establishment of Annual Migratory Bird Hunting Seasons, 50 CFR part 20” (expires 06/30/2021).
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined that this proposed rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this proposed rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule would not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this rule would allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property.
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. However, in this proposed rule, we solicit proposals for special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 2020-21 migratory bird hunting season. The resulting proposals will be contained in a separate proposed rule. By virtue of these actions, we have consulted with tribes affected by this rule.
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to routine hunting and fishing activities.
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2020-21 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 712, and 742 a-j.
Pending current information on populations, harvest, and habitat conditions, and receipt of recommendations from the four Flyway Councils, we may defer specific regulatory proposals. No changes from the 2019-20 frameworks in the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways are being proposed at this time. Other issues requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the States or tribes are contained below:
Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy, (B) Regulatory Alternatives, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/Species Management. Only those categories containing substantial recommendations are discussed below.
We propose to continue using adaptive harvest management (AHM) to help determine appropriate duck-hunting regulations for the 2020-21 season. AHM permits sound resource decisions in the face of uncertain regulatory impacts and provides a mechanism for reducing that uncertainty over time. We use AHM to evaluate four alternative regulatory levels for duck hunting in the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways based on the population status of mallards. We use AHM based on the population status of a suite of four species in the Atlantic Flyway (see below). We have specific hunting strategies for species of special concern, such as black ducks, scaup, and pintails. For additional information of AHM, see
The prescribed regulatory alternative for the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways is based on the status of mallard populations that contribute primarily to each Flyway. In the Central and Mississippi Flyways, we set hunting regulations based on the status and dynamics of mid-continent mallards. Mid-continent mallards are those breeding in central North America (Federal survey strata 13-18, 20-50, and 75-77, and State surveys in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan). In the Pacific Flyway, we set hunting regulations based on the status and dynamics of western mallards. Western mallards are those breeding in Alaska and the northern Yukon Territory (as based on Federal surveys in strata 1-12), and in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia (as based on State- or Province-conducted surveys).
For the 2020-21 season, we recommend continuing to use independent optimization to determine the optimal regulatory choice for each mallard stock. This means that we would develop regulations for mid-continent mallards and western mallards independently, based upon the breeding stock that contributes
Last year, we implemented a multi-stock protocol for the Atlantic Flyway. The protocol is based on a suite of four species that represents the dynamics of duck harvest in the Atlantic Flyway and the various habitat types used by waterfowl throughout the Atlantic Flyway: Green-winged teal (
Species selection was also influenced by our need for sufficient time series of estimates of annual abundance and estimates of harvest rate or annual harvest. The protocol has a harvest objective of no more than 98 percent of maximum sustainable long-term yield for any of the four species. Regulatory alternatives are the same as those used in the past (under eastern mallard AHM), except that the mallard bag limit is not prescribed by the optimal regulatory alternative as determined by the multi-stock AHM protocol. Further details on biological models used in the protocol, data sources, optimization methods, and simulation results are available at
Although season length in the Atlantic Flyway is determined by the proposed multi-stock protocol, the daily bag limit for black ducks will still be determined by the international black duck AHM harvest strategy. The mallard bag limit in the Atlantic Flyway will be based on a separate assessment of the harvest potential of eastern mallards (see section D.iii. Eastern Mallards below for further information).
We will detail the final AHM protocol for the 2020-21 season in the supplemental proposed rule, which we will publish in late-September (see Schedule of Biological Information Availability, Regulations Meetings and
The basic structure of the current regulatory alternatives for AHM was adopted in 1997. In 2002, based upon recommendations from the Flyway Councils, we extended framework dates in the “moderate” and “liberal” regulatory alternatives by changing the opening date from the Saturday nearest October 1 to the Saturday nearest September 24, and by changing the closing date from the Sunday nearest January 20 to the last Sunday in January. These extended dates were made available with no associated penalty in season length or bag limits. Last year, we adopted a closing duck framework date of January 31 for the “moderate” and “liberal” alternatives in the Atlantic Flyway as part of the Atlantic Flyway's new multi-stock AHM protocol (83 FR 47868; September 21, 2018). We subsequently further extended the framework closing date to January 31 across all four Flyways for the 2019-20 hunting season (84 FR 16152; April 17, 2019).
More recently, the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (Act), signed into law on March 12, 2019 (Pub. L. 116-9), amended the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to specify that the framework closing date for hunting ducks, mergansers, and coots “shall be no later than January 31 of each year.” The Act also states that, with regard to these species, the Secretary shall “adopt the recommendation of each respective flyway council (as defined in section 20.152 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations) for the Federal framework if the Secretary determines that the recommendation is consistent with science-based and sustainable harvest management.” Thus, as directed by the law, we have adjusted the framework closing date under each regulatory alternative for all four Flyways to January 31.
For 2020-21, we propose to utilize the same regulatory alternatives that are in effect for the 2019-20 season, with the exceptions noted above (see table below for specifics of the regulatory alternatives). Alternatives are specified for each Flyway and are designated as “RES” for the restrictive, “MOD” for the moderate, and “LIB” for the liberal alternative. We will finalize the regulatory alternatives for each of the Flyways for the 2020-21 seasons in early-December 2019.
Zones and split seasons are “special regulations” designed to distribute hunting opportunities and harvests according to temporal, geographic, and demographic variability in waterfowl and other migratory game bird populations. For ducks, States have been allowed the option of dividing their allotted hunting days into two (or in some cases three) segments (splits) to take advantage of species-specific peaks of abundance or to satisfy hunters in different areas who want to hunt during the peak of waterfowl abundance in their area. However, the split-season option does not fully satisfy many States who wish to provide a more equitable distribution of harvest opportunities. Therefore, we also have allowed the establishment of independent seasons in up to four zones within States for the purpose of providing more equitable distribution of harvest opportunity for hunters throughout the State.
In 1978, we prepared an environmental assessment (EA) on the use of zones to set duck hunting regulations. A primary tenet of the 1978 EA was that zoning would be for the primary purpose of providing equitable distribution of duck hunting opportunities within a State or region and not for the purpose of increasing total annual waterfowl harvest in the zoned areas. In fact, target harvest levels were to be adjusted downward if they exceeded traditional levels as a result of zoning. Subsequent to the 1978 EA, we conducted a review of the use of zones and split seasons in 1990. In 2011, we prepared a new EA analyzing some specific proposed changes to the zone and split-season guidelines. The current guidelines were then finalized in 2011 (76 FR 53536; August 26, 2011).
Currently, every 5 years, States are afforded the opportunity to change the zoning and split-season configuration within which they set their annual duck hunting regulations. The next regularly scheduled open season for changes to zone and split-season configurations will be in 2020, for use during the 2021-25 period. For those States wishing to change zone and split-season configurations in time for the 2021-25
For the 2021-25 open season, the guidelines for duck zone and split-season configurations are as follows:
The following zone and split-season guidelines apply only for the
(1) A zone is a geographic area or portion of a State, with a contiguous boundary, for which independent dates may be selected for the regular duck season.
(2) Consideration of changes for management-unit boundaries is not subject to the guidelines and provisions governing the use of zones and split seasons for ducks.
(3) Only minor (less than a county in size) boundary changes will be allowed for any grandfathered arrangement, and changes are limited to the open season.
(4) Once a zone and split option is selected during an open season, it must remain in place for the following 5 years.
Any State may continue the configuration used in the previous 5-year period. If changes are made, the zone and split-season configuration must conform to one of the following options:
(1) No more than four zones with no splits;
(2) Split seasons (no more than three segments) with no zones; or
(3) No more than three zones with the option for two-way (two-segment) split seasons in one, two, or all zones.
When we first implemented the zone and split guidelines in 1991, several States had completed experiments with zone and split arrangements different from our original options. We offered those States a one-time opportunity to continue (“grandfather”) those arrangements, with the stipulation that only minor changes could be made to zone boundaries. If any of those States now wish to change their zone and split arrangement:
(1) The new arrangement must conform to one of the three options identified above; and
(2) The State cannot go back to the grandfathered arrangement that it previously had in place.
We will continue to utilize the specific limitations previously established regarding the use of zones and split seasons in special management units, including the High Plains Mallard Management Unit. We note that the original justification and objectives established for the High Plains Mallard Management Unit provided for additional days of hunting opportunity at the end of the regular duck season. In order to maintain the integrity of the management unit, current guidelines prohibit simultaneous zoning and/or three-way split seasons within a management unit and the remainder of the State. Removal of this limitation would allow additional proliferation of zone and split configurations and compromise the original objectives of the management unit.
For the Atlantic Flyway, under the proposed multi-stock AHM protocol for the Atlantic Flyway, the mallard bag limit is not prescribed by the regulatory alternative, but is instead based on a separate assessment of the harvest potential of eastern mallards. We will propose a specific mallard bag limit for the Atlantic Flyway in December.
In 2006 (see July 28, 2006,
The next open season for changes to dove zone and split configurations will be in 2020, for use during the 2021-25 period. For those States wishing to change zone and split-season configurations in time for the 2021-25 seasons, we will need to receive new configuration and zone descriptions by May 1, 2020.
The guidelines are as follows:
(1) A zone is a geographic area or portion of a State, with a contiguous boundary, for which independent seasons may be selected for dove hunting.
(2) States may select a zone and split option during an open season. The option must remain in place for the following 5 years except that States may make a one-time change and revert to their previous zone and split configuration in any year of the 5-year period. Formal approval will not be required, but States must notify the Service before making the change.
(3) Zoning periods for dove hunting will conform to those years used for ducks,
(4) The zone and split configuration consists of two zones with the option for three-way (three-segment) split seasons in one or both zones. As a grandfathered arrangement, Texas will have three zones with the option for two-way (two-segment) split seasons in one, two, or all three zones.
(5) States that do not wish to zone for dove hunting may split their seasons into no more than three segments.
For the 2021-25 period, any State may continue the configuration used in 2016-20. If changes are made, the zone and split-season configuration must conform to one of the options listed above. If Texas uses a new configuration for the entirety of the 5-year period, it cannot go back to the grandfathered arrangement that it previously had in place.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
The NMFS Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection intends to revise regulations at 50 CFR parts 260 and 261 to improve the uniformity and reliability of voluntary seafood inspection services by adopting recognized best practices for inspection. The existing regulations have not been significantly revised or updated since NMFS first issued them in 1971. It is anticipated that the revisions will benefit the seafood industry by reducing the costs of obtaining seafood inspection services and providing improved, more accurate inspection results. Prior to drafting a proposed rule, NMFS is issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking requesting input from stakeholders and interested parties on focused areas of the Seafood Inspection Program regulations. Based on comments received and NMFS' overall assessment, NMFS expects to comprehensively overhaul the regulations.
Written comments must be received on or before December 16, 2019.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by docket NOAA-NMFS-2018-0098, by either of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS in developing a proposed rule. All comments received are a part of the public record and will be posted for public viewing on
Karla Ruzicka, NOAA Seafood Inspection Program Development, at
Under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621
The current regulations contained in 50 CFR part 260 have not been substantively updated since 1971 when NOAA first published SIP implementing regulations (36 FR 21037; November 3, 1971) and do not reflect the changes in industry and the role of NOAA SIP since that time. The regulations in 50 CFR part 261 pertaining to grade standards for fish and fish products were last updated in 1996 (61 FR 9368; March 8, 1996) and are also in need of modernization. As part of an overarching assessment of the continued efficacy, reliability and relevance of the 50 CFR parts 260 and 261 regulations, NOAA SIP concluded that substantial improvements could be made that would simplify its administrative, inspection, and certification procedures, resulting in increased uniformity of inspection results and efficiencies associated with inspection effort while retaining the reliability and validity of inspection results.
Therefore, as described more fully below, NOAA SIP intends to:
(1) Modernize its administrative procedures for obtaining inspection services to reflect current practices and remove those which may be obsolete;
(2) Update the sampling plan and lot compliance determination procedures;
(3) Modernize use of inspection and certification marks;
(4) Extend inspection services to product forms beyond those for human consumption; and
(5) Modernize U.S. grade standards.
To facilitate public input, NOAA SIP has identified all of 50 CFR parts 260 and 261 for review and requests comment on all aspects of its regulations as well as the specific focus areas identified below. In developing a proposed rule, consideration will be given to revising these sections and to other suggestions for process modernization that are received through public comments on this ANPRM. In general, NOAA SIP is looking for comments and suggestions from stakeholders regarding how it can modernize its regulations to better reflect current industry practices, and to ensure they are as adaptable as possible to potential changes in technologies and product requirements.
NOAA SIP intends to modernize the definitions section of its regulations (50 CFR 260.6) and update its
Administrative procedures under consideration for revision include, but are not limited to: The process for requesting inspection service; the procedures for inspecting and grading products, issuing certificates, as well as appealing inspection results; and methods for determining fees and charges. The existing regulations are out of date with current practices because they do not reflect the use of the internet for requesting and appealing inspection results, the use of electronic documents, and similar technological advances since the 1970's. Comments are requested to gain information on the following:
• How can NOAA SIP improve and update its regulatory definitions to ensure alignment with internationally recognized terminology;
• Identification of out-of-date and unnecessary administrative procedures;
• Other suggestions to improve access to inspections services.
The sampling plan and lot compliance procedures described in 50 CFR 260.61 have been in place since 1966 and were based on the best information at the time. There have been significant advances in sampling methods since then and NOAA SIP has determined that a review of sampling plans and procedures is necessary. As part of this review, NOAA SIP desires comments on the sampling of seafood products for the purposes of certification domestically and for export. NOAA SIP is also interested in suggestions for improvements to the sampling plan, including but not limited to, acceptance and reject numbers, levels of subsampling, reference to other published sampling plans, etc. In working with other Federal and State partners, questions sometimes arise regarding how to define or determine compliance when inspecting product because the existing regulations reflect older sampling procedures not commonly used today. Uniform standards for determining lot compliance, commonly understood by NOAA SIP, federal and state partners, and industry are essential for trade facilitation. NOAA welcomes comments on this important issue.
NOAA SIP will consider modernizing the Sampling Plan and Lot Compliance Determination Procedures to:
• Update and harmonize inspection practices and procedures to improve uniformity of inspection results by Federal, State, industry, and other inspectors;
• Adopt internationally recognized standards and specifications to determine sample size and acceptable compliance rates for inspected products;
• Address other suggestions provided by stakeholders.
In addition to revising the sampling plan and lot compliance procedures for product inspection and grading purposes, NOAA SIP desires comments on the sampling of seafood products for the purposes of domestic and international export certification. Consideration will be given to:
• Whether sampling plans should vary by product form,
• Costs associated with destructive sampling performed under current sampling plans;
• Improvements needed for the sampling plan, including but not limited to acceptance and reject numbers and/or references to other recognized and statistically valid sampling plans.
NOAA SIP currently has inspection and grade marks that can be placed on the packages of complying products signifying to the buyer (industry or consumer) the level of quality or status of the product itself. The inspection marks currently in place only attest to the inspection of the specific seafood product, not the conditions under which it was produced. NOAA SIP has received many requests from seafood retailers, wholesalers and food safety authorities in foreign countries to have one or more marks that attest to the conditions under which the product was produced,
• Evaluate the effectiveness of marks and their use;
• Improve understanding and recognition of what the marks signify;
• Evaluate the basis upon which each of the marks is conferred;
• Consider whether an additional mark signifying production in an approved establishment should be developed, and if so, determine the criteria that the mark would confirm and the feasibility of ensuring the integrity of such a mark.
NOAA SIP services have evolved with the ability of the seafood industry to more fully utilize raw materials to include byproducts such as fish meal, fish oils, and other inedible product forms. To that end, NOAA SIP invites comments regarding:
• Whether NOAA SIP should continue to support the trade and certification of inedible fishery products;
• What additional products should be considered for SIP services;
• What supplier-to-buyer needs would be supported by such services;
• Whether there are any marks or attestations relevant to the industry that should be considered in association with these products and services;
• Any additional comments or suggestions with regard to these products and services.
In addition to amending its regulations, NOAA SIP is considering significant revisions to the existing grade standards, which are found in the SIP Inspection Manual, not in the regulations.
In 1996, NOAA SIP removed product-specific grading standards from its regulations and has since issued them as program policies maintained in the SIP Inspection Manual (
• Focus on finished product form specificity rather than species;
• Harmonize Grade Standards design across regions, stakeholders, and products to increase results accuracy and ease of use by all stakeholders;
• Develop easy-to-use product grading documentation
• Improve scientific and statistical methodologies applied to the evaluation of seafood products such as moisture determination, texture analysis, etc.;
• Address other suggestions provided by stakeholders.
NOAA SIP is also interested in any additional comments or suggestions for improving the implementation of the regulations under 50 CFR parts 260 and 261 and the Program generally.
7 U.S.C. 1621
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking; consideration of a control date.
This document announces the establishment of a control date of March 7, 2019, for the commercial sector of Spanish mackerel. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) may use the control date if it decides to create restrictions limiting participation in the commercial sector for Spanish mackerel. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) would also need to approve any restrictions to the Federal commercial Spanish mackerel permit. Anyone entering the sector after the control date would not be assured of future access should a management program that limits participation in the sector be prepared and implemented. This announcement is intended, in part, to promote awareness of the potential eligibility criteria for future access to discourage speculative entry into the Spanish mackerel commercial sector while the South Atlantic Council and NMFS consider whether and how access to the sector should be further controlled.
Written comments must be received by November 14, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2019-0083” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Nikhil Mehta, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The coastal migratory pelagic (CMP) fishery in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic regions is managed jointly by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils). The Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP) includes king mackerel and Spanish mackerel, and cobia in the Gulf of Mexico. The FMP was prepared by the Councils and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Spanish mackerel is not currently overfished or undergoing overfishing. However, as a result of increased commercial effort and exceedance of the commercial annual catch limit in recent years, the South Atlantic Council requested at their June 2019 meeting that NMFS publish a control date of March 7, 2019, for the Spanish mackerel commercial permit. The final rule for Amendment 2 to the FMP (52 FR 23836; June 25, 1987), established an open access Federal commercial permit for both Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico migratory groups of Spanish mackerel. The control date enables the South Atlantic Council to inform current and potential participants that it is considering creating restrictions that may limit participation in the Spanish mackerel commercial sector. The South Atlantic Council may consider creating a limited access permit system for the Spanish mackerel commercial sector where the number of participants could be restricted through permit limitations to control the amount of effort. Other options may include, but are not limited to, a limited access gillnet endorsement in the Atlantic southern zone (North Carolina/South Carolina boundary to the Miami-Dade/Monroe County, Florida, boundary), and collaboration with state agencies.
This document informs participants who enter the commercial sector for Spanish mackerel after March 7, 2019, that they may not be ensured participation under future management of this portion of the CMP fishery. If the South Atlantic Council decides to restrict participation in the Spanish mackerel commercial sector in relation to this control date, an amendment to the FMP with analysis of specific biological, economic, and social effects will be prepared at that time. Any future amendment addressing modifications to the Spanish mackerel commercial permit in relation to this control date would require approval by both Councils.
In addition to an amendment to the FMP, implementation of any such changes would require publication of a notice of availability and proposed rule in the
Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in a fishery or sector regardless of their entry date or intensity of participation in the fishery or sector before or after the control date under consideration. The South Atlantic Council subsequently may choose a different control date or a different management program without using a control date. The South Atlantic Council also may choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the Spanish mackerel commercial sector.
NMFS invites comments on the establishment of this control date. This notification also gives the public notice that interested participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their participation in the Spanish mackerel commercial sector.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Forest Service, USDA.
Call for nominations for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Advisory Panel.
The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Advisory Panel (Panel) was renewed on September 16, 2019, to evaluate and provide recommendations on the selection of collaborative forest landscape restoration proposals to the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) for approval as provided in Section 8629 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. The Secretary has determined that the work of the Panel is in the public's interest and relevant to the duties of the Department of Agriculture. Therefore, the Secretary is seeking nominations to fill vacancies on the Panel. The Panel is a statutory committee. Additional information concerning the Panel can be found by visiting the Panel's website at:
Nominations must be received on or before November 14, 2019. Nominations must contain a completed application packet that includes the nominee's name, resume, references, and completed Form AD-755 (Advisory Committee or Research and Promotion Background Information). The package must be sent to the address below.
Send nominations and applications to Jessica Robertson, USDA Forest Service, Forest Management, Range Management and Vegetation Ecology, 201 14th Street SW, Room 3SW, Washington, DC 20024 by express mail or overnight courier service. If sent via the U.S. Postal Service, please send to the following address: USDA, Forest Service, Forest Management, National Forest System, Mail Stop 1103, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-1123, or by email at
Lindsay Buchanan, USDA, National Forest System, Forest Management, Range Management, and Vegetation Ecology, by phone at 503-808-2810 or by email at
The purpose of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is to increase active management to improve forest health, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and promote jobs in rural economies through a process that:
(1) Encourages ecological, economic, and social sustainability;
(2) Leverages local resources with national and private resources;
(3) Facilitates the reduction of wildfire management costs, including through reestablishing natural fire regimes and reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire; and
(4) Demonstrates the degree to which:
(a) Various ecological restoration techniques;
(i) achieve ecological and watershed health objectives;
(ii) affect wildfire activity and management costs; and
(b) The use of forest restoration byproducts can offset treatment costs while benefiting local rural economies and improving forest health.
The duties of the Committee include:
1. Evaluating Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration project proposals with special consideration given to:
a. The strength of the proposal and strategy;
b. the strength of the ecological case of the proposal and the proposed ecological restoration strategies;
c. the strength of the collaborative process and the likelihood of successful collaboration throughout implementation;
d. whether the proposal is likely to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and reestablish natural fire regimes;
e. whether the proposal would use restoration byproducts to reduce the relative costs of carrying out ecological restoration treatments and benefit local economies; and
f. whether the proposal is in alignment with a shared stewardship approach, including leveraging an appropriate level of non-Federal investments.
2. Provide recommendations on each proposal to the Secretary of Agriculture through the Chief of the Forest Service.
The Committee shall be comprised of no more than 15 members approved by the Secretary of Agriculture where each will serve a 2-year term, although appointments shall have staggered terms. The Committee membership will be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and functions to be performed. Non-Federal members of the Committee shall serve without pay, but will be reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred while performing duties on behalf of the Committee, subject to approval by the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). The Committee shall include representation from experts in the following interest areas:
1. Ecological Restoration,
2. Fire Ecology,
3. Fire Management,
4. Rural Economic Development,
5. Strategies for Ecological Adaptation to Climate Change,
6. Fish and Wildlife Ecology, and
7. Woody Biomass and Small-Diameter Tree Utilization.
Of these members, one will become the Chairperson who is recognized for his/her ability to lead a group in a fair and focused manner and who has been briefed on the mission of this Committee. The Committee will meet on an annual basis or as needed. This will be determined by the Committee. Vacancies will be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made.
The appointment of members to the Committee will be made by the
1. Identify what interest area group listed above they would represent and how they are qualified to represent that interest group;
2. State why they want to serve on the Committee and what they can contribute;
3. Provide 2-3 references that may be contacts about the nominee's application;
4. Provide a resume showing their past experience in working successfully as part of a coordinating group; and
5. Complete Form AD-755, Advisory Committee or Research and Promotion Background Information. Form AD-755 may be obtained from the listed Forest Service contact persons or from the following websites:
Letters of recommendation are welcome. All nominations will be vetted by the Agency. Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA policies shall be followed in all membership appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall, to the extent practicable, include individuals with demonstrated ability to represent all racial and ethnic groups, women and men, and persons with disabilities.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
This Notice announces the solicitation of applications for funds available under the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program (the Program) to provide guaranteed loans to fund the development, construction, and retrofitting of commercial scale biorefineries using eligible technology and of Biobased product manufacturing facilities that use technologically new commercial scale processing and manufacturing equipment to convert renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries into end-user products, on a commercial scale.
With this Notice, the Agency is announcing two separate application cycles, as is provided which are application closing dates of 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, October 1, 2019, and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, April 1, 2020.
Applications must be received in the USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Programs no later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time of the application closing date to compete for program funds. Any application received after 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time of the application closing date will be considered for the subsequent application cycle, provided that funding is available.
Applications and forms may be obtained from:
• USDA, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Programs, Attention: Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6901-S, Washington, DC 20250-3225.
•
Aaron Morris, Assistant Deputy Administrator, USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Programs, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6901-S, Washington, DC 20250-3225. Telephone: 202-720-1501. Email:
The Agency encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the Rural Prosperity Task Force report to help improve life in rural America (
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirements associated with the Program, as covered in this Notice, have been approved by the Office of Management Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0065.
C
A.
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
A.
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
C.
The Agency's application process is divided into two phases. Phase 1 applications will provide information needed to determine lender, borrower, and project eligibility; preliminary economic and technical feasibility; and the priority score of the application. Based on the priority score ranking, the Agency will invite applicants whose Phase 1 applications receive higher priority scores to submit Phase 2 applications. Phase 2 application materials will be submitted as the project planning and engineering are finalized and will include information such as: Environmental compliance information, technical report, financial model, and the lender's credit evaluation. Phase 1 applications must contain the information required in the Agency's application guide and in accordance with 7 CFR 4279.261.
D.
This notice also includes the solicitation of applications for funds available under the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program to specifically fund biobased product manufacturing. The 2014 Farm Bill added biobased product manufacturing to the Program and provided for up to 15 percent of the mandatory funds for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 to be used to support facilities producing biobased products for end use. The 2014 Farm Bill provides the definition of “biobased product manufacturing,” which the Agency has incorporated into the subsequent interim rule (see 7 CFR 4279.202). This definition requires that the biobased product manufacturing facility use
The eligibility requirements for prospective lenders and borrowers will not change from those listed above for the program, generally. For biobased product manufacturing projects, the eligible project requirement is modified to reflect that eligible projects will use technologically new commercial scale processing and manufacturing equipment and required facilities to convert renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries into end-user products on a commercial scale.
Additionally, for purposes of biobased product manufacturing projects, only for purposes of technical review, technical reports need to address only the technologically new commercial scale processing and manufacturing equipment and required facilities.
The application processing procedures will remain the same for biobased product manufacturing projects as for the projects described above.
For applications submitted under this Notice, “local owner” is defined as an individual who owns any portion of an eligible biorefinery and whose primary residence is located within 100 miles of the biorefinery.
In lieu of the criteria listed in 7 CFR 4279.266, biobased product manufacturing projects will be scored using the criteria listed below. The scoring criteria below will remain in effect until amended by another
(a) Whether the borrower has established a market for the manufactured biobased product, as applicable. A maximum of 16 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:
(1) Degree of commitment of contracted sales agreements. A maximum of 6 points will be awarded.
(i) If the borrower has signed contracts for purchase for greater than 50 percent of the dollar value of manufactured biobased product, 6 points will be awarded.
(ii) If the borrower has signed letters of intent to enter into contracted sales agreements, or comparable documentation, for the purchase for greater than 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured biobased product, or combination of signed contracts or agreements and letters of intent or comparable documentation, 4 points will be awarded.
(iii) If the borrower has signed letters of interest to enter into contracted sales agreements, or comparable documentation, for the purchase for greater than 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured biobased product, or combination of signed contracts, letters of intent or comparable documentation, 2 points will be awarded.
(2) Duration of contracted sales agreements. A maximum of 6 points will be awarded.
(i) If the borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of manufactured biobased product for the period not less than the loan term, 6 points will be awarded.
(ii) If the borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured biobased product for the period not less than 5 years but less than the term of the loan, 4 points will be awarded.
(iii) If the borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured biobased product for the period not less than 1 year but less than 5 years, 2 points will be awarded.
(3) Financial strength of the contracted sales agreement counterparty. A maximum of 4 points will be awarded.
(i) If the borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured biobased product with a counterparty with a corporate credit rating not less than AA, Aa2, or equivalent, 4 points will be awarded.
(ii) If the borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured biobased product with a counterparty with a corporate credit rating less than AA, Aa2, or equivalent, but not less thanA−, or A3, or equivalent, 2 points will be awarded.
(iii) If the borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured biobased product with a counterparty with a corporate credit rating less than A−, or A3, or equivalent, but not less than BBB−, or Baa3, or equivalent, 1 point will be awarded.
(b) Whether the area in which the borrower proposes to place the project, defined as the area that will supply the renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries to the proposed project, has any other similar facilities. A maximum of 5 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:
(1) If the area that will supply the renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries to the proposed project does not have any other similar facilities, 5 points will be awarded.
(2) If there are other similar facilities located within the area that will supply the renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries to the proposed project, 0 points will be awarded.
(c) Whether the borrower is proposing to use renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries not previously used in the biobased product manufacturing. A maximum of 10 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:
(1) If the borrower proposes to use renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries previously used in the manufacture of a biobased product in a commercial facility, 0 points will be awarded.
(2) If the borrower proposes to use renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries not previously used in the manufacture of a biobased product in a commercial facility, 10 points will be awarded.
(d) Whether the borrower is proposing to work with producer associations or cooperatives. A maximum of 5 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:
(1) If at least 50 percent of the dollar value of renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries to be used by the proposed project will be supplied by producer associations and cooperatives or biorefineries supplied by producer associations and cooperatives, 5 points will be awarded.
(2) If at least 30 percent of the dollar value of renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries to be used by the proposed project will be supplied by producer associations and
(e) The level of financial participation by the borrower, including support from non-Federal Government sources and private sources. A maximum of 20 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:
(1) If the sum of the loan amount requested and other direct Federal funding is less than or equal to 50 percent of total eligible project costs, 20 points will be awarded.
(2) If the sum of the loan amount requested and other direct Federal funding is greater than 50 percent but less than or equal to 55 percent of total eligible project costs, 16 points will be awarded.
(3) If the sum of the loan amount requested and other direct Federal funding is greater than 55 percent but less than or equal to 60 percent of total eligible project costs, 12 points will be awarded.
(4) If the sum of the loan amount and other direct Federal funding is greater than 60 percent but less than or equal to 65 percent of total eligible project costs, 8 points will be awarded.
(5) If the sum of the loan amount and other direct Federal funding is greater than 65 percent but less than or equal to 70 percent of total eligible project costs, 4 points will be awarded.
(f) Whether the borrower has established that the adoption of the manufacturing process proposed in the application will have a positive effect on three impact areas: Resource conservation (
(1) If process adoption will have a positive impact on any one of the three impact areas (resource conservation, public health, or the environment), 3 points will be awarded.
(2) If process adoption will have a positive impact on two of the three impact areas, 6 points will be awarded.
(3) If process adoption will have a positive impact on all three impact areas, 10 points will be awarded.
(g) Whether the borrower can establish that, if adopted, the technology proposed in the application will not have any economically significant negative impacts on existing manufacturing plants or other facilities that use renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries. A maximum of 5 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:
(1) If the borrower has failed to establish, through an independent third-party feasibility study, that the production technology proposed in the application, if adopted, will not have any economically significant negative impacts on existing manufacturing plants or other facilities that use similar renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries, 0 points will be awarded.
(2) If the borrower has established, through an independent third-party feasibility study, that the production technology proposed in the application, if adopted, will not have any economically significant negative impacts on existing manufacturing plants or other facilities that use renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries, 5 points will be awarded.
(h) The potential for rural economic development. A maximum of 10 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:
(1) If the project is located in a rural area, 5 points will be awarded.
(2) If the project creates jobs through direct employment with an average wage that exceeds the county median household wages where the project will be located, 5 points will be awarded.
(i) The level of local ownership of the facility proposed in the application. For the purposes of this Notice, a local owner is defined as “An individual who owns any portion of an eligible advanced biofuel biorefinery and whose primary residence is located within 100 miles of the biorefinery.” A maximum of 5 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:
(A) If local owners have an ownership interest in the facility of more than 20 percent but less than or equal to 50 percent, 3 points will be awarded.
(B) If local owners have an ownership interest in the facility of more than 50 percent, 5 points will be awarded.
(j) Whether the project can be replicated. A maximum of 10 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:
(1) If the project can be commercially replicated regionally (
(2) If the project can be commercially replicated nationally, 10 points will be awarded.
(k) If the project uses a particular technology, system, or process that is not currently operating at commercial scale as of October 1 of the fiscal year for which the funding is available; October 1, 2019, 5 points will be awarded.
(l) The Administrator can award up to a maximum of 10 bonus points:
(i) To ensure, to the extent practical, there is diversity in the types of projects approved for loan guarantees to ensure a wide a range as possible technologies, products, and approaches are assisted in the program portfolio; and
(ii) To applications that promote partnerships and other activities that assist in the development of new and emerging technologies for the development of renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries, so as to, as applicable, promote resource conservation, public health, and the environment; diversify markets for agricultural and forestry products and agriculture waste material; and create jobs and enhance the economic development of the rural economy. No additional information regarding partnerships is provided at this time. If additional information does become available, the Agency will publish those details in a
A.
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
1.
2.
C.
For general questions about this Notice, please contact Aaron Morris, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6901-S, Washington, DC 20250-3225. Telephone: 202-720-1501. Email:
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program. Political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of a complaint form, call, (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Applicable October 15, 2019.
Aimee Phelan or Mary Kolberg, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2201 or (202) 482-1785, respectively.
On September 10, 2014, Commerce published in the
Commerce received an adequate substantive response to the notice of initiation from the domestic producers within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
On July 29, 2019, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties.
The merchandise covered by the order is OCTG, which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
Excluded from the scope of the order are: Casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and unattached thread protectors. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50.
The merchandise subject to the order may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, 7304.59.80.80, 7305.31.40.00, 7305.31.60.90, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.50.50, and 7306.50.50.70. Although the HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purpose, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the CVD order on OCTG from Turkey would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return or 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.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Norma (India) Ltd. (Norma) and R.N. Gupta & Co. Ltd (RNG) received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR), November 29, 2016 through December 31, 2017. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 15, 2019.
Yasmin Bordas or John McGowan, 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) 482-3813 and (202) 482-3019, respectively.
On August 24, 2017, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on finished carbon steel flanges (steel flanges) from India.
The merchandise covered by the order is steel flanges. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(l)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
For the companies not selected for individual review, because the rates calculated for Norma and RNG were above
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b)(4)(i), we calculated individual subsidy rates for Norma and RNG. For the period November 29, 2016 through December 31, 2017, we preliminarily determine that the following net subsidy rates exist:
Consistent with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount indicated above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit instructions, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
We will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system.
Parties are reminded that all briefs and hearing requests must be filed electronically using ACCESS and received successfully in their entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after publication of these preliminary results.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Announcement of public workshop.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announces a public workshop to be held on November 19, 2019, at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Hampton Virginia. The purpose of the workshop is the exchange of information among the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP), the United States Department of Defense (DoD), and any national and federal laboratories interested in seeking accreditation to perform System Integration Testing (SIT) and Operational/User Acceptance Testing (OAT/UAT).
The workshop will be held 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 19, 2019.
The meeting will be held at the Creech Conference Center (Amphitheater), located at 190 Dodd Boulevard, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia 23665. Please note registration and admittance instructions under the
Brad Moore, Program Manager, NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140,
Information regarding the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and the accreditation process can be obtained from
The U-2 Federal Laboratory requested that NIST establish a laboratory accreditation program to evaluate the technical qualifications and competence of DoD laboratories performing System Integration Testing (SIT) and Operational/User Acceptance Testing (OAT/UAT) in support of Federal Major Weapon Systems (MWS). NIST will hold a public workshop to solicit comments on the proposed establishment of this laboratory accreditation program. The public
This notice is issued in accordance with NVLAP procedures and general requirements, found in 15 CFR part 285.
NVLAP provides an unbiased, third-party evaluation and recognition of competence. NVLAP accreditation signifies that a laboratory has demonstrated that it operates in accordance with NVLAP management and technical requirements pertaining to management systems, personnel, accommodation and environment, test and calibration methods, equipment, measurement traceability, sampling, handling of test and calibration items, and test and calibration reports.
NVLAP accreditation does not imply any guarantee (certification) of laboratory performance or test/calibration data. NVLAP accreditation is a finding of laboratory competence.
All visitors are required to pre-register by close of business Friday, November 8, 2019. To pre-register and for access to Joint Base Langley-Eustis, please send the following information to
✓ For Department of Defense employees in possession of a valid Common Access Card (CAC), please include the following information:
• Visitor Name (Last, First Middle)
• Rank (or if contractor; Contract Number)
• Service/Organization
✓ For Non-Department of Defense employees, please include the following information:
• Visitor Name (Last, First Middle)
• Birthdate (MMDDYY)
• State of Driver's License or State ID (State Only)
• State of Driver's License or State ID (Number)
All visitors are subject to a background check conducted by Security Forces and Air Force Office of Special Investigations. We regret to inform that we are unable to process incomplete requests.
15 U.S.C. 272
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for information.
We, NMFS, are convening a workshop to solicit facts and information from experts to inform recovery planning for the oceanic whitetip shark (
You may submit information to help inform the recovery plan for the oceanic whitetip shark, by including NOAA-NMFS-2019-0024, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8491,
On January 30, 2018, we published a final rule listing the oceanic whitetip shark as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (83 FR 4153). The final listing rule describes the background of the listing action for the species and provides a summary of our conclusions regarding its status. For additional background and a summary of natural history and threats to the species, the reader is referred to the status review report and final listing rule (available at
NMFS is required by section 4(f) of the ESA to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and
From November 13 through 14, 2019, NMFS will hold a workshop at the Florida International University Biscayne Bay Campus in Miami, FL to help inform our recovery planning for the oceanic whitetip shark (see
NMFS will provide a moderator to manage the workshop as well as a note taker to document input received. We are seeking facts and information; we will not be asking for consensus recommendations on how to recover the oceanic whitetip shark. During the workshop, there will also be a time-limited question and answer period during which attendees may ask NMFS about information presented. NMFS will prepare a summary of the workshop, noting the main points raised by the panelists and registered speakers.
This workshop will be open to the public, and a public comment period will be provided at the end of each day. If you plan to attend the workshop as an interested member of the public, please contact Chelsey Young at the address listed above by November 6, 2019, so we can ensure sufficient space for all participants and interested parties during our logistics planning.
• November 13 will focus on the biology, status and threats to the species and discussions regarding potential recovery criteria;
• November 14 will focus on recovery actions related to commercial fisheries interactions, research to fill in data gaps, international coordination, outreach and education, and any other needs.
We also invite the public to submit scientific or commercial information that may help to inform the recovery criteria and actions for the oceanic whitetip shark. We are soliciting relevant information related to the species and its habitat, including the following:
1. Criteria for removing the oceanic whitetip shark from the list of threatened and endangered species (this could be either threats-based or abundance/trends based);
2. Human activities that contribute to threats to the species;
3. Physical, biological or chemical features of the environment that limit the recovery of the oceanic whitetip shark;
4. Recovery strategies addressing threats to physical and biological features that are essential to species conservation;
5. Strategies and/or actions to recover the oceanic whitetip shark;
6. Estimates of the time and cost, and potential partners to implement recovery actions;
7. Critical knowledge gaps and/or uncertainties that need to be resolved to better inform recovery efforts; and
8. Research, monitoring, and evaluation needs to address knowledge gaps and uncertainties, or to assess the species' status, limiting factors, and threats relative to recovery goals.
Information may be submitted via the methods listed above in the
The workshop is accessible to persons with disabilities. Send requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids at least five business days in advance to Chelsey Young at (301) 427-8491.
16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting (webinar).
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a webinar meeting of its Groundfish Management Team (GMT) to discuss items on the Pacific Council's November 2019 meeting agenda. The meeting is open to the public.
The webinar meeting will be held November 5, 2019, from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. The scheduled ending time for the GMT webinar is an estimate, the meeting will adjourn when business for the day is completed.
This meeting will be held via webinar. A public listening station is available at the Pacific Council office (address below). To attend the webinar: (1) Join the GoToWebinar by visiting this link
Todd Phillips, Staff Officer; telephone: (503) 820-2426.
The primary purpose of the GMT webinar is to prepare for the Pacific Council's November 2019 agenda items and develop recommendations for consideration by the Pacific Council. The GMT will discuss items related to groundfish management and administrative Pacific Council agenda items. A detailed agenda for the webinar will be available on the Pacific Council's website prior to the meeting. The GMT may also address other assignments relating to groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the GMT.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the GMT's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt, (503) 820-2411, at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting (webinar).
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Habitat Committee (HC) will hold a meeting via webinar, which is open to the public.
The webinar will be held Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 9 a.m., Pacific Daylight Time, and will end at noon on the same day.
A public listening station is available at the Pacific Council office (address below). To attend the webinar, use this link:
Jennifer Gilden, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2418.
Major topics include but are not limited to habitat-related topics, including letters for Pacific Council approval on the Central Valley Project and Klamath dam removal, the Jordan Cove Liquified Natural Gas project, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management activities, a brief planning discussion regarding southern resident killer whale habitat, and other matters.
The group may also address one or more of the Pacific Council's scheduled administrative matters, legislative matters, ecosystem topics, groundfish topics, and future workload planning. Public comments during the webinar will be received from attendees at the discretion of the HC Chair.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of fourteen permit applications for enhancement and monitoring purposes, including an associated Template Safe Harbor Agreement and site plans developed for the proposed enrolled properties.
We, NMFS, announce receipt of 14 (Permit Numbers 23271, 23276, 23278, 23279, 23280, 23284, 23285,
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the actions proposed in the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the applications should be submitted to the California Coastal Office, NMFS, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521 707-822-7201. Comments may also be submitted via fax to 707-822-4840, or by email to
Jim Simondet, Arcata, CA (ph.: 707-822-7201; Fax: 707-825-4840; email:
The following ESA-listed species is covered in this notice:
Enhancement permits are issued in accordance with Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(A)) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR part 222, subpart C). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies of Section 2 of the ESA; (4) would further a bona fide and necessary or desirable scientific purpose or enhance the propagation or survival of the endangered species, taking into account the benefits anticipated to be derived on behalf of the endangered species; and additional issuance criteria (as listed at 50 CFR 222.308(c)(5-12)). The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
Fourteen applicants are requesting individual enhancement of survival permits and entry of an associated Agreement that was developed by NMFS, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the Shasta Watershed Conservation Group (SWCG) and the Applicants. The 14 Applicants (Table 1) each developed site plans for their respective properties (
Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS' joint Safe Harbor Policy (64 FR 32717, June 17, 1999), Safe Harbor Agreements provide incentives to property owners to restore, enhance, or maintain habitats and/or populations of
Upon approval of the Agreement and site plans, and consistent with the Safe Harbor Policy, NMFS will issue enhancement of survival permits to the Applicants. The enhancement of survival permits will authorize the Applicants to take SONCC coho salmon incidental to the implementation of the covered activities specified in the site plans and Agreement, incidental to other lawful uses of the enrolled property, and to return to present baseline and elevated baseline conditions, if desired, at the end of the site plans and Agreement. In addition to meeting other criteria, actions to be performed under the enhancement of survival permit must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed species.
Issuing an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit constitutes a Federal action requiring NMFS to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
NMFS invites the public to comment, including any written data, views, or arguments, on the permit applications during a 30-day public comment period beginning on the date of this notice. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(c)), 50 CFR 222.303. All comments and materials received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public. We provide this notice in order to allow the public, agencies, or other organizations to review and comment on these documents.
NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day public comment period and after NMFS has fully considered all relevant comments received. NMFS will also meet other legal requirements prior to taking final action, including preparation of a biological opinion. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of scheduled SEDAR 60 South Atlantic Red Porgy Data Webinar.
The SEDAR 60 assessment of the South Atlantic stock of Red Porgy will consist of a data webinar, an in-person workshop, and a series assessment webinars.
The SEDAR 60 Red Porgy Data Webinar has been scheduled for Friday, November 15, 2019, from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Kathleen Howington, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion at the SEDAR 60 Red Porgy Data webinar are as follows:
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public scoping meetings.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold scoping meetings via webinar pertaining to Amendment 11 to the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the South Atlantic Region. The amendment addresses cold-weather transit provisions for shrimp trawlers crossing areas closed due to cold weather.
The public scoping meetings will be held via webinar on November 5 and November 7, 2019.
The meetings will be held via webinar.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The scoping meetings will be conducted via webinar beginning at 7 p.m. Registration for the webinars is required. Registration information, a public scoping document, public comment form and any additional information will be posted on the Council's website at
The draft amendment proposes modifications to current transit provisions during cold-weather closures of the fishery. Current regulations include provisions that trawl doors be stowed below deck while transiting closed areas. The transit provision is applicable out 25 nautical miles when adjacent state waters are closed. The transit provisions have not been changed since being enacted in 1994. Fishermen have indicated they can no longer store gear below deck due to more recent changes to vessel design and have also expressed concerns about having to use the ocean for transit more often as the Intracoastal Waterway depths are not being maintained for waterway transit.
During the scoping meetings, Council staff will present an overview of the draft amendment and will be available for informal discussions and to answer questions via webinar. Members of the public will have an opportunity to go on record to record their comments for consideration by the Council.
Public comment will also be accepted using the online comment form available at:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
10:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 16, 2019.
CFTC Headquarters, Lobby-Level Hearing Room, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC.
Open.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) will hold this meeting to consider the following matters:
• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking—Amendment to Regulation 23.161—Compliance Schedule Extension; and
• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking—Amendments to the Margin Rule for Uncleared Swaps—23.151 and 23.157.
The agenda for this meeting will be available to the public and posted on the Commission's website at
Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, 202-418-5964.
5 U.S.C. 552b.
Wednesday, October 16, 2019; 10:00 a.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public
Decisional Matter: Fiscal Year 2020 Operating Plan
Alberta E. Mills, Secretary, Division of the Secretariat, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7479.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), DoD.
Notice.
It is the policy of the Uniformed Services to accept written requests from current and former members for voluntary State income tax withholding from monthly retired or retainer pay when the Department has an agreement for such withholding with the State named in the request. Rather than an unnecessary part in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this notice provides administrative-type information to those members and States interested in applying for or engaging in this tax withholding arrangement.
This action is applicable on November 14, 2019.
Kellie Allison at 703-614-0410.
Title 32 CFR part 78, “Voluntary State Tax Withholding from Retired Pay,” set forth DoD's policies and procedures on the voluntary state income tax withholding from the monthly retired or retainer pay of a member or former member of the Uniformed Services. DoD published a direct final rule to remove 32 CFR part 78 elsewhere in this issue of the
A retiree may request voluntary State income tax withholding from their retired or retainer pay. The withholding amount requested must be in a whole dollar amount and at least $10, or the state's minimum, if that amount is higher.
To efficiently and accurately implement the request, it should include the member's full name, signature, Social Security number, the fixed amount withheld monthly from retired pay, the state designated to receive the withholding, and the member's current address. The retiree may submit the request by sending a completed DoD Form 2656, “Data for Payment of Retired Personnel” (only sections I and VII of the form need to be completed), a letter, an email, or fax to the U.S. Military Retired Pay office, or submit the request through the member's myPay account. If using myPay, the member's signature is not required. In the case of incompetence, the member's guardian or trustee must sign the request.
Current guidance, including the addresses and other information for the U.S. Military Retired Pay offices can be found in the DoD Financial Management Regulation, Volume 7B, Chapter 26, “State Taxes,” that is available at
A State requesting an agreement for the voluntary withholding of State tax from the retired pay of members of the Uniformed Services shall address a letter to the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, 1931 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22240. The Department of Defense shall enter into a Standard Agreement within 120 days of a request for agreement from the proper State official. This agreement shall provide that the Uniformed Services shall withhold State income tax from the monthly retired pay of any member who voluntarily requests such withholding in writing. In the Standard Agreement, States are allowed to terminate the Agreement within 45 days of any amendment, modification, supplement, or change to the procedures for withholding.
States shall indicate, in writing, agreement to follow the provisions of the DoD FMR, Volume 7B, Chapter 26. If a State proposes an agreement that varies from the Standard Agreement, the State shall indicate, in writing, to the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service which provisions of the Standard Agreement are not acceptable and propose substitute provisions.
To be effective, the letter must be signed by a State official authorized to bind the State under an agreement for tax withholding. Copies of applicable State laws that authorize employers to withhold State income tax and authorize the official to bind the State under an agreement for tax withholding shall be enclosed with the letter. The letter also shall indicate the title and address of the official whom the Uniformed Services may contact to obtain information necessary for implementing withholding.
Within 120 days of the receipt of a letter from a State, the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, or designee, will notify the State, in writing, that DoD has either entered into the Standard Agreement or that an agreement cannot be entered into with the State and the reasons for that determination.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 14, 2019.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela, 202-245-7377 or email
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 Electricity, Department of Energy.
Notice of application.
ENMAX Energy Marketing Inc. (Applicant or ENMAX) has applied to renew its authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before November 14, 2019.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
The Department of Energy (DOE) regulates exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country, pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b) and 7172(f)). Such exports require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On October 8, 2014, DOE issued Order No. EA-264-C, which authorized ENMAX to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. That authorization expires on October 8, 2019. On September 30, 2019, ENMAX filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authorization contained in Order No. EA-264-C for an additional five-year term.
The application states that “ENMAX and its affiliates have no franchised service territory in the United States, nor do they own or control generation or transmission assets in the United States.” The electric energy that the Applicant proposes to export to Canada would be purchased from third parties, such as Canadian utilities, power marketers and end-use customers, pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the
Comments and other filings concerning ENMAX's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-264-D. An additional copy is to be provided directly to Jay Dyson, ENMAX Corporation, 141-50 Avenue SE, Calgary, AB T2G 4S7.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after DOE determines that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program website at
National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Proposed subsequent arrangement.
This document is being issued under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under the Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.
This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than October 30, 2019.
Mr. Sean Oehlbert, Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy. Telephone: 202-586-3806 or email:
This proposed subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 18,742 grams uranium, 129 grams U-235, and 230 grams plutonium of United States origin contained in irradiated fuel rods, from KEPCO Nuclear Fuel Co., Ltd. in Daejon, Republic of Korea, to Studsvik Nuclear AB, in Nykoping, Sweden. The irradiated fuel rods, which are currently located at KEPCO Nuclear Fuel Co. in Daejon, Republic of Korea, will be used for testing the fuel cladding, guide tubes, and spacer grids by Studsvik Nuclear AB, in Nykoping, Sweden. After testing, the irradiated fuel rods will be stored at Studsvik Nuclear AB, in Nykoping, Sweden for a period of five years, after which the fuel rods will be moved to permanent disposal. Upon transfer to Sweden, the irradiated fuel rods will be subject to the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States of America and the European Atomic Energy Community.
Pursuant to the authority in section 131 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as delegated, I have determined that this proposed subsequent arrangement concerning the retransfer of irradiated nuclear material of United States origin will not be inimical to the common defense and security of the United States of America.
For the Department of Energy.
On September 9, 2019, EXIM announced its proposed guidelines for determining Additionality on requests the Bank receives to support export transactions with repayment amortizing over the medium or long term and invited public comment on FR Doc. 2019-19345 within 30 days of the date the notice appeared in the
On September 9, 2019, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) announced its intention to review the Bank's Economic Impact Procedures and Methodology and sought public comment on FR Doc. 2019-19344 within 30 days of the date the notice appeared in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before November 14, 2019. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection.
Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before December 16, 2019. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before December 16, 2019. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
Notice; correction.
This document corrects the phone number listed in a Sunshine Act Notice published in the
Sarah Stewart, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, at (202) 434-9935.
In Sunshine Act Notice FR Doc. 2019-22005, on page 53440 in the issue of October 7, 2019, in the second column, the phone number listed under the heading “Phone Number for Listening to Meeting” 1-(866) 867-4769 is corrected to read “1-(866) 236-7472”.
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
Notice; correction.
This document corrects the phone number listed in a Sunshine Act Notice published in the
Sarah Stewart, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, at (202) 434-9935.
In Sunshine Act Notice FR Doc. 2019-21995, on page 53440 in the issue of October 7, 2019, in the third column, the phone number listed under the heading “Phone Number for Listening to Meeting” 1-(866) 867-4769 is corrected to read “1-(866) 236-7472”.
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
Notice; correction.
This document corrects the phone number listed in a Sunshine Act Notice published in the
Sarah Stewart, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, at (202) 434-9935.
In Sunshine Act Notice FR Doc. 2019-21992, on page 53440 in the issue of October 7, 2019, in the second column, the phone number listed under the heading “Phone Number for Listening to Meeting” 1-(866) 867-4769 is corrected to read “1-(866) 236-7472”.
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
Notice.
This notice announces the appointment of the members of the Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board for the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. The purpose of the Performance Review Board is to make written recommendations on each executive's annual summary ratings, performance-based pay adjustment, and performance awards to the appointing authority.
This notice is applicable on October 15, 2019.
Kelly Powell, HR Specialist, at 202-942-1681.
Title 5, U.S. Code, 4314(c)(4), requires that the appointment of Performance Review Board members be published in the
Office of Grants Management, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Office of Grants Management (OGM), in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is requesting a 3-year extension of the form ACF-OGM-SF-PPR-B (OMB #0970-0406, expiration 9/30/2019). There are no changes requested to the form.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email:
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by emailing
The requirement for grantees to report on performance is OMB grants policy. Specific citations are contained in 45 CFR part 75 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by November 14, 2019.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Information collections (ICs) associated with the 510(k) third-party (3P510k) review program have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0375. We request extension, including revisions, of the information collection approval as described in this document.
Section 210 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) established section 523 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360m), directing FDA to accredit persons in the private sector to review certain premarket notifications (510(k)s; see 21 U.S.C. 360(k)). Participation in the 3P510k review program by accredited persons is entirely voluntary. A third party wishing to participate will submit a request for accreditation to FDA. Accredited third-party reviewers have the ability to review a manufacturer's 510(k) submission for selected devices. After reviewing a submission, the reviewer will forward a copy of the 510(k) submission, along with the
Respondents to this information collection are businesses or other for-profit organizations.
In the
The September 14, 2018, notice requested comment on the draft guidance and related revision of the information collection in OMB control number 0910-0375. We describe and respond below to the comments related to the information collection. We have numbered each comment to help distinguish between different comments. We have grouped similar comments together under the same number, and, in some cases, we have separated different issues discussed in the same comment and designated them as distinct comments for purposes of our responses. The number assigned to each comment or comment topic is purely for organizational purposes and does not signify the comment's value or importance or the order in which comments were received.
(Comment 1) One comment suggested that the 3P510k review program reduces the burden for FDA staff and industry and increases the burden on patients and doctors to figure out which devices are safe and which are not.
Another comment suggested that FDA has not demonstrated that its proposed changes to the 3P510k review program will benefit patients and that the 3P510k review program reduces patient safety, rather than protecting patients from potentially harmful devices.
(Response 1) FDA disagrees with these comments. Section 523 of the FD&C Act requires FDA to accredit persons for the purpose of reviewing reports submitted under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and making a recommendation to FDA. All devices subject to the 510(k) requirements, including devices cleared through the 3P510k review program, must demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed device prior to introduction into interstate commerce (see 21 U.S.C. 360(k), 360(n), 360c(f)(1) and 360c(i); 21 CFR 807.92(a)(3)). Under the 3P510k review program, the objective is for the 3PRO to provide a review equivalent to that of an FDA reviewer, including making a recommendation, which it submits to FDA. FDA reviews that information to make a final determination of substantial equivalence and where appropriate, FDA will limit its review to a supervisory-level review. Therefore, the burden to demonstrate substantial equivalence remains unchanged.
In addition, this guidance describes the factors FDA will use to ensure only appropriate device types are eligible for the 3P510k review program and benefits the public health by allowing new, low-to-moderate risk devices to obtain FDA-equivalent review while enabling FDA to focus more resources on higher risk and more complex devices that necessitate more rigorous review benefitting the public health. Accordingly, no change to the guidance is necessary.
(Comment 2) One comment suggested that the proposed definition of a 510(k) Submitter is too narrow by referring to “scientific and technical data” and should be revised to reflect the additional components of a 510(k) submission, such as intended use.
(Response 2) FDA agrees that a 510(k) submission can include more than scientific and technical data. Rather than trying to define the appropriate components of a 510(k) submission in this guidance, FDA has modified the definition of 510(k) Submitter by removing reference to submitting “scientific and technical data.”
(Comment 3) One comment requested clarification regarding to whom the 3PROs should provide copies of written communications between the 510(k) submitter and the 3PRO and, if these copies are submitted to FDA, that this is unnecessarily burdensome to both the 510(k) submitter and the 3PRO.
(Response 3) FDA agrees that this language should be, and therefore it has been, clarified as FDA's intent was that these communications would be provided to FDA and that the context of these communications is the communication and response to deficiencies in the submission. However, FDA disagrees that providing the Agency this information is unnecessarily burdensome. FDA believes that to understand and evaluate whether the 3PRO conducted an FDA-equivalent review, it is necessary to understand how the 3PRO documented and communicated any deficiencies it found during its review, how the 510(k) submitter responded to those deficiencies, and how the 3PRO evaluated those responses.
(Comment 4) Several comments suggested that the language in the guidance is unclear as to whether the 510(k) submitter should provide the 3PRO with all subsequent correspondence that the submitter has with FDA and that once a 3PRO has submitted its recommendation to FDA that any substantive interactions between FDA and the 510(k) submitter are not always relevant and any mandate to supply such correspondence creates additional burden.
Additionally, a comment requested clarification regarding to whom the 3PRO should provide a copy of all written communications.
(Response 4) To the extent that the commenter refers to subsequent correspondence on the 510(k) submission in question, FDA disagrees with the comment. The 3PRO's responsibilities to provide an FDA-equivalent review do not end with the initial submission to FDA. As discussed in subsection VI.J of the guidance, FDA will contact the 3PRO by telephone or email if additional information is needed. FDA not only expects the 3PRO to communicate with the 510(k) submitter to resolve any issues needing the submitter's input, FDA also expects the 3PRO to thoroughly evaluate any responses received and to document those in its updated review memo. Therefore, the 3PRO should be involved in any discussions between FDA and the 510(k) submitter regarding the request for additional information. FDA does not believe that the continued involvement of the 3PRO creates an unnecessary burden given their responsibilities, whereas their involvement in those discussions ensures the response is evaluated in a timely and efficient manner.
(Comment 5) One comment requested clarification on what a new review memo provided by a 3PRO in response to FDA's request for additional information should include or whether a documented evaluation result referring to the evaluation of the 510(k)
(Response 5) FDA has clarified in the final guidance that the initial review memo provided by the 3PRO should be updated with this new information in response to FDA's request for additional information. This is consistent with FDA's expectation that the 3PRO provide a review equivalent to that of an FDA reviewer.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We revised our estimates for OMB control number 0910-0375 by adding new ICs, changing the title of the IC request, and adjusting the existing ICs based on current trends. Despite the addition of new ICs, the estimated burden reflects an overall decrease of 5,580 hours. We attribute this adjustment to a decrease in the number of submissions we received over the last few years.
The draft guidance also refers to previously approved ICs found in FDA regulations. The ICs in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the ICs regarding 3P510k review of medical devices under FDAMA have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0375; the ICs for the device appeals processes have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0738; the ICs for the Q-Submission Program (Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the website location where the Agency will post two lists of guidance documents that the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH or the Center) intends to publish in fiscal year (FY) 2020. In addition, FDA has established a docket where interested persons may comment on the priority of topics for guidance, provide comments and/or propose draft language for those topics, suggest topics for new or different guidance documents, comment on the applicability of guidance documents that have issued previously, and provide any other comments that could benefit the CDRH guidance program and its engagement with stakeholders. This feedback is critical to the CDRH guidance program to ensure that we meet stakeholder needs.
Submit either electronic or written comments by December 16, 2019.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before December 16, 2019. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• 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
Erica Takai, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5456, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6353.
During negotiations on the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2012, Title II, Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), FDA agreed to meet a variety of quantitative and qualitative goals intended to help get safe and effective medical devices to market more quickly. Among these commitments included:
• Annually posting a list of priority medical device guidance documents that the Agency intends to publish within 12 months of the date this list is published each fiscal year (the “A-list”), and
• Annually posting a list of device guidance documents that the Agency intends to publish, as the Agency's guidance-development resources permit each fiscal year (the “B-list”).
The Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2017 (MDUFA IV), FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, (Pub. L. 115-52) maintained these commitments.
In addition, to ensure that final guidance documents continue to provide stakeholders with the Agency's current thinking, CDRH annually conducts a staged review of previously issued final guidances in collaboration with stakeholders. CDRH intends to annually provide lists of previously issued final guidances that are subject to review through FY 2025 so that by 2025, FDA and stakeholders will have assessed the applicability of all guidances older than 10 years. For instance, in the annual notice for FY 2021, CDRH expects to provide a list of the final guidance documents that issued in 2011, 2001, 1991, and 1981; the annual notice for FY 2022 is expected to provide a list of the final guidance documents that issued in 2012, 2002, 1992, and 1982, and so on.
FDA welcomes comments on any or all of the guidance documents on the lists as explained in 21 CFR 10.115(f)(5). FDA has established Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1021 where comments on the FY 2020 lists, draft language for guidance documents on those topics, suggestions for new or different guidances, and relative priority of guidance documents may be submitted and shared with the public (see
In addition to posting the lists of prioritized device guidance documents, CDRH has identified as a priority, and has devoted resources to, finalization of draft guidance documents. To assure the timely completion or reissuance of draft guidances, in FY 2015 CDRH committed to performance goals for current and future draft guidance documents. For draft guidance documents issued after October 1, 2014, CDRH committed to finalize, withdraw, reopen the comment period, or issue new draft guidance on the topic for 80 percent of the documents within 3 years of the close of the comment period and for the remaining 20 percent, within 5 years. As part of MDUFA IV commitments, FDA reaffirmed this commitment, as resources permit.
Fulfillment of these commitments will be reflected through the issuance of updated guidance on existing topics, withdrawal of guidances that no longer reflect FDA's current thinking on a particular topic, and annual updates to the A-list and B-list announced in this notice.
Stakeholder feedback on guidance priorities is important to ensure that the CDRH guidance program meets the needs of stakeholders. The feedback received on the FY 2019 list was mostly in agreement, and CDRH continued to work toward issuing the guidances on this list. Some guidances requested for inclusion in the FY2019 list by stakeholders have been included as part of the FY 2020 list. In FY 2019, CDRH published 21 of 28 guidances on the FY 2019 list (17 from the A-list, 4 from the B-list).
Of the 23 draft guidances issued in FY 2015, CDRH finalized 87 percent within 3 years of the comment period close. Five years from the comment period close has not yet elapsed for the remaining guidances issued in FY 2015. In addition, in FY 2019, one draft guidance issued prior to October 1, 2013, remains, and CDRH has been continuing to work towards taking an action on this remaining draft guidance.
Looking forward, in FY 2020, CDRH will strive to finalize, withdraw, or reopen the comment period for 50 percent of existing draft guidances issued prior to October 1, 2014.
At the website where CDRH has posted the “A-list” and “B-list” for FY 2020, CDRH has also posted a list of final guidance documents that issued in 2010, 2000, 1990, and 1980 for our annual review of previously issued final guidances.
Consistent with the Good Guidance Practices regulation at 21 CFR 10.115(f)(4), CDRH would appreciate suggestions that CDRH revise or withdraw an already existing guidance document. We request that the suggestion clearly explain why the guidance document should be revised or withdrawn and, if applicable, how it should be revised. While we are requesting feedback on the list of previously issued final guidances located in the annual agenda website, feedback on any guidance is appreciated and will be considered.
In FY 2019, CDRH received comments regarding guidances issued in 2009, 1999, and 1989, and has withdrawn three guidance documents in response to comments received and because these guidance documents were determined to no longer represent the Agency's current thinking. The revision of several guidance documents is also being considered as resources permit.
This notice announces the website location of the document that provides the A and B lists of guidance documents, which CDRH is intending to publish during FY 2020. To access these two lists, visit FDA's website at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by November 14, 2019.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
FDA's “Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures” regulation (21 CFR part 11) requires that we identify in the Electronic Submission Docket (Docket No. FDA-1992-S-0039) the types of documents or parts of documents acceptable for official electronic submission. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has placed notifications in that docket identifying documents acceptable for electronic submission to the Center, as required by 21 CFR 11.2. CVM's ability to receive and process information submitted electronically is limited by its current information technology capabilities and the requirements of FDA's “Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures” regulation.
The FDA Electronic Submissions Gateway (ESG) is an Agency-wide solution for accepting electronic regulatory submissions. The FDA ESG enables the secure submission of premarket and postmarket regulatory information for review. The FDA ESG is the central transmission point for sending information electronically to FDA. Within that context, the FDA ESG is a conduit along which submissions travel to reach the proper FDA Center or Office. The CVM's Electronic Submission System (ESS) is a Center-wide solution for accepting electronic regulatory submissions. The CVM ESS is used to accept electronic submissions for animal and veterinary products.
Our Guidance for Industry (GFI) #108 entitled “Registering with the Center for Veterinary Medicine's Electronic Submission System” outlines general standards to be used for the submission of any electronic information to CVM using the FDA ESG, including how to register with the CVM ESS using Form FDA 3538, “Electronic Submission System Participant Management.” Registering with the CVM ESS allows respondents to send electronic regulatory submissions to the Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, the Office of Surveillance and Compliance's Division of Animal Feeds and Division of Surveillance, and the Office of Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Drug Development.
Respondents use GFI #108 and Form FDA 3538 to facilitate the electronic submission of regulatory information. We use the information collected with Form FDA 3538 to register respondents to use the CVM ESS.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
In the 60-day notice published April 16, 2019, we based our estimate of 179 respondents per year on our experience with the submission of electronic information using the CVM ESS and the number of electronic registration or change requests received between January 1, 2018, and November 30, 2018. We are now adjusting our estimate to 193 respondents per year to better reflect the data for the time period January 1 to December 31, 2018. Using these new figures, our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall increase from the previous OMB approval of 17 hours and a corresponding increase of 213 responses. We attribute this adjustment to the reauthorizations of both the Animal Drug User Fee Act and the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act, which require sponsors to submit information electronically to the CVM's Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation. Because of this requirement, sponsors are now registering to use the CVM ESS in greater numbers than in previous years.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by December 16, 2019.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before December 16, 2019. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• 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
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
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. “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 provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) into law. The Tobacco Control Act amended section 201
FDA created a Tobacco Call Center (with a toll-free number: 1-877-CTP-1373). Callers can report potential violations of the Tobacco Control Act, and FDA may conduct followup investigations based on information received. When callers report a violation, the caller will be asked to provide as much certain information as they can recall, including: The date the potential violation occurred; product type (
FDA currently provides a form that may be used to solicit this information from the caller (Form FDA 3779, Potential Tobacco Product Violations Report), and seeks renewal of Form FDA 3779. This form is posted on FDA's website. The public and interested stakeholders are also able to report information regarding possible violations of the Tobacco Control Act through the following methods: Calling the Tobacco Call Center using the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) toll-free number; using a fillable Form FDA 3779 found on FDA's website; downloading a PDF version of the form to send via email or mail to FDA; requesting a copy of Form FDA 3779 by contacting CTP and sending by mail to FDA; and sending a letter to FDA's CTP.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA estimates that submitting the information (by telephone, internet form, paper form by mail, or email) will take 0.25 hour (
FDA estimates the number of annual respondents to this collection of information will be 750, who will each submit 2 reports by telephone, internet form, paper form, or email. Each report is expected to take 0.25 hour to complete and submit; therefore, total burden hours for this collection of information is estimated to be 375 hours (1,500 responses × 0.25 hour per response).
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than December 16, 2019.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
In February 2019, the Administration announced a new initiative,
HRSA identified proposed data collection needs to support HRSA's efforts towards ending the HIV Epidemic. In order to reach this goal, HRSA needs to have the ability to monitor initiative activities including funding allocations, expenditures, service utilization, and clients served; and assess progress toward meeting national goals for ending the HIV epidemic. HRSA proposes that recipients and service providers (subrecipients) who receive EHE initiative funding report on the reach of EHE initiative activities in a new EHE Triannual Module.
This module will provide HRSA with frequent and timely data on EHE Initiative progress by providing information on the number of clients who are reached through the EHE Initiative during each four month reporting period. In addition, HRSA can calculate the number of clients who did not receive services in the previous year by subtracting the number of clients who received services in the previous year and the number of new clients from the total number of clients. This will provide valuable information on the scope of outreach to new clients and clients who have had a lapse in service which could be an indication of re-engagement in care. These calculations will be similar to calculations using the new RSR variables. This module will support project officer monitoring and HRSA's understanding of service provision.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Rural Communities Opioid Response Program—Technical Assistance (RCORP-TA), program supports rural consortiums and opioid recipients that provide treatment for and prevention of substance use disorder with a focus on opioid use disorder. The TA efforts will enhance the organizational and infrastructural capacity of multi-sector consortiums at the community, county, state, and/or regional levels. The overall goal is the reduction of morbidity and mortality associated with opioid overdoses in high-risk rural communities. The RCORP-TA award recipient provides resources and expertise in support of the execution of the following focus areas: (1) Prevention—reducing the occurrence of opioid use disorder (OUD) among new and at-risk users as well as fatal opioid-related overdoses through community and provider education and harm reduction measures including the strategic placement of overdose reversing devices, such as naloxone; (2) treatment—implementing or expanding access to evidence-based practices for opioid addiction/OUD treatment such as medication-assisted treatment, including developing strategies to eliminate or reduce treatment costs to uninsured and underinsured patients; and (3) recovery—expanding peer recovery and treatment options to help people start and stay in recovery.
The RCORP-TA initiative is part of a multi-year, opioid focused effort by HRSA that will include: Improving access to and recruitment of new substance use disorder providers; building sustainable treatment resources; increasing the use of telehealth; establishing cross-sector community partnerships; implementing new models of care, including integrated behavioral health; and providing technical assistance.
Public Health Service Act, Section 330A (f) (42 U.S.C. 254c (f)), as amended.
The RCORP-TA program was announced under HRSA-18-124. In FY 2018, HRSA funded this program at up to $3,000,000 per year to one awardee, JBS International, Inc., for a period of performance for up to 4 years. RCORP-TA program was competed in late FY 2018. At the time of the award, RCORP-TA recipient was expected to provide technical assistance to 75 opioid award recipients. The current RCORP-TA recipient is expected to support approximately 318 opioid award recipients. As a result of this increase in opioid award recipients, the RCORP-TA recipient will need additional funds to expand its capacity to provide TA services. Supplemental funding is required for the current RCOPR-TA award recipient to provide TA services to the additional 243 opioid award recipients. These additional funds will enable the current recipient to provide high quality TA.
Further information on the Telehealth Focused Rural Health Research Center is available at:
Marcia Colburn, Program Coordinator, RCORP-TA, (301) 443-3261,
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before December 16, 2019.
Submit your comments to
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-New-60D, and project title for reference, to Sherrette Funn, the Reports Clearance Officer,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material,
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0025 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until December 16, 2019.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0075 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0029. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The Form I-864A is a contract between the sponsor and the sponsor's household members. It is only required if the sponsor used income of his or her household members to reach the required 125 percent of the Federal poverty guideline. The contract holds these household members jointly and severally liable for the support of the sponsored immigrant. The information collection required on Form I-864A is necessary for public benefit agencies to enforce the Affidavit of Support in the event the sponsor used income of his or her household members to reach the required income level and the public benefit agencies are requesting reimbursement from the sponsor.
The Form I-864EZ will be used by the USCIS in exactly the same way as Form I-864, however, the USCIS will collect less information from the sponsors as less information will be needed from those who qualify in order to make a thorough adjudication.
(5)
(6)
(7)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received a written request from Hixon Properties Incorporated to renew an existing Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA). The participants in the SHA are OX Ranch (Hixon Properties Incorporated and affiliated business entities doing business collectively), the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the Service. Continued implementation of the SHA is intended to benefit the recovery of the federally listed threatened northern Idaho ground squirrel in Adams County, Idaho. The Service is making the proposed SHA renewal and our draft environmental action statement (EAS) available for public review and comment.
All comments from interested parties must be received on or before November 14, 2019.
To request further information, obtain copies of documents, or submit written comments, please use one of the following methods. Please include your name and return address in your comments and refer to the “Safe Harbor Agreement for Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel”:
•
•
•
•
•
Greg Burak, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received a written request dated May 30, 2019, from Hixon Properties Incorporated to renew an existing Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) for an additional 5 years beyond its current expiration date of September 28, 2019. The existing enhancement of survival permit (permit) associated with the SHA was issued August 13, 2009, pursuant to the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the ESA. Under the ESA, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term “harm,” as defined in our regulations, includes significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harass” is defined in our regulations as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Under specified circumstances, however, we may issue permits that authorize take of federally listed species, provided the take is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing permits for threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.32.
Under a SHA, participating landowners voluntarily undertake management activities on their property to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting species listed under the ESA. SHAs, and the subsequent permit issued to participating landowners pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA, encourage private and other non-Federal property owners to implement conservation actions for federally listed species by assuring the landowners that they will not be subjected to increased property use restrictions as a result of their efforts to either attract listed species to their property, or to increase the numbers or distribution of listed species already on their property. Enrolled landowners may make lawful use of the enrolled property during the permit term and may incidentally take the listed species named on the permit. Application requirements and issuance criteria for permits associated with SHAs are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22(c) and 17.32(c). As provided for in the Service's final Safe Harbor Policy (64 FR 32717; June 17, 1999), SHAs provide assurances that allow the property owner to alter or modify their enrolled property, even if such alteration or modification results in the incidental take of a listed species, to such an extent that the property is returned back to the originally agreed upon baseline conditions. Private landowners may voluntarily terminate an SHA at any time and in accordance with 50 CFR 13.26. If this occurs, landowners must relinquish the associated incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA.
The private lands covered under the existing SHA and permit consist of 7,783 ac on the OX Ranch, and are located just north of Bear, in Adams County, Idaho. Northern Idaho ground squirrels currently occupy 610 ac of the covered area. The 610 ac is considered the baseline. When the existing permit expires on September 28, 2024, the OX Ranch is allowed to return their property to baseline.
The expected net conservation benefit to the northern Idaho ground squirrel as a result of the SHA is the maintenance of the 610-ac baseline area, allowing researchers affiliated with the Service or IDFG to access OX Ranch property; requiring notification of the Service and IDFG prior to activities that will result in “take” of the species so that they may capture and relocate affected individuals if appropriate; allowing the Service and IDFG personnel access to the property to conduct ground squirrel conservation activities approved by the applicant such as habitat maintenance and enhancement, ground squirrel surveys, and translocation of ground squirrels; and establishing some limits on the conduct of chemical rodent control in the squirrel management area. In addition, the applicant may also work with the Service and others to implement timber-related habitat enhancement measures that will potentially increase habitat for squirrels within the covered area. The biological goal of northern Idaho ground squirrel
The SHA management actions to benefit the northern Idaho ground squirrel include habitat maintenance and enhancement, predator/competitor control, shooting prohibitions, outreach, surveys, monitoring, and research.
The OX Ranch has met obligations outlined in the 2009 SHA. For example, they have carried out habitat enhancement projects on their land and have participated in multiple habitat enhancement studies by providing access to their property for research purposes (
The renewal of the SHA is a Federal action that triggers the need for compliance with NEPA. The Service has made a preliminary determination that the proposed SHA renewal is eligible for categorical exclusion under NEPA, based on the following criteria: (1) Implementation of the SHA would result in minor or negligible adverse effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of the SHA would result in minor or negligible adverse effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) impacts of the SHA, considered together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects, would not result, over time, in cumulative adverse effects to environmental values or resources which would be considered significant. We explain the basis for this determination in more detail in an EAS that is also available for public review.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in the
All comments and materials we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we use in preparing the EAS, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at our Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is announcing that the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children will hold its next meeting in Albuquerque, NM, November 13-15, 2019. The purpose of the meeting is to meet the mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA) for Indian children with disabilities.
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 and Thursday, November 14, 2019 and Friday, November 15, 2019 all Advisory Board members will meet in-session from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Mountain Time. The Advisory Board will hold an orientation session for members only on Friday, November 15, 2019 from 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Mountain Time. The public commenting session will occur on Friday, November 15, 2019 from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Mountain Time.
The orientation and public meetings will be held at the 1011 Indian School Rd. NW, 3rd floor in the Large Conference in Albuquerque, NM 87104; telephone number (602) 240-8597.
Jennifer Davis, Designated Federal Officer, Bureau of Indian Education, 2600 N Central Ave., Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, email at
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the BIE is announcing that the Advisory Board will hold its next meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Advisory Board was established under the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 (20 U.S.C. 1400
The following items will be on the agenda:
* During the November 15, 2019 meeting, time has been set aside for
5 U.S.C. Appendix 5; 20 U.S.C. 1400
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice announces the extension of the Class III gaming compact between the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota and the State of South Dakota.
The extension takes effect on October 15, 2019.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
An extension to an existing Tribal-State Class III gaming compact does not require approval by the Secretary if the extension does not modify any other terms of the compact. 25 CFR 293.5. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota and the State of South Dakota have reached an agreement to extend the expiration date of their existing Tribal-State Class III gaming compact to February 15, 2020. This publication provides notice of the new expiration date of the compact.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on welded stainless steel pressure pipe from China, and the antidumping duty orders on welded stainless steel pressure pipe from Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
September 6, 2019.
Abu Kanu (202-205-2597), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to these reviews must be served on all other parties to these reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted this investigation effective March 28, 2018, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Chattem Chemicals Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee, and GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc., Lafayette, Indiana. Effective October 31, 2018, the Commission established a general schedule
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determination in this investigation on October 8, 2019. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4977 (October 2019), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty
October 4, 2019.
(Julie Duffy (202) 708-2579), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 9) of the presiding Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) granting complainants' motions to amend the complaint and notice of investigation.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
On June 25, 2019, the Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-1163,
On September 6, 2019, Complainants filed a motion (Motion Docket No. 1163-004 (“Mot. 004”)) seeking leave to amend the complaint and NOI to add allegations of infringement of claim 9 of the '118 patent against respondents MLS Co., Ltd. of Zhongshan City, China; LEDVANCE GmbH of Garching, Germany; and LEDVANCE LLC of Wilmington, Massachusetts (collectively, “MLS/LEDVANCE”). On September 11, 2019, Complainants filed a motion (Motion Docket No. 1163-005 (“Mot. 005”)) seeking leave to amend the complaint and NOI to add allegations of infringement of claim 9 of the '118 patent against respondents Acuity Brands, Inc. of Wilmington, Massachusetts and Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. of Conyers, Georgia (collectively, “Acuity”).
On September 16, 2019, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 9) granting the motions. The ID finds that good cause exists to allow the proposed amendments because Complainants did not obtain facts showing the alleged infringement of claim 9 until after receiving discovery from MLS/LEDVANCE and Acuity. ID at 2 (citing Mot. 004 at 4-6; Mot. 005 at 4-6). The ID further finds that any potential prejudice to MLS/LEDVANCE and Acuity is minimal because claim 9 comprises elements similar to elements present in claims already asserted against these parties.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
United States Trustee Program, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, United States Trustee Program, is submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until November 14, 2019.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Juliet Drake, Deputy Assistant Director, Executive Office for United States Trustees, 441 G Street NW, Suite 6150, Washington, DC 20530,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The BAPCPA requires individual debtors in bankruptcy cases to complete a personal financial management instructional course given by a provider that has been approved by the United States Trustee as a condition of receiving a discharge. The Application collects information from such providers in order to ensure compliance with the law and the Rule.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
United States Trustee Program, Department of Justice.
30 Day notice.
The Department of Justice, United States Trustee Program, is submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until November 14, 2019.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Juliet Drake, Deputy Assistant Director, Executive Office for United States Trustees, 441 G Street NW, Suite 6150, Washington, DC 20530,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The BAPCPA requires any individual who wishes to file for bankruptcy to obtain credit counseling, within 180 days before filing for bankruptcy relief, from a nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency that has been approved by the United States Trustee. The Application collects information from such agencies in order to ensure compliance with the law and the Rule.
5.
6.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.
All comments on the petitions must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before November 14, 2019.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Sheila McConnell, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(1) To comply with requirements for mine ventilation maps and mine maps in 30 CFR 75.372 and 75.1200, use of the most practical and accurate surveying equipment is necessary.
(2) The operator utilizes the continuous mining method.
(3) Mechanical surveying equipment has been obsolete for a number of years. Such equipment of acceptable quality is not commercially available. Further, it is difficult, if not impossible, to have such equipment serviced or repaired.
(4) Accurate surveying is critical to the safety of the miners at the mine. Electronic surveying equipment is, at a minimum, 8 to 10 times more accurate than mechanical equipment.
(5) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to miners. Underground mining by its nature, size, and complexity of mine plans requires that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner.
As an alternative to the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:
(a) The operator may use the following total stations and theodolites and similar low-voltage battery-operated total stations and theodolites if they have an ingress protection (IP) rating of 66 or greater in or inby the last open crosscut, subject to this petition:
(b) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible total stations and theodolites, data loggers, and laser distance meters. All nonpermissible electronic total stations and theodolites will have an IP 66 or greater rating.
(c) The operator will maintain a logbook for electronic surveying equipment with the equipment, or in the location where mine record books are kept, or in the location where the surveying record books are kept. The logbook will contain the date of manufacture and/or purchase of each particular piece of electronic surveying equipment. The logbook will be made available to MSHA on request.
(d) All nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment to be used in or inby the last open crosscut will be examined by the person who operates the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. The result of these examinations will be recorded in the logbook and will include:
(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;
(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion;
(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;
(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections; and
(v) Checking the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(e) The equipment will be examined at least weekly by a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153. The examination results will be recorded weekly in the equipment logbook and will be maintained for at least 1 year.
(f) The operator will ensure that all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service will be recorded in the equipment's logbook and will include a description of the work performed.
(g) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of this petition.
(h) Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while such equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and withdrawn outby the last open crosscut. All requirements of 30 CFR 75.323 will be complied with prior to entering in or inby the last open crosscut.
(i) Prior to setting up and energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut, the surveyor(s) will conduct a visual examination of the immediate area for evidence that the area appears to be sufficiently rock-dusted and for the presence of accumulated float coal dust. If the rock-dusting appears insufficient or the presence of accumulated float coal dust is observed, the equipment will not be energized until sufficient rock-dust has been applied and/or the accumulations of float coal dust have been cleaned up. If nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is to be used in an area not rock-dusted within 40 feet of a working face where a continuous mining machine is used, the area will be rocked-dusted prior to energizing the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment.
(j) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition, as defined in 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors will provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected at or above 1.0 percent.
(k) Prior to energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut, methane tests will be made in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323(a). Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used in or inby the open crosscut when production is occurring.
(l) Prior to surveying, the area will be examined according to 30 CFR 75.360. If the area has not been examined, a supplemental examination according to 30 CFR 75.361 will be performed before any non-certified person enters the area.
(m) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut. If there are two people in the surveying crew, both persons will continuously monitor for methane. The other person will either be a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, or be in the process of being trained to be a qualified person but has yet to make such tests for a period of 6 months, as required in 30 CFR 75.150. Upon completion of the 6-month training period, the second person on the surveying crew must become qualified, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, in order to continue on the surveying crew. If the surveying crew consists of one person, that person will monitor for methane with two separate devices.
(n) Batteries contained in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air outby the last open crosscut. Replacement batteries will be carried only in the compartment provided for a spare battery in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment carrying case. Before each shift of surveying, all batteries for the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be charged sufficiently so that they are not expected to be replaced on that shift.
(o) When using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut, the surveyor will confirm by measurement or by inquiry of the person in charge of the section, that the air quantity on the section, on that shift, in or inby the last open crosscut is at least the minimum quantity that is required by the mine's ventilation plan.
(p) Personnel engaged in the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.
(q) All members of the surveying crew will receive specific training on the terms and conditions of the petition before using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut. A record of the training will be kept with the other training records.
(r) If the petition is granted, the operator will submit within 60 days after the petition is final, proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the petition. When training is conducted on the terms and conditions in the petition, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) will be completed and will indicate that it was surveyor training.
(s) The operator will replace or retire from service any electronic surveying instrument that was acquired prior to December 31, 2004 within 1 year of the petition becoming final. Within 3 years of the date that the petition becomes final, the operator will replace or retire from service any theodolite that was acquired more than 5 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final or any total station or other electronic surveying equipment identified in this petition and acquired more than 10 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final. After 5 years, the operator will maintain a cycle of purchasing new electronic surveying equipment whereby theodolites will be no older than 5 years from the date of manufacture and total stations and other electronic surveying equipment will be no older than 10 years from the date of manufacture.
(t) The operator will ensure that all surveying contractors hired by the operator are using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in accordance with the terms and conditions of this petition. The conditions of use in the petition will apply to all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut, regardless of whether the equipment is used by the operator or by an independent contractor.
(u) The petitioner states that it may use nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment when production is occurring, subject to the following conditions:
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) To comply with requirements for mine ventilation maps and mine maps in 30 CFR 75.372 and 75.1200(a), use of the most practical and accurate surveying equipment is necessary.
(2) The operator utilizes the continuous miner method of mining.
(3) Mechanical surveying equipment has been obsolete for a number of years. Such equipment of acceptable quality is not commercially available. Further it is difficult, if not impossible, to have such equipment serviced or repaired.
(4) Accurate surveying is critical to the safety of the miners at the mine. Electronic surveying equipment is, at a minimum, 8 to 10 times more accurate than mechanical equipment.
(5) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to miners. Underground mining by its nature, size, and complexity of mine plans requires that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner.
As an alternative to the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:
(a) The operator may use the following total stations and theodolites and similar low-voltage battery-operated total stations and theodolites if they have an ingress protection (IP) rating of 66 or greater in return airways, subject to this petition:
(b) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible total stations and theodolites, data loggers, and laser distance meters. All nonpermissible electronic total stations and theodolites will have an IP 66 or greater rating.
(c) The operator will maintain a logbook for electronic surveying equipment with the equipment, or in the location where mine record books are kept, or in the location where the surveying record books are kept. The logbook will contain the date of manufacture and/or purchase of each particular piece of electronic surveying equipment. The logbook will be made available to MSHA on request.
(d) All nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment to be used in return airways will be examined by the person who operates the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. The result of these examinations will be recorded in the logbook and will include:
(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;
(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion;
(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;
(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections; and
(v) Checking the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(e) The equipment will be examined at least weekly by a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153. The examination results will be recorded weekly in the equipment logbook and will be maintained for at least 1 year.
(f) The operator will ensure that all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service will be recorded in the equipment's logbook and will include a description of the work performed.
(g) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used in return airways will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of this petition.
(h) Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while such equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and withdrawn out of return airways. All requirements of 30 CFR 75.323 will be complied with prior to entering in return airways.
(i) Prior to setting up and energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in return airways, the surveyor(s) will conduct a visual examination of the immediate area for evidence that the area appears to be sufficiently rock-dusted and for the presence of accumulated float coal dust. If the rock dusting appears insufficient or the presence of accumulated float coal dust is observed, the equipment will not be energized until sufficient rock-dust has been applied and/or the accumulations of float coal dust have been cleaned up. If nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is to be used in an area not rock-dusted within 40 feet of a working face where a continuous mining machine is used, the area will be rocked-dusted prior to energizing the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment.
(j) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition, as defined in 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors will provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected at or above 1.0 percent.
(k) Prior to energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in return airways, methane tests will be made in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323(a). Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used in return airways when production is occurring.
(l) Prior to surveying, the area will be examined according to 30 CFR 75.360. If the area has not been examined, a supplemental examination according to 30 CFR 75.361 will be performed before any non-certified person enters the area.
(m) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in return airways. If there are two people in the surveying crew, both persons will continuously monitor for methane. The other person will either be a qualified
(n) Batteries contained in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air out of return airways. Replacement batteries will be carried only in the compartment provided for a spare battery in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment carrying case. Before each shift of surveying, all batteries for the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be charged sufficiently so that they are not expected to be replaced on that shift.
(o) When using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in return airways, the surveyor will confirm by measurement or by inquiry of the person in charge of the section, that the air quantity on the section, on that shift, in return airways is at least the minimum quantity that is required by the mine's ventilation plan.
(p) Personnel engaged in the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.
(q) All members of the surveying crew will receive specific training on the terms and conditions of the petition before using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in return airways. A record of the training will be kept with the other training records.
(r) If the petition is granted, the operator will submit within 60 days after the petition is final, proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the petition. When training is conducted on the terms and conditions in the petition, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) will be completed and will indicate that it was surveyor training.
(s) The operator will replace or retire from service any electronic surveying instrument that was acquired prior to December 31, 2004 within 1 year of the petition becoming final. Within 3 years of the date that the petition becomes final, the operator will replace or retire from service any theodolite that was acquired more than 5 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final or any total station or other electronic surveying equipment identified in this petition and acquired more than 10 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final. After 5 years, the operator will maintain a cycle of purchasing new electronic surveying equipment whereby theodolites will be no older than 5 years from the date of manufacture and total stations and other electronic surveying equipment will be no older than 10 years from the date of manufacture.
(t) The operator will ensure that all surveying contractors hired by the operator are using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in accordance with the terms and conditions of this petition. The conditions of use in the petition will apply to all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used in return airways, regardless of whether the equipment is used by the operator or by an independent contractor.
(u) The petitioner states that it may use nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment when production is occurring, subject to the following conditions:
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) To comply with requirements for mine ventilation maps and mine maps in 30 CFR 75.372, 75.1002(a), and 75.1200, use of the most practical and accurate surveying equipment is necessary. It is necessary to determine the exact location and extent of mine workings to ensure the safety of miners in active mines and to protect miners in future mines which may mine in close proximity to the active mines.
(2) The operator utilizes the continuous miner method of mining.
(3) Mechanical surveying equipment has been obsolete for a number of years. Such equipment of acceptable quality is not commercially available. Further it is difficult, if not impossible, to have such equipment serviced or repaired.
(4) Accurate surveying is critical to the safety of the miners at the mine. Electronic surveying equipment is, at a minimum, 8 to 10 times more accurate than mechanical equipment.
(5) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to miners. Underground mining by its nature, size, and complexity of mine plans requires that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner.
As an alternative to the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:
(a) The operator may use the following total stations and theodolites and similar low-voltage battery-operated total stations and theodolites if they have an ingress protection (IP) rating of 66 or greater within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces, subject to this petition:
(b) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is low-voltage or battery-powered nonpermissible total stations and theodolites, data loggers, and laser distance meters. All nonpermissible electronic total stations and theodolites will have an IP 66 or greater rating.
(c) The operator will maintain a logbook for electronic surveying equipment with the equipment, or in the location where mine record books are kept, or in the location where the surveying record books are kept. The logbook will contain the date of manufacture and/or purchase of each particular piece of electronic surveying equipment. The logbook will be made available to MSHA on request.
(d) All nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment to be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will be examined by the person who operates the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. The result of these examinations will be recorded in the logbook and will include:
(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;
(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion;
(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;
(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections; and
(v) Checking the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(e) The equipment will be examined at least weekly by a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153. The examination results will be recorded weekly in the equipment logbook and will be maintained for at least 1 year.
(f) The operator will ensure that all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service will be recorded in the equipment's logbook and will include a description of the work performed.
(g) The nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of this petition.
(h) Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while such equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and withdrawn further than 150 feet from pillar workings and longwall faces. All requirements of 30 CFR 75.323 will be complied with prior to entering within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.
(i) Prior to setting up and energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces, the surveyor(s) will conduct a visual examination of the immediate area for evidence that the area appears to be sufficiently rock-dusted and for the presence of accumulated float coal dust. If the rock dusting appears insufficient or the presence of accumulated float coal dust is observed, the equipment will not be energized until sufficient rock-dust has been applied and/or the accumulations of float coal dust have been cleaned up. If nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment is to be used in an area not rock-dusted within 40 feet of a working face where a continuous mining machine is used, the area will be rocked-dusted prior to energizing the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment.
(j) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition, as defined in 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors will provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected at or above 1.0 percent.
(k) Prior to energizing nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings and longwall faces, methane tests will be made in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323(a). Nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will not be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces when production is occurring.
(l) Prior to surveying, the area will be examined according to 30 CFR 75.360. If the area has not been examined, a supplemental examination according to 30 CFR 75.361 will be performed before any non-certified person enters the area.
(m) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings and longwall faces. If there are two people in the surveying crew, both persons will continuously monitor for methane. The other person will either be a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, or be in the process of being trained to be a qualified person but has yet to make such tests for a period of 6 months, as required in 30 CFR 75.150. Upon completion of the 6-month training period, the second person on the surveying crew must become qualified, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, in order to continue on the surveying crew. If the surveying crew consists of one person, that person will monitor for methane with two separate devices.
(n) Batteries contained in the nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air more than 150 feet from pillar workings or longwall faces. Replacement batteries will be carried only in the compartment provided for a
(o) When using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces, the surveyor will confirm by measurement or by inquiry of the person in charge of the section, that the air quantity on the section, on that shift, within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces is at least the minimum quantity that is required by the mine's ventilation plan.
(p) Personnel engaged in the use of nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of such equipment in areas where methane could be present.
(q) All members of the surveying crew will receive specific training on the terms and conditions of the petition before using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces. A record of the training will be kept with the other training records.
(r) If the petition is granted, the operator will submit within 60 days after the petition is final, proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the petition. When training is conducted on the terms and conditions in the petition, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) will be completed and will indicate that it was surveyor training.
(s) The operator will replace or retire from service any electronic surveying instrument that was acquired prior to December 31, 2004 within 1 year of the petition becoming final. Within 3 years of the date that the petition becomes final, the operator will replace or retire from service any theodolite that was acquired more than 5 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final or any total station or other electronic surveying equipment identified in this petition and acquired more than 10 years prior to the date that the petition becomes final. After 5 years, the operator will maintain a cycle of purchasing new electronic surveying equipment whereby theodolites will be no older than 5 years from the date of manufacture and total stations and other electronic surveying equipment will be no older than 10 years from the date of manufacture.
(t) The operator will ensure that all surveying contractors hired by the operator are using nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment in accordance with the terms and conditions of this petition. The conditions of use in the petition will apply to all nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces, regardless of whether the equipment is used by the operator or by an independent contractor.
(u) The petitioner states that it may use nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment when production is occurring, subject to the following conditions:
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.
All comments on the petitions must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before November 14, 2019.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Sheila McConnell, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(1) The ventilation seals in place at the mine that are the subject of this petition meet or exceed the strength requirements of 30 CFR 75.335(a)(2)(i) for 120-psi rated seals and that all evaluations have been made to conclude that this seal type, rating, and construction are suitable for the mine conditions where the ventilation seals are installed.
(2) The existing seals in the mine between the Lower Kittanning and Clarion workings were constructed during a moratorium on seal construction between 2006 and 2008. To comply with MSHA standards and anticipating future standards requiring stronger seals, seals were proposed and designed by the operator and approved by MSHA in the operator's ventilation plan. The installed seals were Mitchell-Barrett seals that were enhanced to increase the strength of the structures. These are referred to as Super-Mitchell seals. At least one of the forms for the concrete plug seal was a Super-Mitchell seal where these seals were installed.
(3) The Super-Mitchell seals were installed in the approach to the return and intake shafts between the Lower Kittanning and Clarion workings. After the seals were finished and the shafts had been excavated, the space between the Super-Mitchell seals and the shaft wall inside diameter was filled with a reinforced concrete structure, a concrete plug seal, as part of the shaft concrete lining process. This concrete plug seal provided a second continuous seal structure which is nearly identical to the MSHA-approved seal design, Approval Number 120M-03.0 and the plug seal formula from the NIOSH IC 9500, “Explosion Pressure Design Criteria for New Seals in U.S. Coal Mines.”
(4) The openings in the Lower Kittanning seam were sealed with Super-Mitchell seals and the concrete plug seal. In consultation with MSHA, the operator designated one seal at the turnout as the lowest seal in the set and that seal was outfitted with a water trap and sample pipe. The mine has an approved UIC permit which requires monitoring and control of the water levels in the sealed workings.
(5) Under the current standards, these seals are treated as 50-psi seals.
As an alternative to the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:
(a) The eleven seals separating the Lower Kittanning and Clarion workings have a strength of at least the 120-psi seal required by the standard and should be treated as 120-psi seals under the current standards.
(b) Documentation of the seals' design and construction are available at the mine.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection for all miners than that of the existing standard.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Human Exploration and Operations Committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Committee reports to the NAC.
Tuesday, October 29, 2019, 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Wednesday, October 30, 2019, 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
NASA Kennedy Space Center, Operations and Checkout (O&C) Conference Room 2769, Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899.
Dr. Bette Siegel, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2245, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. This meeting is also available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA Kennedy Space Center security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to NASA Security before access to NASA Kennedy Space Center. To attend the meeting in person, attendees that are U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) are requested to provide full name and citizenship status no less than 3 working days prior to the meeting. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 15 days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; passport information (number, country, telephone); visa information (number, type, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. Information should be sent to Dr. Bette Siegel via email at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC).
Thursday, October 31, 2019, 10:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; and Friday, November 1, 2019, 8:30 a.m.-12:00 noon, Eastern Time.
NASA Kennedy Space Center, Headquarters Building, Conference Room 7212, Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899.
Ms. Marcia Joseph, NAC Administrative Officer, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4717 or
This meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the meeting room. This meeting is also available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the toll-free number 1-888-324-3866 or toll number 1-517-308-9316 and then the numeric passcode 5441938, followed by the # sign, on both days. NOTE: If dialing in, please “mute” your phone. To join via WebEx, the link is
The agenda for the meeting will include reports from the following:
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA Kennedy Space Center security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to NASA Security before access to NASA Kennedy Space Center. To attend the meeting in person, attendees that are U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) are requested to provide full name and citizenship status no less than 3 working days prior to the meeting. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 15 days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; passport information (number, country, telephone); visa information (number, type, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. Information should be sent to Ms. Marcia Joseph via email at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Determination of the successful completion of inspections, tests, and analyses.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has determined that specified inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that specified acceptance criteria are met for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4.
Determinations of the successful completion of inspections, tests, and analyses for VEGP Units 3 and 4 takes effect on the dates indicated in the NRC staff's verification evaluation forms for the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC).
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available
•
•
•
Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3025; email:
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC., MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC., MEAG Power SPVP, LLC., and the City of Dalton, Georgia, (hereafter called the licensee) has submitted ITAAC closure notifications (ICNs) under § 52.99(c)(1) of title 10 of the
The ITAAC for VEGP Unit 3 are in Appendix C of the VEGP Unit 3 combined license (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A106). The ITAAC for VEGP Unit 4 are in Appendix C of VEGP Unit 4 combined license (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A135).
Since the last
The NRC staff has determined that the specified inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met. The documentation of the NRC staff's determination is in the ITAAC Closure Verification Evaluation Form (VEF) for each ITAAC. The VEF is a form that represents the NRC staff's structured process for reviewing ICNs and IPCNs.
Each ICN presents a narrative description of how the ITAAC was completed. The NRC's ICN review process involves a determination on whether, among other things: (1) Each ICN provides sufficient information, including a summary of the methodology used to perform the ITAAC, to demonstrate that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed; (2) each ICN provides sufficient information to demonstrate that the acceptance criteria of the ITAAC are met; and (3) any NRC inspections for the ITAAC have been completed and any ITAAC findings associated with that ITAAC have been closed. The NRC's review process for IPCNs is similar to that for ICNs but focuses on how the licensee addressed the new material information giving rise to the IPCN.
The NRC staff's determination of the successful completion of these ITAAC is based on information available at this time and is subject to the licensee's ability to maintain the condition that the acceptance criteria are met. If the NRC staff receives new information that suggests the NRC staff's determination on any of these ITAAC is incorrect, then the NRC staff will determine whether to reopen that ITAAC (including withdrawing the NRC staff's determination on that ITAAC). The NRC staff's determination will be used to support a subsequent finding, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.103(g), at the end of construction that all acceptance criteria in the combined license are met. The ITAAC closure process is not finalized for these ITAAC until the NRC makes an affirmative finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g). Any future updates to the status of these ITAAC will be reflected on the NRC's website at
This notice fulfills the NRC staff's obligations under 10 CFR 52.99(e)(1) to publish a notice in the
A complete list of the review status for VEGP Unit 3 ITAAC, including the submission date and ADAMS accession number for each ICN received, the ADAMS accession number for each VEF, and the ADAMS accession numbers for the inspection reports associated with these specific ITAAC, can be found on the NRC's website at
A complete list of the review status for VEGP Unit 4 ITAAC, including the submission date and ADAMS accession number for each ICN and IPCN received, the ADAMS accession number for each VEF, and the ADAMS accession numbers for the inspection reports associated with these specific ITAAC, can be found on the NRC's website at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption, in response to an April 24, 2019 request from Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO or licensee), from NRC's requirement to comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications in Amendment No. 8 of the NAC International, Inc. (NAC)—Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC) System Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1025, Appendix A “Technical Specifications for NAC-MPC System,” Technical Specifications (TS) A.5.1 “Training Program” at the Haddam Neck Plant (HNP) independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). Specifically, the exemption would relieve the licensee from the requirement to develop training modules under its Systems Approach to Training (SAT) that includes comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System.
This exemption takes effect on October 15, 2019.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0185 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:
•
•
•
Nishka Devaser, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5196; email:
The licensee, CYAPCO, is the holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-61, which authorizes operation of the HNP in Haddam, Connecticut, pursuant to part 50 of title 10 of the
Under subpart K of 10 CFR part 72, a general license has been issued for the storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI at power reactor sites to persons authorized to possess or operate nuclear power reactors under 10 CFR part 50. Under the terms of the general license, CYAPCO stores forty NAC-MPC canisters with spent fuel that are registered under Amendment No. 5 of the NAC-MPC CoC No. 1025. On February 5, 2019, the NRC issued Amendment Nos. 7 and 8 to CoC No. 1025 for the NAC-MPC System.
The licensee has requested an exemption from Amendment No. 8 to the NAC-MPC System CoC No. 1025, Appendix A, TS A.5.1 “Training Program.” CYAPCO seeks an exemption from the requirement to develop a SAT that includes comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI. CYAPCO does not seek an exemption from the requirement to develop a SAT concerning the NAC-MPC system. CYAPCO has also requested an exemption from the requirements of § 72.212(a)(2), § 72.212(b)(3), § 72.212(b)(5)(i), § 72.212(b)(11), and § 72.214 that require compliance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of CoC No. 1025, Amendment No. 8.
• § 72.212(a)(2) states that the general license is limited to storage of spent fuel in casks approved under the provisions of 10 CFR part 72;
• § 72.212(b)(3) states that the general licensee must ensure that each cask used by the general licensee conforms to the terms, conditions, and specifications of a CoC or an amended CoC listed in § 72.214 (the NAC-MPC CoC No. 1025 is listed in § 72.214);
• § 72.212(b)(5)(i) requires that the general licensee perform written evaluations, before use and before applying the changes authorized by an amended CoC to a cask loaded under the initial CoC or an earlier amended CoC, which establish that the cask, once loaded with spent fuel or once the changes authorized by an amended CoC have been applied, will conform to the terms, conditions, and specifications of a CoC or an amended CoC listed in § 72.214;
• § 72.212(b)(11) states, in part, that the licensee shall comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC and, for those casks to which the licensee has applied the changes of an amended CoC, the terms, conditions, and specifications of the amended CoC; and
• § 72.214 lists the approved spent fuel storage casks, which includes CoC No. 1025 and Amendment No. 8.
The NRC has previously granted the same exemption to CYAPCO from the requirements of CoC No. 1025, Amendment No. 4 on September 22, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052660399) and CoC No. 1025, Amendment No. 5 on July 15, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML101960618).
Pursuant to § 72.7, 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 provided the exemptions are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are otherwise in the public interest.
This exemption would permit the registration of CYAPCO's forty NAC-MPC canisters storing spent nuclear fuel to Amendment No. 8 of the CoC No. 1025 for the NAC-MPC System without requiring the licensee to develop training modules under its SAT that includes comprehensive instructions for
The provisions in 10 CFR part 72 from which the licensee is requesting an exemption require the licensee to comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC. Section 72.7 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 72. As explained below, the proposed exemption will not endanger life or property, or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest. Issuance of this exemption is consistent with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and not otherwise inconsistent with NRC's regulations or other applicable laws. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
This exemption would relieve the licensee from meeting Appendix A “Technical Specifications for NAC-MPC System,” TS A.5.1 “Training Program,” which requires the development of training modules under its SAT that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System. The NRC approved the use of the NAC-MPC System in CoC No. 1025 on April 10, 2000. This constituted NRC approval of the conditions for use in storing spent fuel under the general license provisions of § 72.210.
The NRC evaluated the impact to public safety that would result from granting the proposed action. The approval of the proposed action 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 proposed 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. In this regard, and as the ISFSI is located on previously disturbed land, it is extremely unlikely that approval of the proposed action would create any significant impact on the aquatic or terrestrial habitat near 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. Similarly, approval of the proposed action 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 of the HNP ISFSI. On this basis, the staff concludes that the proposed exemption does not pose an increased risk to public health and safety and therefore the exemption will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security.
As noted above, this exemption was previously approved in 2005 and reapproved in 2010. Continuing to apply the exemptions would provide for consistent and efficient regulation of the NAC-MPC System at the HNP ISFSI. Further, the alternative of denying the exemption request would impose an administrative burden on CYAPCO and the NRC that would not provide a significant safety benefit. The requested exemption does not change the fundamental design, components, contents, or safety features of the storage system. Therefore, granting the exemption is otherwise in the public interest.
The NRC staff also considered in the review of this exemption request whether there would be any significant environmental impacts associated with the exemption. The NRC staff determined that this proposed action fits a category of actions that do not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Specifically, the exemption meets the categorical exclusion in § 51.22(c)(25).
Granting this exemption from § 72.212(a)(2), § 72.212(b)(3), § 72.212(b)(5)(i), § 72.212(b)(11), and § 72.214 only relieves the licensee from the requirement to develop training modules under its SAT that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-MPC System. A categorical exclusion for education, training, experience, qualification, requalification or other employment suitability requirements is provided under § 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(E) if the criteria in § 51.22(c)(25)(i)-(v) are also satisfied. In its review of the exemption request, the NRC staff determined, as discussed above, that, under §§ 51.22(c)(25)(i)-(v): (i) Granting the exemption does not involve a significant hazards consideration because granting the exemption neither reduces a margin of safety, creates a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, nor significantly increases either the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (ii) granting the exemption would not produce a significant change in either the types or amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite because the requested exemption neither changes the effluents nor produces additional avenues of effluent release; (iii) granting the exemption would not result in a significant increase in either occupational radiation exposure or public radiation exposure because the requested exemption neither introduces new radiological hazards nor increases existing radiological hazards; (iv) granting the exemption would not result in a significant construction impact because there are no construction activities associated with the requested exemption; and (v) granting the exemption would not increase either the potential or consequences from radiological accidents. Accordingly, this exemption meets the criteria for a categorical exclusion in § 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(E).
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
Based on the foregoing considerations, the NRC staff has determined that, pursuant to § 72.7, the exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, the NRC grants the licensee an exemption from the requirements of § 72.212(a)(2), § 72.212(b)(3), § 72.212(b)(5)(i), § 72.212(b)(11), and § 72.214 only with regard to meeting Appendix A, TS A.5.1 of CoC No. 1025.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of October 14, 21, 28, November 4, 11, 18, 2019.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 14, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 21, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 4, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 11, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 18, 2019.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or by email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Operating license application; acceptance for docketing.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff accepts and dockets an application submitted by SHINE Medical Technologies, LLC (SHINE), dated July 17, 2019, filed pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the NRC's regulations, for an operating license for the SHINE Medical Isotope Production Facility.
This action takes effect on October 15, 2019.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0173 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Steven T. Lynch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-1524; email:
By letter dated July 17, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19211C044), SHINE filed with the NRC, pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act and part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” of title 10 of the
SHINE has proposed to construct and operate a facility in Janesville, Wisconsin for the production of molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) through the irradiation and processing of a uranyl sulfate solution. As described in the operating license application, the proposed facility would comprise an irradiation facility and radioisotope production facility. The irradiation facility would consist of eight subcritical operating assemblies (or irradiation units), which would each be licensed as a utilization facility, as defined in 10 CFR 50.2, “Definitions,” and supporting structures, systems, and components (SSCs) for the irradiation of low enriched uranium. The radioisotope production facility would consist of hot cell structures, licensed collectively as a production facility, as defined in 10 CFR 50.2, and associated SSCs for the processing of irradiated material and extraction and purification of Mo-99. The irradiation facility and radioisotope production facility are collectively referred to as the SHINE Medical Isotope Production Facility. Issuance of the operating license would authorize the applicant to operate the SHINE Medical Isotope Production Facility for a 30-year period.
By letters dated March 26 and May 31, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML13088A192 and ML13172A361, respectively), SHINE (at the time known as SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.) submitted a two-part construction permit application, as updated in 2015, for its eight utilization facilities and one production facility (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML15258A431). The NRC issued Construction Permit No. CPMIF-001 to SHINE on February 29, 2016 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML16041A473), as supported by NUREG-2189, “Safety Evaluation Report Related to SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Construction Permit Application for a Medical Radioisotope Production Facility,” dated August 2016, (ADAMS Accession No. ML16229A140) and NUREG-2183, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility,” dated October 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15288A046).
In accordance with 10 CFR part 2, “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure,” and part 50, the NRC staff performed an acceptance review of the SHINE operating license application and, by letter dated October 8, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19276D411), concluded that the application is acceptable for docketing under Docket Number 50-608.
As part of a detailed technical review of the SHINE application, the NRC staff will prepare and document its findings in a safety evaluation report. Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC staff will also prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
Following additional interactions with SHINE, the NRC staff will establish a review schedule that identifies significant milestones and expected review completion date. Docketing of the application does not preclude the NRC staff from requesting additional information from SHINE as the review proceeds, nor does it predict whether the Commission will grant or deny the operating license.
The application will be referred to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for review and report, which will be provided to the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 50.58, “Hearings and report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.” If the Commission finds that the SHINE operating license application meets the applicable standards of the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations, and that required notifications to other agencies and bodies have been made, the Commission will issue an operating license containing conditions and limitations that the Commission finds appropriate and necessary.
In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.105, “Notice of proposed action,” a separate notice of opportunity to file a petition for leave to intervene in a hearing will be published at a later date.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Special Counsel.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implementing regulations, and the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is seeking comments on renewal of OMB's approval of OSC's updated, dynamic electronic form used to file complaints and disclosures with OSC. The form, known as Form OSC-14, was approved by OMB in September 2017. OSC revised Form OSC-14 in July 2019 to reflect subsequent statutory changes and obtained emergency OMB/OIRA approval of the updated information collection. The final rule authorizing use of Form OSC-14 went into effect on August 26, 2019 and the information collection is currently authorized by OMB Control Number 3255-0005,
Interested persons are invited to submit comments by December 16, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by “Form OSC-14” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All comments received may be posted without change to OSC's website, including any personal information provided.
Susan K. Ullman, General Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, by telephone at (202) 804-7000, or by email at
OSC is a permanent independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency. OSC's basic authorities come from four federal statutes: The Civil Service Reform Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Hatch Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). OSC's primary mission is to safeguard the merit system by protecting federal employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices, especially reprisal for whistleblowing, and to serve as a safe channel for allegations of wrongdoing.
OSC is seeking renewal of the approval for the information collection for Form OSC-14. The electronic form must be used to submit allegations of possible prohibited personnel practices or other prohibited activity for investigation and possible prosecution by OSC and is recommended for filing disclosures of covered wrongdoing for review and possible referral to heads of agencies. The form may also be used by individuals to file complaints under the Hatch Act.
OSC requests that you send your comments on this collection to the location listed in the
OMB Control Number 3255-0005.
The updated electronic form is available on the OSC website at
On August 9, 2019, the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-OCC-2019-007 (“Proposed Rule Change”) pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2019-007 and should be submitted on or before October 30, 2019.
Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act
In order to provide the Commission with sufficient time to consider the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the Proposed Rule Change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Establishment.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing this notice to announce that the Chairman of the Commission, with the concurrence of the other Commissioners, intends to establish the Securities and Exchange Commission Asset Management Advisory Committee.
Written comments may be submitted by the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet submission form (
• Send an email message to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Christian Broadbent or Mark Uyeda,
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.—App, the Commission is publishing this notice that the Chairman of the Commission, with the concurrence of the other Commissioners, intends to establish the Securities and Exchange Commission Asset Management Advisory Committee (the “Committee”). The Chairman of the Commission affirms that the establishment of the Committee is necessary and in the public interest.
The Committee's objectives and scope of its activities are to provide the Commission with (a) diverse perspectives on asset management, including (i) trends and developments affecting investors and market participants, (ii) the effects of globalization, including as it relates to operations, risks and regulation, and (iii) changes in the role of technology and service providers, as well as (b) related advice and recommendations.
No more than 21 voting members will be appointed to the Committee. Such members shall represent a cross-section of those directly affected by, interested in, and/or qualified to provide advice to the Commission on matters related to asset management. The Committee's membership will be balanced fairly in terms of points of view represented. Non-voting members may also be named.
The charter will provide that the duties of the Committee are to be solely advisory. The Commission alone will make any determinations of actions to be taken and policies to be expressed with respect to matters within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Committee will meet at such intervals as are necessary to carry out its functions. The charter contemplates that the full Committee will meet four times annually. Meetings of subgroups or subcommittees of the full Committee may occur more frequently.
The Committee will operate for two years from the date the charter is filed with the appropriate entities or such earlier date as determined by the Commission unless, before the expiration of that time period, it is renewed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Committee may be established 15 days after publication of this notice in the
By the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is being provided that the Securities and Exchange Commission Fixed Income Market Structure Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Monday, November 4, 2019 in Room 443 at the Commission's New York Regional Office, 200 Vesey Street, New York, NY 10281. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Pre-registration is required in order to attend the meeting in person (see below for information on pre-registration). The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
The public meeting will be held on November 4, 2019. Written statements should be received on or before October 30, 2019.
The meeting will be held at the Commission's New York Regional Office, 200 Vesey Street, New York, NY 10281. Written statements may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet submission form (
• Send an email message to
• Send paper statements in triplicate to Vanessa A. Countryman, Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Statements also will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
David Dimitrious, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-5131, or Ben Bernstein, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-5354, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington DC 20549-7010.
All members of the public who wish to attend the meeting in person must register by October 30, 2019. To register, please complete the registration form available at the FIMSAC's web page at
In accordance with Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.-App. 1, and the regulations thereunder, Brett Redfearn, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, has ordered publication of this notice.
On August 1, 2019, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”)
In response to concerns raised in the comments, the MSRB is proposing in Amendment No. 1 to modify the original proposed rule change to state that the underwriter making a recommendation to an issuer regarding a financing structure or product, including, when applicable, a Complex Municipal Securities Financing Recommendation,
In response to concerns raised in the comments, the MSRB is proposing in Amendment No. 1 to modify the original proposed rule change to further supplement the text incorporated into the 2012 Interpretive Notice by the original proposed rule change from the Implementation Guidance
In response to concerns raised in the comments, the MSRB is proposing in Amendment No. 1 to delete text incorporated into the original proposed rule change from the Implementation Guidance that, as originally filed, defines the application of the original proposed rule change to the circumstances of a continuous offering of municipal fund securities.
The MSRB notes that Amendment No. 1 does not revise the portion of the text of the original proposed rule change indicating that the fair dealing obligations outlined in the interpretive notice may serve as one of many bases for dealers acting in a capacity not specifically addressed therein—such as a dealer serving as a primary distributor in a continuous offering of municipal fund securities—to determine how to establish appropriate policies and procedures for ensuring it meets its fair dealing obligations under Rule G-17.
The MSRB is proposing in Amendment No. 1 to revise the original proposed rule change to clarify the particular issuer personnel to whom a disclosure must be delivered and to articulate a uniform and consistent standard in each section of the revised interpretive notice.
The MSRB is proposing in Amendment No. 1 to modify the original proposed rule change with technical revisions that the MSRB intends to improve internal consistency of the proposed rule change and otherwise improve its clarity.
For the avoidance of doubt, in offerings where a syndicate is formed, the disclosure obligation for an underwriter to make its dealer-specific disclosures is triggered—if any such actual material conflicts of interest or potential material conflicts of interest must be so disclosed—when such underwriter becomes engaged as a member of the underwriting syndicate (except with regard to conflicts discovered or arising after such co-managing underwriter has been engaged). Consistent with the obligation of sole underwriters and syndicate managers, each underwriter in the syndicate must make any applicable dealer-specific disclosures discovered or arising after being engaged as an underwriter in the syndicate as soon as practicable after being discovered and with sufficient time for the issuer to fully evaluate such a conflict and its implications.
The MSRB proposes in Amendment No. 1 to delete the “for avoidance of doubt” phrase and to add a comma to the final sentence to improve the clarity of the footnote. The MSRB believes this revision and others similar to it to be of a technical nature.
Relatedly, the original proposed rule change revised the 2012 Interpretive Notice to pluralize certain references to underwriters. The MSRB proposes in Amendment No. 1 to reverse these changes to promote clarity. The proposed rule change also incorporated various references from the Implementation Guidance related to an underwriter's recommendation of a “structure or product,” but did not make conforming references throughout the text. The MSRB proposes in Amendment No. 1 to avoid potential confusion in this regard by revising
As a final example, the original proposed rule change defines the terms “complex municipal securities financing” and “Complex Municipal Financing Recommendation.” In Amendment No. 1, the MSRB proposes to revise the proposed rule change to promote consistency of these concepts by redefining the latter term to “Complex Municipal Securities Financing Recommendation” and make conforming changes throughout the document.
As stated in the original proposed rule change, following the approval of the proposed rule change, the MSRB will publish a regulatory notice within 90 days of the publication of approval in the
The MSRB is requesting accelerated approval of Amendment No. 1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the filing as amended by Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 9, 2019, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) advance notice SR-OCC-2019-805 (“Advance Notice”) pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
Since the proposal contained in the Advance Notice was also filed as a proposed rule change, all public comments received on the proposal are considered regardless of whether the comments are submitted on the proposed rule change or the Advance Notice.
On February 13, 2019, the Commission issued an order disapproving a rule change that OCC proposed regarding a plan to increase OCC's capitalization.
As noted above, OCC proposes to adopt rules describing the determination of the LNAFBE necessary to cover potential general business losses. As proposed, LNAFBE would be a subset of OCC's overall Equity—specifically, cash and cash equivalents, less any approved adjustments—and therefore could not, by definition, exceed Equity. Specifically, OCC proposes to set a “Target Capital Requirement,” which would be based on two components: (i) The amount of LNAFBE determined by OCC to be necessary to ensure compliance with OCC's regulatory obligations, including Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under the Exchange Act;
With respect to the first component of the Target Capital Requirement, to ensure that it is set at a level sufficient to ensure compliance with OCC's regulatory obligations, OCC proposes to set its Target Capital Requirement, at a minimum, equal to the greater of three amounts: (i) An amount equal to six months of OCC's current operating expenses; (ii) the amount determined by OCC's Board to be sufficient to ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and services (“RWD Amount”);
As noted above, OCC proposes to adopt rules that would require it to hold the minimum amount of Equity necessary to cover the Target Capital Requirement. Specifically, OCC proposes to adopt rules pertaining to the monitoring and management of OCC's Equity. Under the proposed rules, OCC's senior management would be responsible for reviewing analyses, including projections of future volume, expenses, cash flows, capital needs and other factors, to help ensure adequate financial resources are available to meet general business obligations. Such analyses would also include a monthly review of whether OCC's Equity falls close to or below the Target Capital Requirement. Under the proposal, OCC would view Equity less than 110 percent of the Target Capital Requirement as falling close to the Target Capital Requirement.
Under the proposal, OCC's senior management would also, on a quarterly basis, review OCC's schedule of fees in consideration of projected operating expenses, projected volumes, anticipated cash flows, and capital needs. Based on its review, OCC's senior management would recommend to OCC's Board Compensation and Performance Committee whether to issue a fee increase, decrease or fee waiver. Additionally, if Equity were to exceed 110 percent of the Target Capital Requirement plus an amount of excess Equity approved for capital expenditures, OCC's Board could reduce the cost of clearing by lowering fees, declaring a fee holiday, or issuing refunds.
OCC stated that resources held to meet OCC's Target Capital Requirement would be in addition to OCC's resources to cover participant defaults.
OCC proposes to establish a plan for replenishing its capital in the event that Equity were to fall below certain thresholds (“Replenishment Plan”). As described above, OCC proposes to establish an Early Warning threshold to define when OCC's Equity falls close enough to the Target Capital Requirement to require action. OCC also proposes to establish two “Trigger Event” thresholds to identify (i) whether OCC's Equity were to fall below the Target Capital Requirement; and (ii) the appropriate response based on the severity and speed of capital deterioration. Further, the proposed Capital Management Policy would require that, on an annual basis, OCC's Management recommend that the Board approve or, as appropriate, modify the Replenishment Plan, and that the Board review and, as appropriate, approve Management's recommendation.
Under the proposed rules, a Trigger Event would occur if OCC's Equity were to remain below 100 percent of the Target Capital Requirement for a period of 90 consecutive calendar days (referred to herein as the “Moderate Trigger Event”). OCC believes that the failure of a fee increase resulting from an Early Warning to increase OCC's Equity above the Target Capital Requirement within 90 days would indicate that corrective action in the form of a fee increase would be insufficient.
As noted above, OCC's Board would be authorized to approve fee increases to address the deterioration of OCC's capital over time. To address the more acute capital replenishment needs posed by the Trigger Events, OCC proposes to authorize the use of two additional resources: (i) Funds held under The Options Clearing Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Plan Trust (“EDCP”);
In response to a Trigger Event, OCC would be required to replenish its capital first through the contribution of the EDCP Unvested Balance. The amount of the EDCP Unvested Balance contributed would be the lesser of (i) the entire EDCP Unvested Balance or (ii) the amount necessary to raise OCC's Equity above 110 percent of the Target Capital Requirement. If a contribution of the entire EDCP Unvested balance were necessary, OCC would be required to reevaluate its Equity vis-à-vis the Target Capital Requirement to determine whether further action would be required following such a contribution.
The proposed rules would require that OCC take further action if, after contributing the entire EDCP Unvested Balance, either: (i) Equity were to remain above 90 percent, but below 100 percent, of the Target Capital Requirement for an additional 90-day period;
The proposed rules would permit OCC to charge amounts only up to the maximum Operational Loss Fee. If, after charging some amount less than the maximum Operational Loss Fee, OCC were to issue clearing fee refunds to manage excess capital, OCC would issue such refunds in equal shares until the amount of the Operational Loss Fee charged to each Clearing Member had been fully refunded. If OCC were to
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the advance notice is consistent with the Clearing Supervision Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2019-805 and should be submitted on or before October 30, 2019.
As noted above, the Commission received comments on the substance of the proposal. In its comment, the FIA requests clarification regarding certain aspects of OCC's proposal, raises concerns about other aspects, and generally expresses the hope that its concerns will be addressed prior to the approval of the related Proposed Rule Change.
With respect to allocating a potential capital shortfall through the Operational Loss Fee, the FIA acknowledges that OCC has a hybrid ownership structure whereby it is owned by exchanges rather than members, and that OCC previously proposed to allocate capital shortfalls to shareholders rather than Clearing Members, but that proposal was disapproved by the Commission, and that as a result of those factors, OCC has now proposed to raise replenishment capital through the Operational Loss Fee. However, FIA expresses the belief that imposing the Operational Loss Fee on Clearing Members without providing a return is inequitable and that, ideally, OCC's shareholders should either be required to provide “similar such commitment or allow for an equity dilution.”
The FIA agrees with OCC's proposal to apportion equally resources raised from Clearing Members, but suggests that OCC should clarify the mechanism for returning such resources.
Contrary to the FIA's comment, LPL expresses the belief that the proposal to allocate the Operational Loss fee in equal shares among OCC's Clearing Members would be inequitable, and therefore, in contravention of Exchange Act Section 17A(b)(3)(D).
The FIA expresses the belief that any Board decision that results in the imposition of an Operational Loss Fee
The FIA notes that, as a general matter, it believes that non-default losses should not be allocated to Clearing Members and that a CCP should absorb such losses through its capital,
Finally, the FIA urges OCC to provide disclosures on any expenses or losses that could result in the Operational Loss Fee being charged, which the FIA asserts would assist Clearing Members in their own risk management.
Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard of review for an advance notice, the stated purpose of the Clearing Supervision Act is instructive: To mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial market utilities (“SIFMUs”) and strengthening the liquidity of SIFMUs.
Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act
• To promote robust risk management;
• to promote safety and soundness;
• to reduce systemic risks; and
• to support the stability of the broader financial system.
Section 805(c) provides, in addition, that the Commission's risk-management standards may address such areas as risk-management and default policies and procedures, among other areas.
The Commission has adopted risk-management standards under Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act and Section 17A of the Exchange Act (the “Clearing Agency Rules”).
The Commission believes that the Advance Notice is consistent with the stated objectives and principles of Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
LPL's and SIG's comments are also directed at the Proposed Rule Change and will be addressed in that
The Commission believes that the proposed changes pertaining to capital monitoring and replenishment are consistent with the promotion of safety and soundness because such changes would be designed to monitor, maintain, and, if necessary, replenish the capital that OCC would rely on to remain a going concern. As described above, OCC would project future volume, expenses, cash flows, capital needs and other factors to help ensure adequate financial resources are available to meet general business obligations. OCC would also, on a monthly basis, review Equity against the Target Capital Requirement to determine whether an Early Warning or Trigger Event had occurred. In response to such monitoring, OCC would use fee-related tools (
Finally, the Commission believes that the proposed changes to increase OCC's default management resources are consistent with the reduction of systemic risk because such increase enhances the ability of OCC to absorb and contain the spread of any losses that might arise from a member default. As discussed above, the resources held to meet OCC's Target Capital Requirement would be in addition to OCC's resources to cover participant defaults. Capital in excess of 110 percent of the Target Capital Requirement, however, would be available as skin-in-the-game to offset default losses remaining after the application of a defaulted Clearing Member's margin deposits and Clearing Fund contributions. OCC does not propose to guaranty a set amount of pre-funded skin-in-the-game, but by providing for a mechanism by which OCC would identify such resources, the proposal could provide additional resources to absorb and contain the spread of losses arising from a participant default. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, the Commission believes the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) under the Exchange Act generally requires that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that meet a number of criteria.
As described above, the FIA expresses the belief that any Board decision that results in the imposition of an Operational Loss Fee should be “syndicated with” Clearing Members and that any resulting feedback from Clearing Members should be “presented to the Board before any decisions are taken.”
Further, as described above, the FIA expresses a concern that OCC's Board has a fiduciary duty to OCC, and by implication, not to Clearing Members; however, OCC's response describes the formal and informal mechanisms that OCC employs to solicit feedback from Clearing Members and other interested stakeholders, and this response is persuasive. In adopting Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), the Commission noted that the approach a covered clearing agency may take in considering the views of stakeholders could vary depending on the ownership structure or organizational form of the covered clearing agency.
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, the Commission believes the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) under the Exchange Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under the Exchange Act requires that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage the covered clearing agency's general business risk and hold sufficient liquid net assets funded by equity to cover potential general business losses so that the covered clearing agency can continue operations and services as a going concern if those losses materialize, including by taking the actions described in Rules 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(iii) under the Exchange Act.
As described above, OCC proposes to adopt rules governing OCC's process for determining the amount of Equity required to support the LNAFBE necessary to cover potential general business losses. The proposal is designed to identify and maintain the resources necessary for OCC to recover or wind-down its critical operations or services as well as to remain a going concern following the realization of losses due to general business risk. The proposal would also allow for the inclusion of Board-approved capital expenditures in setting OCC's Target Capital Requirement. The Commission believes, therefore, that the proposal is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii) under the Exchange Act requires that the policies and procedures described under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) include holding liquid net assets funded by equity equal to the greater of either (i) six months of the covered clearing agency's current operating expenses, or (ii) the amount determined by the board of directors to be sufficient to ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and services of the covered clearing agency, as contemplated by the plans established under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii), and which shall be in addition to resources held to cover participant defaults or other risks covered under applicable credit risk and the liquidity risk standards, and shall be of high quality and sufficiently liquid to allow the covered clearing agency to meet its current and projected operating expenses under a range of scenarios, including in adverse market conditions.
As described above, OCC proposes to adopt rules that would require it to hold at least the minimum amount of Equity necessary to meet the Target Capital Requirement. In turn, OCC proposes to set its Target Capital Requirement at a level at least sufficient to comply with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii) under the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Target Capital Requirement would, at a minimum, be at least equal to the greater of: (i) The amount equal to six-months of OCC's current operating expenses; (ii) the RWD Amount; or (iii) the Potential Loss Amount. Thus, OCC's Target Capital Requirement would equal or exceed the amount determined by OCC to correspond to the amounts described in Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii). Moreover, OCC would be required to set the Target Capital Requirement at a level equal to or greater than a sufficient
Further, OCC proposes to require OCC Management to notify OCC's Board promptly if Equity were to fall below the Early Warning threshold and to recommend to the Board whether to implement a fee increase in an amount that the Board determines necessary and appropriate to raise additional Equity. The requirement to notify the Board, and recommend appropriate action, would help to ensure that OCC continues to hold sufficient resources to meet the Target Capital Requirement. The Commission believes, therefore, that the proposal would be designed to ensure that OCC holds Equity sufficient to support the amount of LNAFBE equal to the Target Capital Requirement, which requirement would correspond to the amounts specified under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii).
The Commission also believes that the proposed rules concerning the form of OCC's LNAFBE and manner in which it would be held are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii). OCC proposes to define LNAFBE such that it would consist of only cash and cash equivalents. OCC's LNAFBE must, therefore, be liquid by definition. Further, OCC proposes to adopt rules requiring that OCC hold Equity equal to 110 percent of the Target Capital Requirement separate from OCC's resources to cover participant defaults.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii) under the Exchange Act requires that the policies and procedures described under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) include maintaining a viable plan, approved by the board of directors and updated at least annually, for raising additional equity should a covered clearing agency's equity fall close to or below the amount required under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii).
As described above, the proposed Replenishment Plan would govern OCC's process for replenishing its capital in the event that Equity were to fall close to or below the Target Capital Requirement. The proposed Replenishment Plan would require OCC's Management to monitor changes in Equity and to notify OCC's Board of a Trigger Event. Under the proposed Replenishment Plan, OCC would be required, in response to a Trigger Event, to replenish its capital first through the contribution of the EDCP Unvested Balance. If OCC were to determine that further replenishment were necessary following the contribution of the entire EDCP Unvested Balance, OCC would be required to charge the Operational Loss Fee described above. Under the proposal, OCC's Management would be obligated to recommend that the Board approve or, as appropriate, modify the proposed Replenishment Plan annually. In turn, OCC's Board would be obligated to approve or, as appropriate, modify the proposed Replenishment Plan annually based on Management's recommendation. The Commission believes, therefore, that adoption of these aspects of the proposed Capital Management Policy and supporting rule changes are consistent with Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15).
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (formerly named CBOE Holdings, Inc.) (“Cboe Global”), which is also the parent company of Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (“C2”), acquired Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX” or “EDGX Options”), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “BZX Options”), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX” and, together with Cboe Options, C2, EDGX, EDGA, and BZX, the “Cboe Affiliated Exchanges”). Cboe Options intends to migrate its trading platform to the same system used by the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, which the Exchange expects to complete on October 7, 2019 (the “migration”). The upcoming migration will also include a migration of the Exchange's billing system. Accordingly, in connection with the migration and in an effort to more closely align the Exchange's fees with the corresponding
By way of background the Marketing Fee is assessed on certain transactions of Market-Makers resulting from customer orders. The funds collected via this Marketing Fee are then put into pools controlled by a “Designed Primary Market Maker” under Cboe Options Rule 8.80, a “Preferred Market-Maker” under Cboe Options Rule 8.13 or a “Lead Market-Maker” under Cboe Options Rule 8.15 (collectively “Preferenced Market-Maker”). The Preferenced Market-Maker controlling a certain pool of funds can then determine the order flow provider(s) to which the funds should be directed in order to encourage such order flow provider(s) to send orders to the Exchange. The Exchange proposes a number of amendments to its Marketing Fee program to simplify the program and harmonize the program with the program available at its affiliated exchange, EDGX Options.
First, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the exclusion of transactions resulting from any of the strategies identified and/or defined in footnote 13 of this Fees Schedule from the Marketing Fee. Currently, in order for such transactions to be excluded, TPHs must submit a rebate request with supporting documentation within 3 business days of the transaction. The Exchange notes that post-migration, it will no longer support the intake of various rebate forms. Moreover, the Exchange has not received a request for such a rebate in over two years. As such, the Exchange believes the impact of the proposed change to be de minimis.
The Exchange next proposes to eliminate the Rebate/Carryover Process set forth in Footnote 6 of the Fees Schedule. Currently, the Fees Schedule provides that if less than 80% of the marketing fee funds collected in a given month is paid out by the DPM or Preferenced Market-Maker in a given month, then the Exchange would refund such surplus at the end of the month on a pro rata basis based upon contributions made by the Market-Makers in that month. If 80% or more of the funds collected in a given month is paid out by the DPM or Preferenced Market-Maker, there will not be a rebate for that month unless the DPM or Preferenced Market-Maker elects to have funds rebated. In the absence of such election, any excess funds are included in an Excess Pool of funds to be used by the DPM or Preferenced Market-Maker in subsequent months. The total balance of the Excess Pool of funds for a DPM or a Preferenced Market-Maker cannot exceed $100,000. If in any month the Excess Pool balance were to exceed $100,000, the funds in excess of $100,000 would be refunded on a pro rata basis based upon contributions made by the Market-Makers in that month. In addition, in any month, a DPM or a Preferenced Market-Maker can elect to have any funds in its Excess Pool refunded on a pro rata basis based upon contributions made by the Market-Makers in that month. In lieu of this process, the Exchange proposes to adopt the process that its affiliate EDGX Options utilizes. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to provide that the total balance of any undispersed marketing fees for a Preferenced Market-Maker/DPM pool cannot exceed $250,000.
The Exchange lastly proposes to eliminate the administrative fee. Currently, the Exchange assesses an administrative fee of .45% on the total amount of the funds collected each month; provided, however, that no Market-Maker would contribute more than 15% of the total amount of funds raised by the .45% administrative. The Exchange no longer wishes to assess this fee and therefore proposes to eliminate it from the Fees Schedule. The Exchange notes it is not required to assess such fee and notes EDGX Options also does not assess such fee.
While the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how the rule change will impact Trading Permit Holders, as noted above, the Exchange anticipates the impact of the proposed changes to be de minimis for all TPHs. Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed change will also provide for more streamlined administration of the Marketing Fee program. Lastly, the proposed amendments to the Marketing Fee program will further harmonize the program with the corresponding Marketing Fee program of its affiliate exchange, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., (“Cboe EDGX”).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4), in particular, as it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and, particularly, is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes to the Marketing Fee program are reasonable as it further harmonizes the program to that of its affiliate, EDGX Options. The Exchange notes that the Marketing Fee amounts themselves are not changing with this proposed rule change. Rather, the proposed rule changes result in the simplification of the Marketing Fee program by eliminating an unused rebate process and rebate forms and provides for further harmonization of the program to that on EDGX Options by increasing the Excess Pool fee cap and eliminating the administrative fee. Additionally, the Exchange believes eliminating the administrative fee is reasonable because Market-Makers will no longer be subject to fee. As discussed above, the Exchange believes the proposed changes will not have a significant impact and will apply uniformly to all TPHs.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes to the Marketing Fee program closely align the program to how its affiliate Cboe EDGX administers its respective marketing fee program. The Exchange also notes the proposed changes apply to all TPHs uniformly and are not expected to have a significant impact. The Exchange lastly notes that the proposed rule change is not intended as a competitive pricing change, but rather as a change to streamline and simplify its marketing fee program in connection with the upcoming migration.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its fees schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule in connection with fees assessed for transactions in options on the MSCI Emerging Markets Index (“MXEF”) (a proprietary product exclusively listed on the Exchange). The Exchange intends to implement the proposed change on October 1, 2019.
The Exchange now proposes to waive the current fee $0.25 fee assessed for Customer (“C”) transactions in MXEF, through December 31, 2019. The Exchange has experienced a precipitous decrease in MXEF Customer volume in the last three months. Indeed, the average volume per month from January 2019 through June 2019 was approximately 20,111 contracts. From July 2019 through September 2019 the average volume per month was 17,613 contracts; an overall decrease of 12.4% per month. In light of this decreasing volume trend in MXEF Customer volume, the proposed three-month waiver of fees for MXEF Customer transactions is designed to incentivize a renewed increase of Customer volume in MXEF on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that incentivizing more Customer orders in MXEF will create more trading opportunities, which, in turn attracts Market-Makers. A resulting increase in Market-Maker activity facilitates tighter spreads, which may lead to additional increase of order flow in MXEF from other market participants, further contributing to a deeper, more liquid market to the benefit of all market participants by creating a more robust and well-balanced market ecosystem. The Exchange notes the proposed waiver is applicable to all Customer orders in MXEF.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4), in particular, as it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and, particularly, is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed waiver is consistent with the Act in that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. First, the Exchange believes the proposed waiver is reasonable because customers will not be charged any fee for MXEF orders. The Exchange believes the proposed three-month waiver is reasonable and equitable because it is designed to incentivize Customer MXEF executions, whose order flow, as stated, enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market-Makers. An increase in Market-Maker activity in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which potentially increases order flow from other market participants. In addition to this, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to waive the Customer transaction fee in MXEF through December 31, 2019, because this gives ample time to for the Exchange to evaluate whether the waiver has resulted in the desired effect of encouraging Customer order flow and, in turn, increased liquidity from other market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposal represents an equitable allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because the waiver will apply to all Trading Permit Holders that submit Customer orders in MXEF. Moreover, the Exchange notes that while the proposed fee assessed for Customer orders will be lower than fees assessed for other market participants
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional liquidity in MXEF, in response to a recent decrease in MXEF order flow, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all TPHs.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed fee waiver offered to Customers in MXEF will be assessed equally to all such participants. As described above, preferential pricing to Customers is a long-standing options industry practice which serves to enhance Customer order flow, thereby attracting Marker-Makers to facilitate tighter spreads and trading opportunities to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed waiver applies to a product traded exclusively on the Exchange. Overall, the proposed change is designed to encourage additional order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes benefits all market participants on the Exchange by providing more liquidity, thus trading opportunities, encouraging even more TPHs to send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Alaska, dated 10/08/2019.
Issued on 10/08/2019.
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.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 161480.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Alaska.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object to be exhibited in the exhibition “A Universe of Things: Micky Wolfson Collects” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at The Wolfsonian-Florida International University, Miami Beach, Florida, from on or about November 15, 2019, until on or about March 4, 2021, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national
Chi D. Tran, Paralegal Specialist, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the projects approved by rule by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
September 1-30, 2019.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists the projects, described below, receiving approval for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(f) for the time period specified above:
1. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Trowbridge; ABR-201909001; Windham Township, Wyoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: September 3, 2019.
2. Seneca Resources Company, LLC.; Pad ID: D09-K; ABR-201909002; Shippen Township, Cameron County; Jones Township, Elk County; and Sergeant Township, McKean County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: September 3, 2019.
3. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Bonnie; ABR-20090904.R2; Albany Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: September 4, 2019.
4. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Hunsinger; ABR-20090905.R2; Rush Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: September 4, 2019.
5. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Martin; ABR-20090906.R2; Granville Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: September 4, 2019.
6. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Farr; ABR-20090907.R2; Towanda Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: September 4, 2019.
7. Range Resources—Appalachia, LLC; Pad ID: Cornwall B Unit 1H—4H; ABR-201405003.R1; Lewis Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.0000 mgd; Approval Date: September 9, 2019.
8. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Sharer; ABR-20090913.R2; Stevens Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: September 9, 2019.
9. Range Resources—Appalachia, LLC; Pad ID: Ogontz 3H, 7H & 9H; ABR-20090606.R2; Cummings Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.0000 mgd; Approval Date: September 10, 2019.
10. Pennsylvania General Energy Company, L.L.C.; Pad ID: COP Tract 596 Pad A; ABR-201909004; Liberty Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.9000 mgd; Approval Date: September 11, 2019.
11. Range Resources—Appalachia, LLC; Pad ID: McWilliams 1H-2H; ABR-20090607.R2; Cogan House Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.0000 mgd; Approval Date: September 12, 2019.
12. Range Resources—Appalachia, LLC; Pad ID: Gulf USA 67H-68H; ABR-20140606.R1; Snow Shoe Township, Centre County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.0000 mgd; Approval Date: September 13, 2019.
13. Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC.; Pad ID: OLD MINE ROAD (02 188); ABR-201909003; Hamilton Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.0000 mgd; Approval Date: September 16, 2019.
14. ARD Operating, LLC; Pad ID: Bonnel Run H&F Pad D; ABR-201404003.R1; Pine Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: September 20, 2019.
15. ARD Operating, LLC; Pad ID: COP Tr 027C Pad A; ABR-201407005.R1; McHenry Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: September 20, 2019.
16. ARD Operating, LLC; Pad ID: COP Tr 027C Pad B; ABR-201407006.R1; McHenry Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: September 20, 2019.
17. RD Operating, LLC; Pad ID: Marilyn Ely Pad A; ABR-201404009.R1; Gamble Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: September 20, 2019.
18. ARD Operating, LLC; Pad ID: COP 259 Pad B; ABR-20090440.R2; Burnside Township, Centre County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.0000 mgd; Approval Date: September 20, 2019.
19. ARD Operating, LLC; Pad ID: COP 252 Pad B; ABR-20090445.R2; Grugan Township, Clinton County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.0000 mgd; Approval Date: September 20, 2019.
20. ARD Operating, LLC.; Pad ID: COP 259 Pad A; ABR-20090513.R2; Burnside Township, Centre County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.0000 mgd; Approval Date: September 20, 2019.
21. ARD Operating, LLC; Pad ID: COP Tr 551 A; ABR-201404008.R1; McIntyre Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: September 25, 2019.
22. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.; Pad ID: Welles 2; ABR-20090940.R2; Terry Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: September 25, 2019.
23. SWN Production Company, LLC; Pad ID: NR-03-COLWELL WEST-PAD; ABR-201406002.R1; New Milford Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.9999 mgd; Approval Date: September 27, 2019.
24. SWN Production Company, LLC; Pad ID: NR-17-COLEMAN-PAD; ABR-201406003.R1; Great Bend Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.9999 mgd; Approval Date: September 27, 2019.
25. SWN Production Company, LLC; Pad ID: Ivey Pad Site; ABR-20090608.R2; Forest Lake Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.0000 mgd; Approval Date: September 27, 2019.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists Grandfathering Registration for projects by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
September 1-30, 2019.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists GF Registration for projects, described below, pursuant to 18 CFR 806, Subpart E for the time period specified above:
1. Twin Hickory Golf Club, Inc., GF Certificate No. GF-201909045, Town of Hornellsville, Steuben County, N.Y.; Wells A and B; Issue Date: September 18, 2019.
2. Town of Owego—Water District #3, GF Certificate No. GF-201909046, Town of Owego, Tioga County, N.Y.; Wells 1, 2, and 3; Issue Date: September 18, 2019.
3. Pennsylvania American Water Company—Montrose District, GF Certificate No. GF-201909047, Bridgewater Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Lake Montrose; Issue Date: September 18, 2019.
4. Rohrer's Quarry Inc., GF Certificate No. GF-201909048, Warwick and Penn Townships, Lancaster County, Pa.; Well 3; Issue Date: September 18, 2019.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Amended Record of Decision.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is amending its June 7, 2018 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Cumberland Fossil Plant Coal Combustion Residuals Management Operations Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The 2018 ROD indicated TVA's intent to construct and operate a bottom ash dewatering facility, process water basins, and an onsite landfill at the Cumberland Fossil Plant (CUF). During the design and permitting process, limitations were encountered which required a shift in the onsite landfill's location. Additionally, TVA proposes to use the future onsite landfill as a repository for both existing and future CCR, rather than using the existing Fly Ash Stack as the storage facility for existing CCR. In August 2019, TVA completed a supplemental review, analyzing the potential impacts of the proposed landfill shift. This amended ROD incorporates TVA's decisions relating to the modifications.
W. Douglas White, NEPA Project Manager, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902; Telephone: 865-632-2252 or Email:
This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations and the TVA procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. On June 7, 2018, TVA published in the
TVA's CCR disposal areas at CUF, including the impoundments, are subject to the 2015 Commissioner's Order entered by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). Investigations at CUF under that TDEC Order are ongoing. Therefore, TVA elected to further consider the proposed in-place closure of the Bottom Ash Impoundment and a portion of the Main Ash Impoundment before making a decision on closure of these facilities to allow the execution of the requirements of the TDEC Order to guide closure activities to the maximum extent possible.
As described in the Final EIS and subsequent ROD, TVA intends to construct and operate a new CCR landfill approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the plant site on CUF property. The approximately 80-acre landfill would have a total estimated capacity of 14.3 million cubic yards which provides adequate CCR storage for long-range planning purposes. TVA has decided to consider the future onsite CCR landfill for permanent storage of the CCR removed from a portion of the Main Ash Impoundment and Stilling Impoundment to support construction of the process water basins.
In addition, in consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and TDEC, TVA has proposed a revised design of the future onsite CCR landfill that avoids direct impacts to surface water features associated with impoundments within the landfill boundary. This revised design includes the relocation of the proposed stormwater basin and the replacement of the proposed leachate impoundment with a leachate tank farm. However, the relocation of these facilities required additional area outside the boundary reviewed in the Final EIS. Additionally,
In August 2019, TVA completed a supplemental review providing an analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed change in the future onsite CCR landfill boundary and the use of this onsite landfill as a repository for both existing and future CCR rather than using the Fly Ash Stack (as originally proposed) as the storage facility for existing CCR. TVA now amends the June 2018 ROD (
In the Supplemental Analysis, TVA adopted the analysis in the 2018 Cumberland Fossil Plant Coal Combustion Residuals Management Operations Final EIS and provided supplemental analysis of the potential impacts with the proposed change in the future onsite CCR landfill boundary, in addition to using this new landfill as a repository for both existing and future CCR. The 2018 Final EIS identified that existing CCR would be placed in the Fly Ash Stack.
The proposed changes to the landfill location would increase the project's footprint by 68 acres. The proposed change would impact an additional 66 acres of low quality summer roosting and foraging habitat for threatened and endangered bats. An additional 2.0 acres of wetlands is within the revised project boundary. While additional water features were identified within the revised landfill boundary, the stormwater impoundment would be relocated and the leachate impoundment would be replaced by a tank system, therefore avoiding direct stream impacts. The remaining resources analyzed in the 2018 FEIS, including air quality, geology, groundwater, cultural and historic resources, public health and safety, parks and recreation, natural areas, visual resources, and socioeconomics and environmental justice, would see no additional impacts as a result of this increase.
Impacts to additional environmental resources would be slightly higher than those discussed in the 2018 Final EIS as well. However, the impacts would be minor and do not alter the overall impact findings and conclusions of the 2018 Final EIS.
TVA has decided to amend the June 7, 2018 ROD to incorporate the proposed change in the future onsite CCR landfill boundary and the use of this onsite landfill as a repository for both existing and future CCR. The proposed action would result in additional impacts to resources than those reviewed in the 2018 Final EIS. However, the impacts would be minor and do not alter the overall impact finding and conclusions of the Final EIS.
The June 7, 2018 ROD lists mitigation measures associated with the Cumberland Fossil Plant Coal Combustion Residuals Management Operations Final EIS to reduce adverse impacts associated with the proposed actions. These mitigation measures will remain in effect and are listed below. No new mitigation measures were identified during the supplemental analysis.
• A TDEC Aquatic Resources Alteration Permit and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit will be required for disturbance to wetlands and stream features, and the terms and conditions of these permits would likely require mitigation for these proposed activities. TVA will adhere to all conditions stipulated in these permits.
• TVA will implement groundwater mitigation measures that could include monitoring, assessment, or corrective action programs as mandated by state and federal requirements. The CCR Rule and state requirements provide an additional layer of groundwater protection to minimize risk.
• TVA will coordinate with the Tennessee Department of Transportation and Stewart County transportation officials as needed to develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce localized temporary transportation effects.
• Potential impacts to Wells Creek and/or Scott Branch from landfill leachate and stormwater discharges will be mitigated as required to meet permit requirements.
• Forested land within the proposed landfill project area is of low summer roosting quality for threatened and endangered bats, although it may be used as a foraging area. Section 7 consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed. No tree removal would occur between June 1 and July 31 to avoid any potential direct impact to juvenile bats at a time when they are unable to fly.
• TVA executed a memorandum of agreement with the Tennessee State Historic Preservation Officer to address the adverse effects of National Register of Historic Places listed site 40SW219.
40 CFR 1505.2.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before November 14, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0161 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel TAIL LIGHTS is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0161 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before November 14, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0164 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SWOOSH is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0164 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Comments must be submitted on or before November 14, 2019.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
Thanos Perlegas, Telephone Number: (202) 366-0772, Office of Federal Sealift, Division of Sealift Operations and Emergency Response, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.93.
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before November 14, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0160 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel AD ASTRA is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0160 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information to be collected is U.S.-flag coastwise qualified Jones Act Vessel availability information. We are required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before December 16, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MARAD-2019-0162 through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michael Hokana, (202) 366-0760, Office of Cargo and Commercial Sealift, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Email:
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before November 14, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0170 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SURFRIDER is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0170 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before November 14, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0153 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SQUID SONG is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0153 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before November 14, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0168 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel CONSTANCE is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0168 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before November 14, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0166 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SEA ESTA is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0166 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before November 14, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0154 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel VALOR is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0154 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before November 14, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0169 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel MONARCH is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0169 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before November 14, 2019.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0165 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ESPRIT is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0165 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2008-2019 Porsche Cayenne and Macan motor vehicles do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 110,
Send comments on or before November 14, 2019.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
This notice of receipt of Porsche's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
• MY 2008-2014 Porsche Cayenne;
• MY 2017-2018 Porsche Cayenne “Platinum Edition;”
• MY 2014 Porsche Cayenne Diesel “Platinum Edition;”
• MY 2014 Porsche Cayenne “Platinum Edition;”
• MY 2013-2016 Porsche Cayenne Diesel;
• MY 2019 Porsche Cayenne E-Hybrid;
• MY 2008-2010 Porsche Cayenne GTS;
• MY 2013-2014 Porsche Cayenne GTS;
• MY 2010 Porsche Cayenne GTS “Porsche Design Edition 3;”
• MY 2008-2010 Porsche Cayenne GTS;
• MY 2016-2018 Porsche Cayenne GTS;
• MY 2015-2018 Porsche Cayenne S E-Hybrid;
• MY 2011-2014 Porsche Cayenne S Hybrid;
• MY 2010 Porsche Cayenne S Transsyberia;
• MY 2008-2018 Porsche Cayenne S;
• MY 2017-2018 Porsche Cayenne S E-Hybrid “Platinum Edition;”
• MY 2008-2019 Porsche Cayenne Turbo;
• MY 2009-2010 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S;
• MY 2016-2018 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S;
• MY 2014 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S;
• MY 2015-2018 Porsche Macan Turbo;
• MY 2017-2018 Porsche Macan;
• MY 2018 Porsche Macan “Sport Edition;”
• MY 2017-2018 Porsche Macan GTS;
• MY 2015-2018 Porsche Macan S; and
• MY 2017-2018 Porsche Macan Turbo Plus Performance Package.
In support of its petition, Porsche submitted the following reasoning:
1. With respect to FMVSS No. 110, paragraph S4.4.2(c), the DOT marking signifies that the manufacturer of the rim has certified that the rim complies with all applicable FMVSSs. As the DOT marking is a “certification,” it is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30115 (“Certification”), which does not require notification or remedy. Porsche asserts that this is consistent with NHTSA's prior decision on petitions for the same issue. (
2. With respect to FMVSS No. 110, paragraph S4.4.2(a), Porsche believes that the omission of the designation symbol “E” will not prevent the proper matching of tires and rims because sufficient information about rim size is available from other markings on the rim and the corresponding owner's manual instructions. More specifically, Porsche states, the rims are marked correctly with the size designation; the correct tire size information is listed on the Tire and Loading Information placard, and the tire size is marked on the tire sidewall. The vehicles' Certification label also contains the correct tire and rim sizes. Importantly, the omitted marking does not affect the ability to identify the rims in the event of a recall and is not likely to have any effect on motor vehicle safety. Porsche asserts that this is again consistent with NHTSA's prior decision on petitions for the same. (
3. The tire and rim of the affected spare wheels are properly matched, and are appropriate for the load-carrying characteristics of the subject vehicle. Porsche asserts that the incorrect association marking has no effect on the performance of the tire/rim combination.
4. The subject tire/rim assembly meets paragraph S4.4.1(b) rapid air loss requirement of FMVSS No. 110. All other applicable requirements of FMVSS Nos. 109 and 110 have been met.
5. Lastly, Porsche is unaware of any accidents, injuries, or customer complaints related to the omitted markings.
Porsche's complete petition and all supporting documents are available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at
Porsche concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Porsche no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Porsche notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Nissan North America, Inc., (Nissan) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2019 Nissan Armada motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
The closing date for comments on the petition is November 14, 2019.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket number and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
This notice of receipt, of Nissan's petition, is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercises of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
Nissan described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. Nissan submitted the following views and arguments in support of the petition:
1. Due to a manufacturing issue affecting only the driver's side marker lamp, the reflex reflector may not be seated properly in the headlamp assembly, creating a gap between the forward edge of the reflector and the extension portion of the headlamp assembly. The reflector is restrained from further movement by the outer lens of the headlamp. The manufacturing issue has been corrected.
2. Even in the worst-case displaced position, the side marker lamp is only minimally below photometric intensity of the side marker lamp at one test point. Nissan has judged that the minimal difference in photometric intensity between the lamp that tested below standard and a lamp meeting the minimum standard is not perceptible to the human observer. (
3. Moreover, in the subject vehicles, the parking lamp wraps around the corners of the headlamp assembly and adds additional illumination in the region where testing showed the photometric intensity of the side marker lamp to be slightly below standard. On the affected MY 2019 Armada vehicles, the parking lamps are on the same circuit as the side marker lamps and therefore always illuminate in conjunction with the side marker lamps.
4. When tested as a unit in real-world conditions, the photometric intensity of the combined parking and side marker lamps is above the required 0.62 cd for all test points and approximately 5 times the test point where the side marker lamp alone was below 0.62 cd.
5. In the event the reflector was to move out of position, the complimentary illumination from the parking lamp compensates for the slight reduction in photometric intensity of the side marker lamp over an exceedingly small range. Therefore, in actual usage conditions, the presence of an affected vehicle is conspicuous and in Nissan's judgement, there is no perceivable difference in the visibility of the subject vehicles compared to compliant vehicles to drivers and pedestrians on the road.
6. In similar situations, NHTSA has granted the applications of other petitioners in which a minor deviation from the standard was deemed imperceptible and therefore inconsequential to safety (
Nissan concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Nissan no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Nissan notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8
Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transportation.
Amendment to existing Privacy Act general routine use.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Transportation's Office of the Secretary of Transportation (DOT/OST) is amending an existing general routine use for all DOT systems of records. The amended routine use is consistent with a recommendation in a memorandum issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on January 3, 2017 (Memorandum M-17-12 “Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information”). OMB's memorandum recommends that all Federal agencies publish two routine uses for their systems allowing for the disclosure of personally identifiable information to the appropriate parties in the course of responding to a breach or suspected breach of data maintained in a system of records.
Submit comments on or before November 14, 2019. Changes to this system will be effective November 14, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket Number DOT-OST-2019-0140, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Claire Barrett, Departmental Chief Privacy Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590 or
The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, governs the means by which the United States Government collects, maintains, and uses personally identifiable information (PII) in a system of records. A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of a Federal agency from which information about individuals is retrieved by name or other personal identifier. The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the
The amended general routine use reflects a non-substantive change to an existing DOT general routine use (
The amended general routine uses are compatible with the purposes for which the information to be disclosed under these general routine uses was originally collected. Individuals whose personally identifiable information is in DOT systems expect their information to be secured. Sharing their information with appropriate parties in the course of responding to a confirmed or suspected breach of a DOT system, or another agency's system, will help DOT and all Federal agencies protect them against potential misuse of their information by unauthorized persons.
For the reasons above, the existing general routine use 11 is amended to reflect the OMB guidance, reflected in a new 11a and 11b, as follows:
11a. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) DOT suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) DOT has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, DOT (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal
11b. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when DOT determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) 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.
Notice and request for public comment.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), U.S. Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning the Bank Enterprise Award Program (BEA Program) Application, for the fiscal year (FY) 2020-FY 2022 funding rounds (hereafter, the Application or Applications).
Written comments must be received on or before December 16, 2019 to be assured of consideration.
Submit your comments via email to Mia Sowell, BEA Program Associate Program Manager, CDFI Fund, at
Mia Sowell, BEA Program Associate Program Manager, CDFI Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220 or email to
Commentators are encouraged to consider, at a minimum, the following topics:
Comments concerning the Application are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services required to provide information.
In addition, the CDFI Fund requests comments in response to the following general questions about the BEA Program Application:
1. Is the data and information that is proposed to be collected by the BEA Program Application necessary and appropriate for the CDFI Fund to consider for the purpose of making award decisions?
2. In general, does the data and information requested in the BEA Program Application allow an applicant to demonstrate its lending, investment and service activities in BEA Program Distressed Communities or to CDFIs?
3. Are certain data fields, questions or tables redundant or unnecessary?
4. Should any data fields, questions or tables be added to ensure collection of relevant information?
5. Are there any data fields, questions or tables that are particularly difficult or burdensome to answer? If so, please be specific as to which questions or tables and describe why they are difficult or burdensome.
The CDFI Fund considers the safety and soundness of BEA Program Applicants in making award decisions. Through Memorandums of Understanding with federal regulators, the CDFI Fund obtains safety and soundness information directly from the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The CDFI Fund is considering requiring Applicants to report on their safety and soundness by requesting that they provide information on their most recent independent audit, their most recent Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Rating, and information on any enforcement actions. The collection of this information from Applicants would be used to consider an Applicant's eligibility. Applicants will be deemed ineligible if any of the following are noted: Enforcement actions with material concerns or Prompt Corrective Actions, CRA assessment ratings below “Satisfactory”, or the most recent independent audit report with any of the following: Going concern opinion; an adverse opinion; a disclaimer of opinion; or withdrawal of an opinion.
a. How much of a burden will the collection of this information be for Applicants?
b. Are there any reasons that the CDFI Fund should not request this information from Applicants? If yes, please describe.
c. Is there anything else the CDFI Fund should consider? If yes, please describe.
The BEA Program defines the Qualified Activities, Categories and Subcategories in the BEA Program Interim Rule dated August 10, 2016 (12 CFR 1806). These definitions have been provided as Appendix 1: BEA Program Category, Subcategory and Activity Type Definitions.
(1) Are there any loan, investment or service activities not currently considered BEA Program Qualified Activities that the CDFI Fund should consider adding? If so, indicate what the activity is, describe it, and explain why the CDFI Fund should consider it. Also, describe the benefits of the activity to CDFIs, residents or businesses in Distressed Communities.
(2) The CDFI Fund does not currently have a specific Qualified Activity type for working capital or equipment loans. These types of loans are typically reported as Small Business Loans if the borrower meets the size eligibility standards. Should the CDFI Fund consider introducing a new Qualified Activity type specifically for working capital or equipment loans for businesses located in Distressed Communities that do not meet the criteria for a Small Business Loans? Please explain why or why not.
(3) The CDFI Fund does not currently have specific guidance for reverse mortgages. A reverse mortgage is a mortgage loan available to homeowners 62 years of age and older, usually secured over a residential property that enables the borrower to access the unencumbered value of the property for cash. Should the CDFI Fund consider introducing reverse mortgages as a new Qualified Activity type or consider revising the definition of Affordable Housing Loan to include reverse mortgages? Please explain why or why not.
(1) Are there any loans, investments, or service activities that are currently considered BEA Program Qualified Activities that the CDFI Fund should consider updates to the definition? If so, indicate the Qualified Activity and explain why the CDFI Fund should consider revising the definition.
(2) Are there any loans, investments, or service activities that are currently considered BEA Program Qualified Activities that the CDFI Fund should consider eliminating? If so, indicate which activity it is and explain why the CDFI Fund should consider eliminating.
(3) In FY 2016, the CDFI Fund included Small Dollar Consumer Loans as a BEA Qualified Activity. Small Dollar Consumer Loans are defined as affordable consumer lending products that serve as available alternatives in the marketplace for individuals who are Eligible Residents who meet Low-and-Moderate income requirements and meet criteria further specified in the applicable NOFA. The FY 2016-2018 NOFAs indicate that Small Dollar Consumer Loans have a total principal value of no less than $500 and no greater than $5,000. Is this dollar range still relevant for this product? If no, please provide a dollar range based on your organization's experience offering this product and explain why the CDFI Fund should consider updating these amounts.
(4) For Small Business Loans which are Qualified Activities in the Commercial Loans and Investments sub-category of the Distressed Community Financing Activities category, the CDFI Fund instructs Applicants to use the size eligibility standards adopted by the U.S. Small Business Administration's Development Company or Small Business Investment Company programs (13 CFR 121.01) for determining whether a loan to a borrower is eligible to be reported as this Qualified Activity. Is there any other criteria the CDFI Fund should consider for determining whether a loan to a borrower is eligible to be reported as a Small Business Loan? If yes, please describe the criteria and explain why the CDFI Fund should consider it.
(5) The CDFI Fund currently values the administrative cost of providing certain Financial Services using the following per unit values:
• $100.00 per account for Targeted Financial Services including safe transaction accounts, youth transaction accounts, Electronic Transfer Accounts and Individual Development Accounts;
• $50.00 per account for checking and savings accounts that do not meet the definition of Targeted Financial Services;
• $5.00 per check cashing transaction;
• $50,000 per new ATM installed at a location in a Distressed Community; and
• $500,000 per new retail bank branch office opened in a Distressed Community, including school-based bank branches approved by the Applicant's Federal bank regulator.
Should the CDFI Fund consider updates to the valuation of these administrative costs? If so, indicate the Financial Service, suggested value, and explain why the CDFI Fund should consider revising the value.
The CDFI Fund is considering adding the following text entry fields in order to improve the quality of impact data collected in the BEA Program Application. This information will allow the CDFI Fund to standardize and effectively report quantitative and qualitative social impacts of program related investments.
•
•
a. Will reporting this information significantly increase the number of hours spent completing the BEA Program Application?
b. Are there any reasons that the CDFI Fund should not collect this information?
c. Is there any additional information or data that demonstrates the impact of program related investments that the CDFI Fund should consider?
The CDFI Fund is considering adding the following fields to collect basic information on the affordability of financial products reported to the CDFI Fund in the BEA Program Application for award consideration. This data will be used to perform future analyses to better understand the affordability of program related lending and may inform future policy considerations. For BEA Qualified Activities that are loans, Applicants will be asked to provide:
•
•
a. How much of a burden will the collection of this information be for Applicants?
b. Are there any reasons that the CDFI Fund should not collect this information?
For all BEA Qualified Activities:
c. Is there any additional information or data that demonstrates the affordability of program related loans or investments that the CDFI Fund should consider?
Section 1806.404(b), (c), and (d) of the Interim Rule describes the award selection process if insufficient funds are available to cover estimated awards for which Applicants are eligible, priority of awards, and calculating actual award amounts. Applicants are ranked based on whether the Applicant is a CDFI or a non-CDFI, and prioritized in each category of BEA Qualified Activities. Currently, one overall maximum award amount has been determined for an Applicant's single BEA Program award, despite the number of categories the Applicant is eligible to receive an award for. Award selections within each BEA category are based on an Applicant's relative ranking within each such category, subject to the availability of funds and any established maximum dollar amount of total awards that may be awarded for the Distressed Community Financing Activities category of Qualified Activities, as determined by the CDFI Fund.
(1) Should the CDFI Fund consider awarding eligible applicants who successfully demonstrate increases in more than one BEA category a higher single BEA Program award amount than Applicants who demonstrate an increase in one BEA category, if eligible for the maximum award amount? If yes, explain what should be considered in determining the proportion of the increased award amount. If no, explain why not.
(2) Should the CDFI Fund establish a maximum dollar amount that may be awarded for the CDFI Related Activities category? Explain why or why not.
(3) Should the CDFI Fund establish a maximum dollar amount that may be awarded for Distressed Community Financing Activities category? Explain why or why not.
(4) Should the CDFI Fund establish a maximum dollar amount that may be awarded for the Service Activities category? Explain why or why not.
(5) Should the CDFI Fund determine actual award amounts by a method other than the existing formulaic award calculation? If yes, please describe the method and note what benefits are offered to Applicants, residents and businesses in Distressed Communities, and/or US taxpayers by implementing this method. Also, indicate if/how the method addresses the following factors noted in Section 1834a(h)(1)(C). of the BEA Statute: Degree of difficulty in carrying out activities, community impact, degree of innovative methods for meeting community needs, leverage of qualified activity amounts, total asset size of the Applicant, new entrance to providing services in a Distressed Community, need for subsidy, and extent of distress in a community.
The estimated BEA Program award calculation is the year-over-year increase in Qualified Activities from the Baseline to the Assessment Period prioritized based on CDFI certification status and CRA asset size, and multiplied by an award percentage based on the Category, Sub-category and Qualified Activity type.
(1) Is there any additional criteria that the CDFI Fund should consider in the estimated BEA Program award calculation?
The CDFI Fund is considering prioritizing awards to Applicants that invested in Persistent Poverty Counties during the Assessment Period (this will be determined by transactions submitted in the application that are in Persistent Poverty Counties). The CDFI Fund would potentially implement this by using the Address and Census Tract to determine if BEA Qualified Activities submitted in the application were made in a Persistent Poverty County. This will be used either separately or along with Persistent Poverty County commitment information currently collected in Table 8: Projected Use of BEA Program Award to prioritize awards or increase award amounts to Applicants will that serve Persistent Poverty Counties with their BEA Awards.
a. Are there are any reasons that CDFI Fund should not use this information to prioritize awards or increase award amounts to Applicants that serve Persistent Poverty Counties?
b. Is there anything else the CDFI Fund should consider when determining how Recipients can serve Persistent Poverty Counties?
The Interim Rule defines CDFI Support Activity as assistance provided by an Applicant or its Subsidiary to a certified CDFI that meets the Integral
The NOFA defines Integrally Involved as:
•
•
•
•
a. Should the current definition of Integrally Involved be revised or replaced? If so, how should the CDFI Fund define Integrally Involved?
b. Are there any other factors the CDFI Fund should consider when determining an updated definition of Integrally Involved?
12 U.S.C. 1834a, 4703, 4713, 4717; 12 CFR part 1806.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of an information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and respondents are not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “OCC Supplier Registration Form.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 14, 2019.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0316, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, #10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by email to
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection
•
• For assistance in navigating
•
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
In order to comply with the Congressional mandate to develop standards for the fair inclusion and utilization of minority- and women-owned businesses and to provide effective technical assistance to these businesses, the OCC developed an on-going system to collect up-to-date contact information and capabilities statements from potential suppliers. This information allows the OCC to update and enhance its internal database of interested minority- and women-owned businesses. This information also allows the OCC to measure the effectiveness of its technical assistance and outreach efforts and to target areas where additional outreach efforts are necessary.
On April 5, 2019, the OCC published a notice for 60 days of comment regarding this collection, 84 FR 13785. No comments were received. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning regulations governing practice before the Internal Revenue Service.
Written comments should be received on or before December 16, 2019 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Dr. Philippe Thomas, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Export Exemption Certificate.
Written comments should be received on or before December 16, 2019 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Dr. Philippe Thomas, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, at (202)317-5753, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(a)(2), that a meeting will be held at the United States Treasury Department, 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC, on October 29, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. of the following debt management advisory committee: Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee of The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
The agenda for the meeting provides for a charge by the Secretary of the Treasury or his designate that the Committee discuss particular issues and conduct a working session. Following the working session, the Committee will present a written report of its recommendations. The meeting will be closed to the public, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d) and Public Law 103-202, 202(c)(1)(B)(31 U.S.C. 3121 note).
This notice shall constitute my determination, pursuant to the authority placed in heads of agencies by 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d) and vested in me by Treasury Department Order No. 101-05, that the meeting will consist of discussions and debates of the issues presented to the Committee by the Secretary of the Treasury and the making of recommendations of the Committee to the Secretary, pursuant to Public Law 103-202, 202(c)(1)(B).
Thus, this information is exempt from disclosure under that provision and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3)(B). In addition, the meeting is concerned with information that is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A). The public interest requires that such meetings be closed to the public because the Treasury Department requires frank and full advice from representatives of the financial community prior to making its final decisions on major financing operations. Historically, this advice has been offered by debt management advisory committees established by the several major segments of the financial community. When so utilized, such a committee is recognized to be an advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 3.
Although the Treasury's final announcement of financing plans may not reflect the recommendations provided in reports of the Committee, premature disclosure of the Committee's deliberations and reports would be likely to lead to significant financial speculation in the securities market. Thus, this meeting falls within the exemption covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A).
Treasury staff will provide a technical briefing to the press on the day before the Committee meeting, following the release of a statement of economic conditions and financing estimates. This briefing will give the press an opportunity to ask questions about financing projections. The day after the Committee meeting, Treasury will release the minutes of the meeting, any charts that were discussed at the meeting, and the Committee's report to the Secretary.
The Office of Debt Management is responsible for maintaining records of debt management advisory committee meetings and for providing annual reports setting forth a summary of Committee activities and such other matters as may be informative to the public consistent with the policy of 5 U.S.C. 552(b). The Designated Federal Officer or other responsible agency
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before November 14, 2019 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Spencer W. Clark by emailing
The application questions for the CDFI Fund's Financial Assistance (FA) and Technical Assistance (TA) programs have been modified to reflect public comments received through the request for public comment as required the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The revised FA application includes the Base-FA application as well as the following applications for awards that are provided as supplemental to the Base-FA award: Persistent Poverty County Financial Assistance (PPC-FA), Healthy Food Financing Initiative-Financial Assistance (HFFI-FA), and Disability Funds-Financial Assistance (DF-FA). The supplemental applications are only completed if the applicant is requesting those specific funds.
The information collected will be used to select awardees, based on a merit-based selection process. The requested information is required by the CDFI Program regulations (12 CFR part 1805) and respective Notice of Funds Availabilities.
44 U.S.C. 3501
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Federal Advisory Committee Act that the subcommittees of the Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review Board (JBL/CS SMRB) will be held on the dates below from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (unless otherwise listed) at the 20 F Conference Center, 20 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20001 and at the Office of Research and Development, 1100 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002:
The purpose of the subcommittees is to provide advice on the scientific quality, budget, safety and mission relevance of investigator-initiated research proposals submitted for VA merit review evaluation. Proposals submitted for review include various medical specialties within the general areas of biomedical, behavioral and clinical science research.
These subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public for the review, discussion, and evaluation of initial and renewal research proposals, which involve reference to staff and consultant critiques of research proposals. Discussions will deal with scientific merit of each proposal and qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Additionally, premature disclosure of research information could significantly obstruct implementation of proposed agency action regarding the research proposals. As provided by subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended by Public Law 94-409, closing the subcommittee meetings is in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B).
Those who would like to obtain a copy of the minutes from the closed subcommittee meetings and rosters of the subcommittee members should contact Holly Krull, Ph.D., Manager, Merit Review Program (10X2B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 632-8522 or email at
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Creating Options for Veterans Expedited Recovery (COVER) Commission gives notice of a meeting to be held on October 24 and 25, 2019, at the VHA National Conference Center, 2011 Crystal Drive, Crystal City, Virginia 22202. The public session on October 24 will begin at 1:00 p.m. and conclude at approximately 5:00 p.m. On October 25, the public session will begin at 8:30 a.m. and conclude at approximately 12:00 p.m. (all times Eastern).
The purpose of the COVER Commission is to examine the evidence-based therapy treatment model used by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for treating mental health conditions of Veterans and the potential benefits of incorporating complementary and integrative health approaches as standard practice throughout the Department.
Members of the public are invited to attend open sessions in-person or via telephone listening line. Only a limited amount of seating will be available, and members of the public will be seated on a first come-first served basis. The listening line number for October 24 is 844-376-0278 access code 771669984#. The listening line number for October 25 is 844-376-0278 access code 623057095#. Listening lines will be activated approximately 10 minutes prior to each day's sessions. Members of the public utilizing the listening line are asked to confirm their attendance via an email to
Any member of the public seeking additional information including copies of materials referenced during open sessions should email the Designated Federal Officer for the Commission, Mr. John Goodrich, at
(a) “Agency” has the meaning given in section 3(b) of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended.
(b) “Guidance document” means an agency statement of general applicability, intended to have future effect on the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation, but does not include the following:
(c) “Significant guidance document” means a guidance document that may reasonably be anticipated to:
(d) “Pre-enforcement ruling” means a formal written communication by an agency in response to an inquiry from a person concerning compliance with legal requirements that interprets the law or applies the law to a specific set of facts supplied by the person. The term includes informal guidance under section 213 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121 (Title II), as amended, letter rulings, advisory opinions, and no-action letters.
(b) Within 120 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, each agency shall review its guidance documents and, consistent with applicable law, rescind those guidance documents that it determines should no longer be in effect. No agency shall retain in effect any guidance document without including it in the relevant database referred to in subsection (a) of this section, nor shall any agency, in the future, issue a guidance document without including it in the relevant database. No agency may cite, use, or rely on guidance documents that are rescinded, except to establish historical facts. Within 240 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum, an agency may reinstate a guidance document rescinded under this subsection without complying with any procedures adopted or imposed pursuant to section 4 of this order, to the extent consistent with applicable law, and shall include the guidance document in the relevant database.
(c) The Director of OMB (Director), or the Director's designee, may waive compliance with subsections (a) and (b) of this section for particular guidance documents or categories of guidance documents, or extend the deadlines set forth in those subsections.
(d) As requested by the Director, within 240 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, an agency head shall submit a report to the Director with the reasons for maintaining in effect any guidance documents identified by the Director.
(A) a period of public notice and comment of at least 30 days before issuance of a final guidance document, and a public response from the agency to major concerns raised in comments, except when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates such finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor into the guidance document) that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest;
(B) approval on a non-delegable basis by the agency head or by an agency component head appointed by the President, before issuance;
(C) review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) under Executive Order 12866, before issuance; and
(D) compliance with the applicable requirements for regulations or rules, including significant regulatory actions, set forth in Executive Orders 12866, 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation), 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), and 13777 (Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda).
(b) The Administrator shall issue memoranda establishing exceptions from this order for categories of guidance documents, and categorical presumptions regarding whether guidance documents are significant, as appropriate, and may require submission of significant guidance documents to OIRA for review before the finalization of agency regulations under subsection (a) of this section. In light of the Memorandum of Agreement of April 11, 2018, this section and section 5 of this order shall not apply to the review relationship (including significance determinations) between OIRA and any component of the Department of the Treasury, or to compliance by the latter with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13609, 13771, and 13777. Section 4(a)(iii) and section 5 of this order shall not apply to pre-enforcement rulings.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision in this order, nothing in this order shall apply:
(a) “Agency” has the meaning given to “Executive agency” in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, but excludes the Government Accountability Office.
(b) “Collection of information” includes any conduct that would qualify as a “collection of information” as defined in section 3502(3)(A) of title 44, United States Code, or section 1320.3(c) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, and also includes any request for information, regardless of the number of persons to whom it is addressed, that is:
(c) “Guidance document” means an agency statement of general applicability, intended to have future effect on the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation, but does not include the following:
(d) “Legal consequence” means the result of an action that directly or indirectly affects substantive legal rights or obligations. The meaning of this term should be informed by the Supreme Court's discussion in
(e) “Unfair surprise” means a lack of reasonable certainty or fair warning of what a legal standard administered by an agency requires. The meaning of this term should be informed by the examples of lack of fair notice discussed by the Supreme Court in
(f) “Pre-enforcement ruling” means a formal written communication from an agency in response to an inquiry from a person concerning compliance with legal requirements that interprets the law or applies the law to a specific set of facts supplied by the person. The term includes informal guidance under section 213 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121 (Title II), as amended (SBREFA), letter rulings, advisory opinions, and no-action letters.
(g) “Regulation” means a legislative rule promulgated pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to settlement negotiations between agencies and regulated parties, to notices of a prospective legal action, or to litigation before courts.
(c) An agency may proceed without regard to subsection (a) of this section where necessary because of a serious threat to health, safety, or other emergency or where a statute specifically authorizes proceeding without a prior opportunity to be heard. Where an agency proceeds under this subsection, it nevertheless must afford any person an opportunity to be heard, in person or in writing, regarding the agency's legal determinations and respond in writing as soon as practicable.
(b) To advance the purposes of subsection (a) of this section, any collection of information during the conduct of an investigation (other than those investigations excepted under section 3518 of title 44, United States Code, and section 1320.4 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, or civil investigative demands under 18 U.S.C. 1968) must either:
(b) Any agency that believes additional procedures are not practicable—because, for example, the agency believes it already has adequate procedures in place or because it believes it lacks the resources to institute additional procedures—shall, within 270 days of the date of this order, submit a report to the President describing, as appropriate, its existing procedures, its need for more resources, or any other basis for its conclusion.
(b) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision in this order, nothing in this order shall apply: