Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
International Trade Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Justice Programs Office
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Internal Revenue Service
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Final rule.
The NCUA Board (Board) is amending part 709 of its rules to update and clarify the procedures that apply to claims administration for federally insured credit unions that enter involuntary liquidation. Specifically, the final rule amends the payout priority provision by specifying the conditions that claims in the nature of severance must meet to be allowed as provable claims.
The rule is effective June 29, 2018.
Ian Marenna, Senior Trial Attorney, at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, or telephone: (703) 518–6540.
Section 1217 of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA)
Under a separate provision of the FCU Act, the Board is authorized to prohibit or limit “golden parachute payments,” defined to include payments that are contingent on the termination of the party's employment at the credit union and that are made when the credit union is in troubled financial condition.
In January 2018, the Board issued a proposed rule and request for public comment in which it proposed to clarify how the agency will handle severance claims in involuntary liquidations.
As explained in the next section, after reviewing the six public comment letters on the proposed rule, the Board adopts the proposal as a final rule without change.
The NCUA received six comment letters in response to the proposed rule—two from credit union trade organizations, three from credit union leagues and associations, and one from a credit union. All commenters generally supported the proposed rule's purpose of clarifying the relationship between the golden parachute regulation and the involuntary liquidation claims procedures. One commenter suggested that the Board permit separately-negotiated executive agreements to form the basis of allowable severance claims under part 709. The commenter expressed concern that excluding such agreements from the scope of allowable claims under part 709 could affect credit unions' ability to retain executives.
As the proposed regulatory text indicates, the Board proposed to update part 709 to recognize that severance claims meeting specific criteria would be allowable in involuntary liquidation despite the general bar on such payments in part 750. Although the Board recognizes that the specific criteria set forth in the proposed regulatory text may be narrower than all payments that may be permissible or subject to NCUA approval under part 750, it is important to note that, prior to this rulemaking, the regulations provided that all claims for employee welfare benefits are not provable against the liquidating agent.
The proposed rule was designed to allow an exception to the general rule in part 750 but not repeal it. The Board is not persuaded that it should seek to expand the scope of that exception now. Attracting and retaining effective management is an important consideration, but the rule change does not negatively affect this interest. Indeed, it creates more certainty for severance claims in involuntary liquidations and affords the opportunity to all employees to be eligible to claim these benefits when the claims are based on the fair, objective factors described in the proposed regulatory text. The Board notes that this rule only affects involuntary liquidations, which are infrequent, with only five occurring in 2017, for example.
Accordingly, the Board adopts the proposed rule without change.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden. 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of either a reporting or a recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. Part 709 only concerns credit unions that have failed and imposes no information collection requirements on existing credit unions. Accordingly, there are no PRA implications.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) provides generally for congressional review of agency rules. A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where the NCUA issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The NCUA does not believe this final rule is a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of SBREFA. The NCUA has submitted the rule to the Office of Management and Budget for its determination in that regard.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, the NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. This final rule will clarify certain procedures for the NCUA's administration of liquidated federally insured credit unions. This final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the connection between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The Board has determined that the final rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
The NCUA has determined that the final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
Credit unions, Involuntary liquidation.
For the reasons discussed above, the NCUA Board amends 12 CFR part 709 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1757, 1766, 1767, 1786(h), 1786(t), and 1787(b)(4), 1788, 1789, 1789a.
(b) * * *
(2) Claims for wages and salaries, including vacation, severance, and sick leave pay;
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc. Model BD–700–2A12 and Model BD–700–2A13 airplanes. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design feature is an autobrake system that allows earlier braking at landing without pedal input from the pilot. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Bombardier on May 30, 2018. Send comments on or before July 16, 2018.
Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA–2018–0469 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mark Freisthler, Airframe & Cabin Safety Section, AIR–675, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–3207; email
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplanes.
In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been published in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On May 30, 2012, Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier) applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. T00003NY to include new Model BD–700–2A12 and Model BD–700–2A13 airplanes. These airplanes, which are derivatives of the BD–700 series airplanes currently approved under Type Certificate No. T00003NY, are marketed as the Bombardier Global 7000 and Global 8000, respectively. These airplanes are twin engine, transport category, executive interior business jets with a maximum certified passenger capacity of 19. The maximum takeoff weight for the Model BD–700–2A12 and Model BD–700–2A13 is 106,250 pounds and 104,800 pounds, respectively.
Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Bombardier must show that the Model BD–700–2A12 and Model BD–700–2A13 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00003NY, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Bombardier Model BD–700–2A12 and Model BD–700–2A13 airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.
The Bombardier Model BD–700–2A12 and Model BD–700–2A13 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
The autobrake system on the Bombardier Model BD–700–2A12 and Model BD–700–2A13 airplanes is a pilot-selectable function that allows earlier braking at landing without pedal input from the pilot. When the pilot arms the autobrake system before landing, the system automatically commands braking when the main wheels touch down. This might cause a high nose gear sink rate, and potentially higher gear and airframe loads than would occur with a traditional braking system.
These special conditions define a landing pitchover condition that accounts for the effects of the autobrake system. The special conditions define the airplane configuration, speeds, and other parameters necessary to develop airframe and nose gear loads for this condition. The special conditions require that the airplane be designed to support the resulting limit and ultimate loads as defined in § 25.305, “Strength and deformation.”
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Bombardier Inc. Model BD–700–2A12 and Model BD–700–2A13 airplanes. Should Bombardier apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on Bombardier Model BD–700–2A12 and Model BD–700–2A13 airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
A landing pitchover condition must be addressed that takes into account the effect of the autobrake system. The airplane is assumed to be at the design maximum landing weight, or at the maximum weight allowed with the autobrake system on. The airplane is assumed to land in a tail-down attitude at the speeds defined by § 25.481. Following main gear contact, the airplane is assumed to rotate about the main gear wheels at the highest pitch rate generated by the autobrake system. This is considered a limit load condition from which ultimate loads must also be determined. Loads must be determined for a critical fuel and payload distribution and centers of gravity. Nose gear loads, as well as airframe loads, must be determined. The airplane must support these loads as described in § 25.305.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A320–271N airplanes, and Model A321–271N, –271NX, –272N and –272NX airplanes. This AD requires replacing certain full authority digital engine control (FADEC) electronic engine controllers (EECs); or installing software standard FCS4.4 and re-identifying the FADEC EECs. This AD was prompted by a report that, when operated at low speed and high engine thrust, an engine did not restart following a fuel interruption shorter than five seconds. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective May 30, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 30, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by July 16, 2018.
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 final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–3323.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018–0110, dated May 18, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A320–271N airplanes, and Model A321–271N, –271NX, –272N, and –272NX airplanes. The MCAI states:
During certification test flights of an A320–271N aeroplane, it has been identified that, when operated at low speed and high engine thrust, the tested engine did not re-start in case of a fuel interruption shorter than 5 seconds. Investigation revealed that this was due to the software logic implemented in the FADEC EEC of affected A320 family models.
This condition, if not corrected, could prevent restart of a shut down engine while operating in high power conditions [after a single or dual in-flight engine shutdown].
To address this potentially unsafe condition, software (SW) standard FCS4.4 for the FADEC EEC has been developed, and Airbus published the SB [Airbus Service Bulletin A320–73–1128, Revision 01, dated May 17, 2018] providing modification instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of aeroplanes by [replacing the affected FADEC EECs or by] installation of this FADEC EEC SW [software] standard [and re-identification of the affected FADEC EECs].
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320–73–1128, Revision 01, dated May 17, 2018. This service information describes procedures for replacing affected FADEC EECs and for installing software standard FCS4.4 and re-identifying affected FADEC EECs. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because a FADEC EEC software defect might prevent restart of an engine after a single or dual in-flight engine shutdown under certain conditions. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 16 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective May 30, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSN).
(1) Model A320–271N airplanes.
(2) Model A321–271N, –271NX, –272N and –272NX airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 72, Turbine/turboprop engine.
This AD was prompted by a report that, when operated at low speed and high engine thrust, an engine did not restart following a fuel interruption shorter than five seconds. We are issuing this AD to address engines that might not restart while operating in high
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For the purposes of this AD, an affected full authority digital engine control (FADEC) electronic engine controller (EEC) is one with a part number listed in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(2) For the purposes of this AD, Group 1 airplanes are defined as those that have an affected FADEC EEC installed.
(3) For the purposes of this AD, Group 2 airplanes are defined as those that do not have an affected FADEC EEC installed.
As of 30 days after the effective date of this AD, do not install an affected FADEC EEC on any airplane.
Installation on an airplane of a FADEC EEC or software standard having a part number approved after the effective date of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD, provided the conditions in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD are met.
(1) The FADEC EEC or software standard part number must be approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(2) The installation of the FADEC EEC or software standard must be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
An airplane on which Airbus modification 163473 has been embodied in production is not affected by the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD, provided it can be conclusively determined that no affected FADEC EEC is installed on that airplane.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320–73–1128, dated May 15, 2018.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018–0110, dated May 18, 2018, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–3323.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(3) and (o)(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) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–73–1128, Revision 01, dated May 17, 2018.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Order on clarification and rehearing.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) in this order on clarification and rehearing grants in part Edison Electric Institute's request for clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing of Order No. 833, and denies rehearing of that order, which amends the Commission's regulations to implement provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act pertaining to the designation, protection, and sharing of Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information.
This order is effective July 30, 2018.
1. In Order No. 833, the Commission amended its regulations to implement provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act)
2. On December 4, 2015, the FAST Act was signed into law. The FAST Act,
3. On June 16, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to amend its regulations to implement the provisions of the FAST Act pertaining to the designation, protection, and sharing of Critical Electric Infrastructure Information and to revise the existing Critical Energy Infrastructure Information regulations.
4. On November 17, 2016, the Commission issued Order No. 833, which amended the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 375.309, 375.313, 388.112 and 388.113 to implement the FAST Act provisions that pertain to the designation, protection and sharing of Critical Electric Infrastructure Information. Order No. 833 also revised the existing Critical Energy Infrastructure Information regulations. The Commission determined that the amended regulations comply with the requirements of the FAST Act and better ensure the secure treatment of CEII.
5. EEI asserts that the Commission either erred or should reconsider five aspects of Order No. 833.
6. The FAST Act required the Commission, taking into account standards of the Electric Reliability Organization, to facilitate voluntary sharing of Critical Electric Infrastructure Information. The statute directed the Commission to facilitate voluntary sharing with, between, and by Federal, State, political subdivision, and tribal authorities; the Electric Reliability Organization; regional entities; information sharing and analysis centers established pursuant to Presidential Decision Directive 63; owners, operators, and users of critical electric infrastructure in the United States; and other entities determined appropriate by the Commission.
7. In Order No. 833, the Commission established procedures in its regulations for providing CEII to third parties. Specifically, in § 388.113(f), the Commission established a process for the Commission to voluntarily share CEII when there is a need to ensure energy infrastructure is protected. Separately, in § 388.113(g), the Commission revised its long-standing procedures for members of the public to request access to CEII by requiring a statement demonstrating a valid and legitimate need for the information.
8. The Commission also stated that the procedures do not impose a sharing requirement on entities; instead, the provisions allow the Commission to exercise discretion to share CEII that has already been submitted to, or generated by, the Commission.
9. EEI states that the Commission should reconsider its determination that CEII can be shared over the objections of submitters.
10. We deny clarification and rehearing of this issue. We disagree with EEI's contention that the FAST Act only directs the voluntary sharing of CEII “by and between” entities or that the Commission's release of information over a submitter's objections constitutes “involuntary” sharing of such information. EEI misconstrues FPA section 215A(d)(2)(D) to argue that the statute's directives regarding voluntary sharing do not include voluntary sharing of CEII
11. First, FPA section 215A(d)(2)(D)(i) provides that the Commission's regulations should “facilitate voluntary sharing of critical electric infrastructure information with, between, and by—(i) Federal, State, political subdivision, and tribal authorities . . .” It would be incongruous to read the FAST Act's reference to “voluntary sharing . . . by . . . Federal . . . authorities” not to include voluntary sharing by the Commission of CEII in its possession. Second, the FAST Act did not direct the Commission to curtail or eliminate the established, pre-existing process for providing members of the public with access to CEII, which is provided in 18 CFR 388.113(g)(5)(iii).
12. Even before the FAST Act, the Commission's regulations included a process whereby the Commission's CEII Coordinator had the discretion to share, in certain circumstances, CEII that was submitted to, or generated by, the Commission.
13. In addition, our reading of the FAST Act is consistent with EEI's statement that “[u]nder the plain meaning of the FAST Act statute, the term `voluntary' means the Commission should implement an information sharing process that allows owners to share information intentionally and freely.”
14. Finally, we disagree with EEI's assertion that its interpretation of the FAST Act's “voluntary sharing” provisions is consistent with Congress' creation of a FOIA exemption for CEII.
15. In Order No. 833, the Commission concluded that the FAST Act does not require changes to the Commission's existing process for accessing CEII.
16. EEI asserts that the Commission erred by declining to provide or clarify the criteria that the Commission will use to determine whether a member of the public is eligible to obtain CEII from the Commission.
17. We grant clarification and deny rehearing of this issue. We continue to believe that the Commission has provided sufficient detail on the circumstances in which the Commission will share CEII.
18. Since instituting the CEII process in 2003, the Commission has acquired significant experience in processing CEII requests. In particular, the Commission routinely processes CEII requests from, among others, consultants, academics, landowners, and public interest groups. In implementing the provisions of the FAST Act, the Commission is utilizing its vast experience in addressing the various interests of CEII requestors and submitters as well.
19. Furthermore, we disagree with EEI's assertion that the Commission failed to provide any criteria that the CEII Coordinator will use to determine whether a member of the public is eligible to access CEII. As explained in Order No. 833, the Commission has utilized a “balancing approach effectively in response to Critical Energy Infrastructure Information requests for almost fifteen years. The balancing approach has provided to individuals with a demonstrated need access to information subject to a NDA.”
20. Contrary to EEI's assertion, in the NOPR and in Order No. 833, we provided clarification regarding the criteria for obtaining CEII by outlining information that a CEII requester must include in its statement of need.
21. In its filing, EEI provides one suggestion (
22. Order No. 833 included revisions to strengthen the CEII handling requirements for both Commission staff and external recipients. As part of those revisions, the Commission established minimum requirements for the NDAs that recipients of CEII must execute before receiving access to CEII. The Commission explained that the minimum requirements for an NDA are not exhaustive and do not preclude other requirements.
23. EEI states that the Commission should consider “modernizing the Commission's CEII NDA even further to mitigate against the risk of a CEII recipient involuntarily sharing CEII with a hostile actor.”
24. We grant clarification and deny rehearing on this issue. Order No. 833 explained that § 388.113(h)(2) only includes “`minimum' requirements for a NDA and is not intended to be exhaustive or preclude additional provisions, as needed.”
25. In Order No. 833, the Commission determined that for Commission-generated information, the CEII Coordinator, after consultation with the
26. EEI requests that the Commission clarify the existing procedures or provide the anticipated procedure for stakeholder “notification of, and opportunity to comment on, potential disclosure or sharing of Commission-generated information.”
27. EEI also contends that the Commission could create a document that combines information that alone did not constitute CEII and was not submitted to the Commission as such, but that combined with other information could constitute CEII.
28. We grant clarification and deny rehearing on this issue. The FAST Act implicitly recognizes that the Commission has the expertise and experience to determine whether any information, including Commission-generated information, is properly designated as CEII by vesting the Commission with the authority to designate information as CEII. The FAST Act does not require, and EEI identifies no provision in the FAST Act requiring, the Commission to provide notice and opportunity for public comment about the prospective release or sharing of Commission-generated CEII. Furthermore, the Commission is not persuaded that we should establish a requirement for stakeholder input when the Commission combines information not filed as CEII with other information and potentially creates CEII.
29. To the contrary, inherent differences between Commission-generated CEII and CEII from submitters, as well as practical considerations, warrant different procedures. As EEI acknowledges, there are circumstances in which it would be inappropriate for an outside entity to comment on the content of a non-public, Commission-generated CEII document. Nonetheless, EEI asks the Commission to develop a “consistent process” for stakeholder participation. We disagree and believe that crafting a broad notification requirement for each Commission-generated document that discusses CEII in some respect would be impractical and, as we noted in Order No. 833, often inappropriate.
30. Therefore, EEI's arguments do not persuade us that a formal, mandatory stakeholder process is needed to comment on the release or sharing of Commission-generated CEII. We, however, clarify that nothing in the FAST Act or the Commission's CEII regulations prevents the CEII Coordinator from exercising discretion in an individual situation to solicit comments from a submitter of CEII or other information when evaluating whether to release a Commission-generated CEII document. We note that even if the Commission determines to release Commission-generated CEII, such a release would be pursuant to an NDA and the Commission's protections against further unwarranted or prohibited disclosure.
31. In Order No. 833, the Commission declined to revise the CEII regulations to identify specific designation criteria and CEII procedures for DOE.
32. EEI asserts that the Commission erred in declining to provide or clarify the applicability of any procedure or process for stakeholders regarding DOE designations of its information as CEII.
33. We deny rehearing on this issue. In Order No. 833, the Commission declined to revise our regulations to identify specific designation criteria and CEII procedures that would be required for DOE.
EEI's request for clarification is hereby granted in part and EEI's request
By the Commission.
(e) * * *
(3)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of New Jersey's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submittal regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide, 2010 sulfur dioxide, 2011 carbon monoxide, 2006 particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM
This final rule is effective on June 29, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R02–OAR–2016–0625. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Anthony (Ted) Gardella, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007–1866, at (212) 637–3892, or by email at
The
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), each state is required to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a revised primary or secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standard). CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require each state to make a new SIP submission within three years after the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS for approval into the existing federally-approved SIP to assure that the SIP meets the applicable requirements for such new and revised NAAQS.
On March 1, 2018 (83 FR 8818), the EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) in the
The EPA also proposed to approve three CAA section 110(a) infrastructure requirements for the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM
Other detailed information relevant to this action on New Jersey's infrastructure SIP submission, the requirements of infrastructure SIPs and the rationale for the EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and the associated Technical Support Document (TSD) in the docket and are not restated here.
In response to the EPA's March 1, 2018 proposed rulemaking on New Jersey's infrastructure SIP submission dated October 17, 2014, and as supplemented on March 15, 2017, the EPA received fifteen comments from the public during the 30-day public comment period. After reviewing the comments, the EPA has determined that the comments are outside the scope of our proposed action or fail to identify any material issue necessitating a response. None of the comments raise issues germane to the EPA's proposed action. For this reason, the EPA will not provide a specific response to the comments. The comments may be viewed under Docket ID Number EPA–R02–OAR–2016–0625 on the
The EPA is approving New Jersey's infrastructure submittal dated October 17, 2014, as supplemented on March 15, 2017, for the 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, 2010 NO
The EPA is not taking action on the following elements that are not germane to infrastructure SIPs: sections 110(a)(2)(C) (sub-element related to nonattainment permitting); 110(a)(2)(I); and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J). In addition, with respect to 2008 lead, 2010 NO
Also, with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM
The EPA is deleting the deficiency at 40 CFR 52.1579 because the deficiency identified is resolved by the approval of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) for each of the NAAQS indicated in this action.
In addition, the EPA is incorporating into the New Jersey SIP the following regulation and statutes:
N.J.S.A. 52:13D–14, 52:13D–16(a)–(b) and 52:13D–21(n) “New Jersey's Conflict of Interest Law,”
N.J.A.C 7:27–12, “Prevention and Control of Air Pollution Emergencies.”
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference the regulation and statutes identified at the bottom of Section III of this rule. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 Clean Air Act; 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 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 30, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 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
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
The revision and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1)
(b) * * *
(1) * * * Submittal from New Jersey dated October 17, 2014, as supplemented on March 15, 2017, to address the CAA infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 NO
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency is revising regulations associated with the definition of solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These revisions implement vacaturs ordered by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), on July 7, 2017, as modified on March 6, 2018.
This final rule is effective on May 30, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2018–0185. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, MC 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, Tracy Atagi, at (703) 308–8672, (
This final rule applies to facilities that generate or recycle hazardous secondary materials (HSM). According to the revisions to the definition of solid waste promulgated in 2015, entities potentially affected by the original rule include over 5,000 industrial facilities in 634 industries (at the 6-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code level).
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for revising these provisions without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because these revisions simply undertake the ministerial task of implementing court orders vacating these rules and reinstating the prior versions. As a matter of law, the orders issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 7, 2017 and amended on March 6, 2018, (1) vacated the 2015 verified recycler exclusion for hazardous waste that is recycled off-site (except for certain provisions); (2) reinstated the transfer-based exclusion from the 2008 rule to replace the now-vacated 2015 verified recycler exclusion; (3) upheld the containment and emergency preparedness provisions of the 2015 rule; (4) vacated Factor 4 of the 2015 definition of legitimate recycling in its entirety; and (5) reinstated the 2008 version of Factor 4 to replace the now-vacated 2015 version of Factor 4.
In addition, EPA finds that it has good cause to make the revisions immediately effective under section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), and section 3010(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b). Section 553(d) provides that final rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the
These regulations are promulgated under the authority of sections 2002, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3006, 3010, and 3017 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) This statute is commonly referred to as “RCRA.”
In the 2015 DSW rule, EPA replaced the 2008 DSW rule transfer-based exclusion found at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)–(25) with the verified recycler exclusion, found at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24).
In its decisions vacating the 2015 verified recycler exclusion and ordering the reinstatement of the 2008 transfer-based exclusion, the court found that the first three provisions noted above were severable from the rest of the verified recycler exclusion and would not be affected by the vacatur. Instead, these provisions are retained in the reinstated transfer-based exclusion found in the revised version of 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) being finalized with this action. In addition, the export requirements for the transfer-based exclusion found at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(25) are also reinstated.
In the 2015 DSW rule, EPA revised the definition of legitimate recycling found at 40 CFR 260.43, which was originally promulgated in the 2008 DSW rule. In both the 2008 and 2015 versions of the regulation, the legitimacy provision was designed to distinguish between real recycling activities—legitimate recycling—and “sham” recycling, an activity undertaken by an entity to avoid the requirements of managing a hazardous secondary material as a hazardous waste. This provision represented the codification of a long-standing policy prohibiting sham recycling which had previously been applied via
The existing policy in that 1998 memo was condensed and codified into regulation in 2008 as four separate factors, summarized as follows. Factor 1 addresses the concept that legitimate recycling involves a hazardous secondary material that provides a useful contribution to the recycling process, or to a product or intermediate of the recycling process. Factor 2 addresses the concept that the legitimate recycling process produces a valuable product or intermediate. Factor 3 addresses the concept that under legitimate recycling, the generator and the recycler manages the hazardous secondary material as a valuable commodity when it is under their control. Factor 4 addresses the concept that the product of the recycling process is comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate in terms of hazardous constituents or characteristics. Under the 2008 rule, the first two factors had to be satisfied while the latter two factors had to be considered. In addition, the codified legitimacy test only applied to the then-new Generator-Controlled and Transfer-based exclusions, and to non-waste determinations under 260.34.
The 2015 revisions made the following changes to the four legitimacy factors: (1) All four factors were made to apply to all excluded recycling, including recycling exclusions that predated the 2008 rule (2) Factors 3 and 4 became mandatory factors (in the 2008 rule, they were merely factors to be “considered”), and (3) the substance of Factors 3 and 4 changed to add flexibility since the factors had become mandatory.
In its decisions, the Court vacated Factor 4, but left in place all other 2015 changes to the legitimacy factors. The net result is as follows: (1) The 2015 version of Factor 4 is vacated in its entirety; (2) the 2015 change making the legitimacy factors applicable to all exclusions remains; (3) Factor 3 remains mandatory per the 2015 changes; and (4) the 2008 version of Factor 4 (which
The revisions to 40 CFR 260.42, 40 CFR 260.43, 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24); the reinstatement of 261.4(a)(25), and the removal of 40 CFR 260.30(f) and 260.31(d) are effective immediately.
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize a qualified state to administer and enforce a hazardous waste program within the state in lieu of the federal program, and to issue and enforce permits in the state. A state may receive authorization by following the approval process described in 40 CFR 271.21 (see 40 CFR part 271 for the overall standards and requirements for authorization). EPA continues to have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. An authorized state also continues to have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under state law.
After a state receives initial authorization, new federal requirements and prohibitions promulgated under RCRA authority existing prior to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that state until the state adopts and receives authorization for equivalent state requirements. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new federal requirements and prohibitions promulgated under HSWA provisions take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. As such, EPA carries out the HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized states, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until EPA authorizes the state to do so.
Authorized states are required to modify their programs only when EPA enacts federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing federal requirements. Under RCRA section 3009, states may impose standards that are more stringent than those in the federal program (see also 40 CFR 271.1(i)). Therefore, authorized states are not required to adopt new federal regulations that are considered less stringent than previous federal regulations or that narrow the scope of the RCRA program. Previously authorized hazardous waste regulations would continue to apply in those states that do not adopt “deregulatory” rules.
On March 14, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court issued its mandate, effectuating the vacaturs as described earlier in this document. The court's vacaturs mean that the vacated provisions of these federal rules are legally null and void and the corresponding regulatory requirements that were previously in effect are reinstated as if the vacated parts of the rules never existed. At the federal level, because the effect of the vacaturs means, in essence, that the vacated provisions of these rules should not have been promulgated, this
For states and territories that have no RCRA authorization, the vacaturs mean that the reinstated federal rules are now effect in those states and this
For states and territories that have RCRA authorization but did not adopt the 2015 verified recycler exclusion (and therefore were not authorized for the exclusion), these states are not required to adopt or become authorized for the transfer-based exclusion being reinstated today because the transfer-based exclusion is less stringent than full Subtitle C hazardous waste regulation.
However, states and territories that have RCRA authorization but have not adopted the 2015 definition of legitimate recycling at 40 CFR 260.43 are required to adopt and become authorized for a definition of legitimate recycling that is equivalent to and at least as stringent as the definition being promulgated today.
For states that have adopted rules similar to the verified recycler exclusion and the 2015 definition of legitimate recycling, but have not yet been authorized for them, the vacatur of the federal rules will not change the authorization status of the state programs. The authorization status that was established prior to the adoption of the state counterpart rules remains in effect. The vacaturs and subsequent reinstatement of various provisions of the prior federal rules will result in state provisions that are broader in scope than the federal program as it pertains to the specific vacated provisions.
For states that have previously been authorized for rules similar to the verified recycler exclusion and the 2015 definition of legitimate recycling, and have been authorized for them, the effect of the vacaturs is that those previously-authorized state provisions will be considered broader in scope than the federally program as it pertains to the specific vacated provisions.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) waived review of this action. Because this action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
To implement the court vacatur, EPA submitted an emergency ICR amendment to OMB with OMB control number 2050–0202 (EPA ICR Number 2310.05). You can find a copy of the ICR amendment in the docket for this rule. The ICR amendment reflects changes due to the vacatur, which are expected to affect a total of 105 facilities, resulting in a total net burden reduction of 2,122 hours and $26,132.21 per year. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Solid waste.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921–6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974.
(a) Facilities managing hazardous secondary materials under §§ 260.30, 261.4(a)(23), 261.4(a)(24), 261.4(a)(25), or 261.4(a)(27) must send a notification prior to operating under the regulatory provision and by March 1 of each even-numbered year thereafter to the Regional Administrator using EPA Form 8700–12 that includes the following information:
(1) The name, address, and EPA ID number (if applicable) of the facility;
(2) The name and telephone number of a contact person;
(3) The NAICS code of the facility;
(4) The regulation under which the hazardous secondary materials will be managed;
(5) For reclaimers and intermediate facilities managing hazardous secondary materials in accordance with § 261.4(a)(24) or (25), whether the reclaimer or intermediate facility has financial assurance (not applicable for persons managing hazardous secondary materials generated and reclaimed under the control of the generator);
(6) When the facility began or expects to begin managing the hazardous secondary materials in accordance with the regulation;
(7) A list of hazardous secondary materials that will be managed according to the regulation (reported as the EPA hazardous waste numbers that would apply if the hazardous secondary materials were managed as hazardous wastes);
(8) For each hazardous secondary material, whether the hazardous secondary material, or any portion thereof, will be managed in a land-based unit;
(9) The quantity of each hazardous secondary material to be managed annually; and
(10) The certification (included in EPA Form 8700–12) signed and dated by an authorized representative of the facility.
(a) Recycling of hazardous secondary materials for the purpose of the exclusions or exemptions from the hazardous waste regulations must be legitimate. Hazardous secondary material that is not legitimately recycled is discarded material and is a solid waste. In determining if their recycling is legitimate, persons must address all the requirements of this paragraph and must consider the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) Legitimate recycling must involve a hazardous secondary material that provides a useful contribution to the recycling process or to a product or intermediate of the recycling process. The hazardous secondary material provides a useful contribution if it:
(i) Contributes valuable ingredients to a product or intermediate; or
(ii) Replaces a catalyst or carrier in the recycling process; or
(iii) Is the source of a valuable constituent recovered in the recycling process; or
(iv) Is recovered or regenerated by the recycling process; or
(v) Is used as an effective substitute for a commercial product.
(2) The recycling process must produce a valuable product or intermediate. The product or intermediate is valuable if it is:
(i) Sold to a third party; or
(ii) Used by the recycler or the generator as an effective substitute for a commercial product or as an ingredient or intermediate in an industrial process.
(3) The generator and the recycler must manage the hazardous secondary material as a valuable commodity when it is under their control. Where there is an analogous raw material, the hazardous secondary material must be managed, at a minimum, in a manner consistent with the management of the raw material or in an equally protective manner. Where there is no analogous raw material, the hazardous secondary material must be contained. Hazardous secondary materials that are released to the environment and are not recovered immediately are discarded.
(b) The following factor must be considered in making a determination as to the overall legitimacy of a specific recycling activity.
(1) The product of the recycling process does not:
(i) Contain significant concentrations of any hazardous constituents found in appendix VIII of part 261 that are not found in analogous products; or
(ii) Contain concentrations of hazardous constituents found in appendix VIII of part 261 at levels that are significantly elevated from those found in analogous products, or
(iii) Exhibit a hazardous characteristic (as defined in part 261 subpart C) that analogous products do not exhibit.
(2) In making a determination that a hazardous secondary material is legitimately recycled, persons must evaluate all factors and consider legitimacy as a whole. If, after careful evaluation of these considerations, the factor in this paragraph is not met, then this fact may be an indication that the material is not legitimately recycled. However, the factor in this paragraph does not have to be met for the recycling to be considered legitimate. In evaluating the extent to which this factor is met and in determining whether a process that does not meet this factor is still legitimate, persons can consider exposure from toxics in the product, the bioavailability of the toxics in the product and other relevant considerations.
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 6938.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(23) Hazardous secondary material generated and legitimately reclaimed within the United States or its territories and under the control of the generator, provided that the material complies with paragraphs (a)(23)(i) and (ii) of this section:
(ii)(A) The hazardous secondary material is contained as defined in § 260.10 of this chapter. A hazardous secondary material released to the environment is discarded and a solid waste unless it is immediately recovered for the purpose of reclamation. Hazardous secondary material managed in a unit with leaks or other continuing or intermittent unpermitted releases is discarded and a solid waste.
(B) The hazardous secondary material is not speculatively accumulated, as defined in § 261.1(c)(8).
(C) Notice is provided as required by § 260.42 of this chapter.
(D) The material is not otherwise subject to material-specific management conditions under paragraph (a) of this section when reclaimed, and it is not a spent lead-acid battery (see §§ 266.80 and 273.2 of this chapter).
(E) Persons performing the recycling of hazardous secondary materials under this exclusion must maintain documentation of their legitimacy determination on-site. Documentation must be a written description of how the recycling meets all three factors in § 260.43(a) and how the factor in § 260.43(b) was considered. Documentation must be maintained for three years after the recycling operation has ceased.
(F) The emergency preparedness and response requirements found in subpart M of this part are met.
(24) Hazardous secondary material that is generated and then transferred to another person for the purpose of reclamation is not a solid waste, provided that:
(i) The material is not speculatively accumulated, as defined in § 261.1(c)(8);
(ii) The material is not handled by any person or facility other than the hazardous secondary material generator, the transporter, an intermediate facility or a reclaimer, and, while in transport, is not stored for more than 10 days at a transfer facility, as defined in § 260.10 of this chapter, and is packaged according to applicable Department of Transportation regulations at 49 CFR parts 173, 178, and 179 while in transport;
(iii) The material is not otherwise subject to material-specific management conditions under paragraph (a) of this section when reclaimed, and it is not a spent lead-acid battery (see §§ 266.80 and 273.2 of this chapter);
(iv) The reclamation of the material is legitimate, as specified under § 260.43 of this chapter;
(v) The hazardous secondary material generator satisfies all of the following conditions:
(A) The material must be contained as defined in § 260.10. A hazardous secondary material released to the environment is discarded and a solid waste unless it is immediately recovered for the purpose of recycling. Hazardous secondary material managed in a unit with leaks or other continuing releases is discarded and a solid waste.
(B) Prior to arranging for transport of hazardous secondary materials to a reclamation facility (or facilities) where the management of the hazardous secondary materials is not addressed under a RCRA part B permit or interim status standards, the hazardous secondary material generator must make reasonable efforts to ensure that each reclaimer intends to properly and legitimately reclaim the hazardous secondary material and not discard it, and that each reclaimer will manage the hazardous secondary material in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. If the hazardous secondary material will be passing through an intermediate facility where the management of the hazardous secondary materials is not addressed under a RCRA part B permit or interim status standards, the hazardous secondary material generator must make contractual arrangements with the intermediate facility to ensure that the hazardous secondary material is sent to the reclamation facility identified by the hazardous secondary material generator, and the hazardous secondary material generator must perform reasonable efforts to ensure that the intermediate facility will manage the hazardous secondary material in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. Reasonable efforts must be repeated at a minimum of every three years for the hazardous secondary material generator to claim the exclusion and to send the hazardous secondary materials to each reclaimer and any intermediate facility. In making these reasonable efforts, the generator may use any credible evidence available, including information gathered by the hazardous secondary material generator, provided by the reclaimer or intermediate facility, and/or provided by a third party. The hazardous secondary material generator must affirmatively answer all of the following questions for each reclamation facility and any intermediate facility:
(
(
(
(
(
(C) The hazardous secondary material generator must maintain for a minimum of three years documentation and certification that reasonable efforts were made for each reclamation facility and, if applicable, intermediate facility where the management of the hazardous secondary materials is not addressed under a RCRA part B permit or interim status standards prior to transferring hazardous secondary material. Documentation and certification must be made available upon request by a regulatory authority within 72 hours, or within a longer period of time as specified by the regulatory authority. The certification statement must:
(
(
(D) The hazardous secondary material generator must maintain at the generating facility for no less than three (3) years records of all off-site shipments of hazardous secondary materials. For each shipment, these records must, at a minimum, contain the following information:
(
(
(
(E) The hazardous secondary material generator must maintain at the generating facility for no less than three (3) years confirmations of receipt from each reclaimer and, if applicable, each intermediate facility for all off-site shipments of hazardous secondary materials. Confirmations of receipt must include the name and address of the reclaimer (or intermediate facility), the type and quantity of the hazardous secondary materials received and the date which the hazardous secondary materials were received. This requirement may be satisfied by routine business records (
(F) The hazardous secondary material generator must comply with the emergency preparedness and response conditions in subpart M of this part.
(vi) Reclaimers of hazardous secondary material excluded from regulation under this exclusion and intermediate facilities as defined in § 260.10 of this chapter satisfy all of the following conditions:
(A) The reclaimer and intermediate facility must maintain at its facility for no less than three (3) years records of all shipments of hazardous secondary material that were received at the facility and, if applicable, for all shipments of hazardous secondary materials that were received and subsequently sent off-site from the facility for further reclamation. For each shipment, these records must at a minimum contain the following information:
(
(
(
(
(B) The intermediate facility must send the hazardous secondary material to the reclaimer(s) designated by the hazardous secondary materials generator.
(C) The reclaimer and intermediate facility must send to the hazardous secondary material generator confirmations of receipt for all off-site shipments of hazardous secondary materials. Confirmations of receipt must include the name and address of the reclaimer (or intermediate facility), the type and quantity of the hazardous secondary materials received and the date which the hazardous secondary materials were received. This requirement may be satisfied by routine business records (
(D) The reclaimer and intermediate facility must manage the hazardous secondary material in a manner that is at least as protective as that employed for analogous raw material and must be contained. An “analogous raw material” is a raw material for which a hazardous secondary material is a substitute and serves the same function and has similar physical and chemical properties as the hazardous secondary material.
(E) Any residuals that are generated from reclamation processes will be managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. If any residuals exhibit a hazardous characteristic according to subpart C of 40 CFR part 261, or if they themselves are specifically listed in subpart D of 40 CFR part 261, such residuals are hazardous wastes and must be managed in accordance with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272.
(F) The reclaimer and intermediate facility have financial assurance as required under subpart H of 40 CFR part 261,
(vii) In addition, all persons claiming the exclusion under this paragraph (a)(24) of this section must provide notification as required under § 260.42 of this chapter.
(25) Hazardous secondary material that is exported from the United States and reclaimed at a reclamation facility located in a foreign country is not a solid waste, provided that the hazardous secondary material generator complies with the applicable requirements of paragraph (a)(24)(i)–(v) of this section (excepting paragraph (a)(24)(v)(B)(
(i) Notify EPA of an intended export before the hazardous secondary material is scheduled to leave the United States. A complete notification must be submitted at least sixty (60) days before the initial shipment is intended to be shipped off-site. This notification may cover export activities extending over a twelve (12) month or lesser period. The notification must be in writing, signed by the hazardous secondary material generator, and include the following information:
(A) Name, mailing address, telephone number and EPA ID number (if applicable) of the hazardous secondary material generator;
(B) A description of the hazardous secondary material and the EPA hazardous waste number that would apply if the hazardous secondary material was managed as hazardous waste and the U.S. DOT proper shipping name, hazard class and ID number (UN/NA) for each hazardous secondary material as identified in 49 CFR parts 171 through 177;
(C) The estimated frequency or rate at which the hazardous secondary material is to be exported and the period of time over which the hazardous secondary material is to be exported;
(D) The estimated total quantity of hazardous secondary material;
(E) All points of entry to and departure from each foreign country through which the hazardous secondary material will pass;
(F) A description of the means by which each shipment of the hazardous secondary material will be transported (
(G) A description of the manner in which the hazardous secondary material will be reclaimed in the country of import;
(H) The name and address of the reclaimer, any intermediate facility and any alternate reclaimer and intermediate facilities; and
(I) The name of any countries of transit through which the hazardous secondary material will be sent and a description of the approximate length of time it will remain in such countries and the nature of its handling while there (for purposes of this section, the terms “EPA Acknowledgement of Consent”, “country of import” and “country of transit” are used as defined in 40 CFR 262.81 with the exception that the terms in this section refer to hazardous secondary materials, rather than hazardous waste):
(ii) Notifications must be submitted electronically using EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor system.
(iii) Except for changes to the telephone number in paragraph (a)(25)(i)(A) of this section and decreases in the quantity of hazardous secondary material indicated pursuant to paragraph (a)(25)(i)(D) of this section, when the conditions specified on the original notification change (including any exceedance of the estimate of the quantity of hazardous secondary material specified in the original notification), the hazardous secondary material generator must provide EPA with a written renotification of the change. The shipment cannot take place until consent of the country of import to the changes (except for changes to paragraph (a)(25)(i)(I) of this section and in the ports of entry to and departure from countries of transit pursuant to paragraphs (a)(25)(i)(E) of this section) has been obtained and the hazardous secondary material generator receives from EPA an EPA Acknowledgment of Consent reflecting the country of import's consent to the changes.
(iv) Upon request by EPA, the hazardous secondary material generator shall furnish to EPA any additional information which a country of import requests in order to respond to a notification.
(v) EPA will provide a complete notification to the country of import and any countries of transit. A notification is complete when EPA receives a notification which EPA determines satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a)(25)(i) of this section. Where a claim of confidentiality is asserted with respect to any notification information required by paragraph (a)(25)(i) of this section, EPA may find the notification not complete until any such claim is resolved in accordance with 40 CFR 260.2.
(vi) The export of hazardous secondary material under this paragraph (a)(25) is prohibited unless the country of import consents to the intended export. When the country of import
(vii) For exports to OECD Member countries, the receiving country may respond to the notification using tacit consent. If no objection has been lodged by any country of import or countries of transit to a notification provided pursuant to paragraph (a)(25)(i) of this section within thirty (30) days after the date of issuance of the acknowledgement of receipt of notification by the competent authority of the country of import, the transboundary movement may commence. In such cases, EPA will send an EPA Acknowledgment of Consent to inform the hazardous secondary material generator that the country of import and any relevant countries of transit have not objected to the shipment, and are thus presumed to have consented tacitly. Tacit consent expires one (1) calendar year after the close of the thirty (30) day period; renotification and renewal of all consents is required for exports after that date.
(viii) A copy of the EPA Acknowledgment of Consent must accompany the shipment. The shipment must conform to the terms of the EPA Acknowledgment of Consent.
(ix) If a shipment cannot be delivered for any reason to the reclaimer, intermediate facility or the alternate reclaimer or alternate intermediate facility, the hazardous secondary material generator must re-notify EPA of a change in the conditions of the original notification to allow shipment to a new reclaimer in accordance with paragraph (iii) of this section and obtain another EPA Acknowledgment of Consent.
(x) Hazardous secondary material generators must keep a copy of each notification of intent to export and each EPA Acknowledgment of Consent for a period of three years following receipt of the EPA Acknowledgment of Consent. They may satisfy this recordkeeping requirement by retaining electronically submitted notifications or electronically generated Acknowledgements in their account on EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor system, provided that such copies are readily available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA or authorized state inspector. No hazardous secondary material generator may be held liable for the inability to produce a notification or Acknowledgement for inspection under this section if they can demonstrate that the inability to produce such copies are due exclusively to technical difficulty with EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor system for which the hazardous secondary material generator bears no responsibility.
(xi) Hazardous secondary material generators must file with the Administrator no later than March 1 of each year, a report summarizing the types, quantities, frequency and ultimate destination of all hazardous secondary materials exported during the previous calendar year. Annual reports must be submitted electronically using EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor system. Such reports must include the following information:
(A) Name, mailing and site address, and EPA ID number (if applicable) of the hazardous secondary material generator;
(B) The calendar year covered by the report;
(C) The name and site address of each reclaimer and intermediate facility;
(D) By reclaimer and intermediate facility, for each hazardous secondary material exported, a description of the hazardous secondary material and the EPA hazardous waste number that would apply if the hazardous secondary material was managed as hazardous waste, the DOT hazard class, the name and U.S. EPA ID number (where applicable) for each transporter used, the total amount of hazardous secondary material shipped and the number of shipments pursuant to each notification;
(E) A certification signed by the hazardous secondary material generator which states: “I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this and all attached documents, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.”
(xii) All persons claiming an exclusion under this paragraph (a)(25) must provide notification as required by § 260.42 of this chapter.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final rule; correcting amendment.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces a technical correction to the final rule published on July 10, 2017. The July 10, 2017, technical correction provided amendments to a final rule published on January 19, 2017, but contained an error. HHS/CDC is therefore submitting a new correction to correct that error.
This correcting amendment is effective May 30, 2018.
Jennifer Buigut, Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS–E03, Atlanta, Georgia 30329. Telephone: (404) 498–1600.
On January 19, 2017, HHS/CDC published a final rule (82 FR 6890) that included several non-substantive errors. On July 10, 2017, HHS/CDC published a technical correction (82 FR 31728) to correct errors made in the final rule. However, one new error was inadvertently created by including an instruction to change a word in the title of 42 CFR 71.5 dealing with vessels from “voyage” to “flight.” HHS/CDC therefore, is publishing this correction notice amendment to fix the publication error that was made in the previous technical correction notice.
Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an
The final rule contains a section relating to the transmission of passenger and crew information for vessels, § 71.5. The technical correction published on July 10, 2017 (82 FR 31728), mistakenly changed the title of this section to, “Requirements relating to the transmission of vessel passenger, crew and
Apprehension, CDC, Communicable diseases, Conditional release, Director, Ill person, Isolation, Non-invasive, Public health emergency, Public health prevention measures, Quarantine, Quarantinable Communicable Diseases.
Secs. 215 and 311 of Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 216, 243); secs. 361–369, PHS Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 264–272).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Final rule.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is issuing a final rule describing new, experimental procedures to encourage increased project management flexibility, more innovation in project funding, improved efficiency, timely project implementation, and new project revenue streams for public transportation capital projects. A primary goal of this final rule is to address impediments to the greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects. FTA anticipates using the lessons learned from these experimental procedures to develop more effective approaches to including private participation and investment in project planning, project development, finance, design, construction, maintenance, and operations.
The effective date of this final rule is June 29, 2018.
For program matters, Tom Yedinak, Private Sector Liaison, Office of Budget and Policy, (202) 366–5137 or
This final rule establishes procedures by which FTA recipients contemplating public transportation capital projects may seek a waiver or modification of a mandatory FTA regulation, policy, procedure, or guidance document in order to address impediments to the use of public-private partnerships (P3s) and private investment in public transportation capital projects. The Private Investment Project Procedures (PIPP) are intended to encourage project sponsors to seek modifications of Federal requirements such that the modification will accelerate the project development process, attract private investment and lead to increased project management flexibility, more innovation, improved efficiency, and/or new revenue streams.
Section 20013(b)(1) of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21), Public Law 112–141 (July 6, 2012), requires FTA to identify any provisions of 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, and any regulations or practices thereunder, that impede greater use of P3s and private investment. The law requires FTA to develop and implement, on a project basis, procedures and approaches that address such impediments in a manner similar to the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Special Experimental Project Number 15 process (SEP–15), and protect the public interest and any public investment in public transportation capital projects that involve P3s or private investment. Section 20013(b)(5) of MAP–21 requires FTA to issue a rule to carry out the procedures and approaches developed under Section 20013(b)(1).
In accordance with Section 20013(b)(6) of MAP–21, the PIPP may not be used to waive any requirement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321,
In the notice of proposed rulemaking (82 FR 35500, Jul. 31, 2017), FTA proposed to add a new part 650, “Private Investment Project Procedures,” to title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This final rule adds a new part 650 to title 49 of the CFR. In response to public comments, FTA has made several nonsubstantive, clarifying edits. In addition, FTA has made the following substantive changes:
1. Amended the definition of “Eligible Project” to require a project be included in the statewide long-range transportation plan or the metropolitan transportation plan, as those terms are defined in 23 CFR part 450;
2. Amended section 650.11 to permit one application per phase of a project, and to clarify that multiple waivers or modifications may be sought in one application;
3. Amended section 650.21 to require reporting to FTA one year after construction is complete, and for projects that include private investment in operations and maintenance, a report is required two years after the project has entered into revenue operations; and
4. Amended section 650.31 to permit applicants to identify proposed, as well as committed funding for the project, and to provide that FTA will post on its public website information related to waivers the FTA Administrator has granted.
This final rule is an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action, as FTA believes it will reduce the cost of complying with FTA requirements. FTA requested comment on the potential benefits or cost savings associated with this rule but did not receive any relevant information. Therefore, FTA is unable to quantify the benefits or cost savings due to the lack of information about (1) the types of waivers that will be requested, (2) the number of waivers that will be requested, and (3) the difference in cost between complying with FTA's existing requirements and complying with the requirements of a waiver and this final rule.
Over the past decade, Federal transportation legislation has evolved to encourage increased use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects. FTA's notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule goes into some detail on this history.
More recently, Section 20013(b)(1) of MAP–21 directs FTA to identify impediments in chapter 53 of title 49 of the United States Code, and any regulations or practices thereunder, to the use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects, and to develop and implement procedures on a project basis that address such impediments in a manner similar to FHWA's SEP–15 process.
In 2004 FHWA initiated SEP–15, pursuant to authority granted to the Secretary by 23 U.S.C. 502(b), to create a procedure to waive certain requirements of title 23 of the United States Code and implementing regulations on a case-by-case basis in order to encourage tests and experimentation in the entire project development process, specifically aimed at attracting private investment, leading to increased project management flexibility, more innovation, improved efficiency, timely project implementation, and new revenue streams. 69 FR 59983 (Oct. 6, 2004). SEP–15 permits FHWA to experiment in four major areas of project delivery—contracting, right-of-way acquisition, project finance, and compliance with NEPA and other environmental requirements. SEP–15 enables FHWA to actively explore changes in the way it approaches the oversight and delivery of highway projects to further the Administration's goals of reducing congestion and preserving transportation infrastructure. A key feature of SEP–15 is that it allows FHWA to identify current FHWA laws, regulations, and practices that inhibit greater use of P3s and private investment in transportation improvements and allows FHWA to develop procedures and approaches that address these impediments.
FTA conducted an online dialogue from October 2014 to January 2015 with public transportation recipients and stakeholders to help inform this rulemaking process. In general, commenters identified the following impediments to private investment in public transportation capital projects: The timing of Federal grant awards can discourage lender interest because it is perceived to be incompatible with the timing of private financing schedules, public agency procurement schedules and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) financing programs, such as the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) and Private Activity Bonds (PAB); the level of Federal oversight could be more flexible and dependent upon the experience of the project sponsor, terms of agreements, and the existence of concurrent, independent oversight, such as state or regulatory agencies, and type of financing; FTA could rely more heavily upon approvals of third parties with jurisdiction over a project, rather than replicate certain reviews, and commenters questioned whether any necessary FTA reviews could be expedited by having them performed by an independent third party selected by FTA, but paid for by the project sponsor.
Under this final rule, recipients funding a public transportation capital project subject to 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 with FTA, RRIF, TIFIA or other Federal financial assistance could request a modification or waiver, in whole or in part, of one or more specific FTA regulations, practices, procedures or guidance documents (including circular provisions) that is an impediment to the use of P3s or private investment in that project. For example, an applicant could propose that FTA rely upon approvals of third parties with jurisdiction over an eligible project, rather than replicate certain FTA oversight reviews.
FTA received comments from 21 entities, including State DOTs, transit agencies, industry associations, consultants, and individuals, as well as a metropolitan planning organization (MPO), a union, a private operator, a P3 authority, and a development corporation. Most commenters expressed support for the rulemaking, with one commenter suggesting that private investment is not appropriate for public transit projects and should not be encouraged by FTA.
Some comments were outside the scope of the rulemaking. For example, two commenters suggested they would support initiatives related to waivers of FHWA and USDOT rules; this rulemaking pertains only to FTA. Some commenters suggested lists of requirements or processes that could be waived or modified; this rulemaking does not include such lists, as waiver or modification of administrative requirements will be done on a project (case-by-case) basis. One commenter asked if FTA would consider increasing the Federal share of a project's cost where a P3 is involved, and asked if a project would get a higher rating in the U.S. DOT Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER)
One commenter suggested that projects should be eligible for waiver or modification of administrative requirements only if the project is part of a region's approved long-range transportation plan. This will help to assure the project is a priority for the region. FTA agrees with this comment and has amended the definition of “eligible project” to require the project be included in the statewide long-range transportation plan or the metropolitan transportation plan, as those terms are defined in 23 CFR part 450.
Several commenters suggested various amendments to the proposed definition in the NPRM of Public-Private Partnership (P3). FTA proposed that a P3 be defined as, “a contractual agreement formed between a public agency and a private sector entity that is characterized by private sector investment and risk-sharing in the delivery, financing and operation of a project.” Commenters generally sought a broader definition that would go beyond the conventional project delivery and financing approaches to include other characteristics or elements, such as when federal funding benefits both the public and private sectors and their respective abilities to enhance economic development, mitigate congestion, enhance safety, and improve capacity. One commenter asserted the definition could be read to be limited to various project delivery contracting mechanisms such as design-build-finance, design-build-operate-maintain, or design-build-finance-operate-maintain. One commenter suggested FTA amend the definition to read “one or more private sector agencies.” Two commenters suggested FTA amend the definition to read “private sector investment and/or risk-sharing.” Two commenters suggested that an operations-only agreement should be eligible.
FTA did not amend the definition of P3 proposed in the NPRM. The definition provides the framework necessary for the rule; it is not clear how the definition would prohibit characteristics of a P3 that include enhancing economic development, mitigating congestion, etc. The purpose of the rule is to provide a process by which recipients can request a waiver or modification of an administrative requirement that impedes greater use of
Several commenters expressed concern about the proposed provision in the NPRM that only one application per project could be submitted. Commenters asserted that FTA should permit multiple applications through the development of the project, either by phase or when new opportunities are identified. One commenter suggested that if a project has more than one FTA recipient, each of the recipients should be permitted to request a waiver or modification.
In response to comments, FTA has amended this section to provide that one application per phase of a project may be submitted, and that an application may include requests for waiver or modification of more than one FTA requirement. Allowing an application for each phase of a project means a recipient may submit one application during the project development phase, a second application during the engineering phase, and a third application during construction. FTA encourages recipients to include all of their requests for waiver or modification into one application, in order to streamline the waiver request process.
Where more than one recipient is carrying out a project, the rule does not prohibit each recipient from requesting a waiver or modification of FTA administrative requirements. FTA does, however, expect recipients to work together in such situations to ensure recipients are not working at cross-purposes or submitting duplicate requests. Thus, section 650.31(b)(7) requires recipients to obtain the concurrence of other recipients involved in the same project prior to submitting an application for waiver or modification.
One factor considered by the FTA Administrator in section 650.11(b) is “the amount of private sector participation or risk transfer proposed is sufficient to warrant modification or waiver of FTA requirements.” One commenter suggested this is a subjective factor and that FTA should provide clarity on the type or level of private participation that is deemed sufficient. In response, we note that this will be a case-by-case determination, likely dependent on project size, scope and cost, and thus not quantifiable in the rule.
The proposed text included language from Section 20013(b) of MAP–21, providing the Administrator may not waive or modify “any requirement under” 49 U.S.C. 5333, NEPA, or any other provision of Federal statute. One commenter suggested FTA amend the text to read, “statutory provision of” to better distinguish between statutory requirements that cannot be waived and regulatory requirements that can. FTA declines to make this change, as the language in the rule is the same language that is in the statute.
FTA proposed in the NPRM that a project receiving a waiver or modification of an FTA requirement would be required to submit a report to FTA not later than one year after completion of the project. The report would evaluate the effectiveness of the waiver or modification on project delivery. One commenter suggested that in the case of a design-build-operate-maintain agreement, it could be decades before the project is “complete.” In response to this comment, we have amended the language to provide that a report is due one year after completion of construction, and for projects that include private entity involvement in operations or maintenance, a second report will be required two years after the project begins revenue operations. Other commenters suggested that reporting best practices and lessons learned could be reported as they are learned over the life of the project; FTA believes the reporting requirements of one year after construction and two years into revenue operations is the appropriate balance between getting the information as it is available and not imposing unduly burdensome reporting requirements.
Several commenters suggested FTA make the waiver process as transparent as possible, with determinations on waivers, supporting materials, etc. available online. In response, FTA has added a new provision, section 650.31(e) stating FTA will publish on its public website information related to waivers the FTA Administrator has granted, including the waiver application and any supporting documentation. FTA will redact proprietary information prior to publication.
This section proposed a number of requirements that an application for waiver or modification must meet in order to be considered. Two commenters suggested that the requirement under 650.31(b)(7), that other recipients concur with the application submission where more than one recipient is involved with a project, be deleted. FTA declines to delete this requirement; where two or more recipients are involved in the same project, FTA expects them to work together to submit the application, or at least be aware that one recipient is submitting an application. This will help speed up the process in getting a decision. Several commenters suggested that FTA should accept applications with information available to the recipient at the time the application is submitted; FTA expects complete applications, and will inform any applicant that submits an incomplete application that FTA will not consider an application until it is complete. Several commenters suggested recipients be permitted to resubmit an application with additional information to address a denial or partial approval. FTA declines to accept this suggestion, but will make its Private Sector Liaison available to recipients seeking a waiver or modification for technical assistance purposes, which should help to ensure applications, once submitted, are complete and ready for consideration by the FTA Administrator. One commenter suggested recipients not be required to include duplicative information previously submitted in an earlier application (as in an earlier phase of the project). FTA believes reference to information in an earlier application should be sufficient; we have not amended the regulatory text.
One commenter suggested including additional bases for waivers, such as hardship, unforeseen circumstances, a need for additional time for compliance, etc. FTA declines to include any of
One of the requirements in the proposed rule was that recipients provide, “a financial plan identifying sources and uses of funds committed to the project.” Several commenters suggested that funding sources might not be committed at the time of a waiver or modification application, and that in fact such sources might not be available unless FTA granted a waiver or modification. Two commenters suggested FTA amend the provision to state funds should be “proposed or committed.” FTA has accepted this suggestion and amended the regulatory text accordingly.
FTA did not propose any timeframes for submission or review of applications. Applications may be submitted at any time when a recipient or project sponsor has the information necessary to submit a complete application. Several commenters suggested timeframes for FTA's response to an application, generally varying from 30 to 60 days. Given that the goal of the application is to remove impediments to private sector investment in capital projects, FTA recognizes that a prompt response to an application is important. FHWA generally provides a response to an applicant for SEP–15 within 60 days, depending on the complexity of the request. FTA believes this is a reasonable timeframe and will strive to respond to complete applications within 60 days. If an application is incomplete, FTA will not wait 60 days to respond, but will notify the applicant as soon as FTA determines the application is not complete. While FTA will strive to respond to applications in a timely manner, we decline to include specific timeframes in the regulatory text.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal 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. Also, Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The final rule will encourage tests and experimentation in the project development process and is specifically aimed at attracting public-private partnerships and private investment. Public-private partnerships of capital projects are rare in the U.S. transit industry, although they are common in other countries. The final rule provides an avenue to address existing impediments to P3 projects with the aim of increasing their use, but it is unlikely, on its own, to significantly increase the level of P3 activity in the U.S. transit industry.
FTA has determined this rulemaking is a non-significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and is non-significant within the meaning of the U.S. Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. FTA has examined the potential economic impacts of this rulemaking and has determined that this rulemaking is not economically significant because it will not result in an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Today's rule will not adversely affect the economy, interfere with actions taken or planned by other agencies, or generally alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.
This final rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action because FTA believes it will reduce the cost of complying with FTA requirements. However, FTA is unable to quantify the cost savings due to the lack of information about (1) the types of waivers that will be requested, (2) the number of waivers that will be requested, and (3) the difference in cost between complying with FTA's existing requirements and complying with the requirements of a waiver and this final rule.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354; 5 U.S.C. 601–612), FTA has evaluated the likely effects of the final rule on small entities, and has determined that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rulemaking does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4; 109 Stat. 48).
This rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria established by Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999). FTA has determined that the rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. FTA has also determined that this rule does not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' abilities to discharge traditional State governmental functions. Moreover, consistent with Executive Order 13132, FTA has examined the direct compliance costs of the final rule on State and local governments and has determined that the collection and analysis of the data are eligible for Federal funding under FTA's grant programs.
The regulations effectuating Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this rulemaking.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
NEPA requires Federal agencies to analyze the potential environmental effects of their actions in the form of a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement. This final rule is categorically excluded under FTA's environmental impact procedure at 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4), pertaining to planning and administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to construction, such as the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. FTA has determined that no unusual circumstances exist in this instance, and that a categorical exclusion is appropriate for this rulemaking.
This rulemaking will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (March 15, 1998), Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and DOT Order 5610.2(a) (77 FR 27534) require DOT agencies to achieve environmental justice (EJ) as part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, of their programs, policies and activities on minority and/or low-income populations. The DOT Order requires DOT agencies to address compliance with the Executive Order and the DOT Order in all rulemaking activities. In addition, on July 17, 2014, FTA issued a circular to update its EJ Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Recipients (
FTA has evaluated this rule under the Executive Order, the DOT Order, and the FTA Circular and has determined that this rulemaking will not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority or low income populations.
This action meets the applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
FTA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13045 (April 21, 1997), Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FTA certifies that this rule will not cause an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
FTA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175 (November 6, 2000), and believes that it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
FTA has analyzed this rulemaking under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). FTA has determined that this action is not a significant energy action under the Executive Order, given that the action is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not requirement.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of FTA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment or signing the comment if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or any other entity. Interested persons may review U.S. DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the
This rulemaking is issued under the authority of Section 20013(b)(1) of MAP–21, which requires the Secretary to issue rules to carry out procedures and approaches for alleviating impediments to P3s or private investment in public transportation.
A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN set forth in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
Grant programs—transportation, Mass transportation.
Sec. 20013(b)(5), Pub. L. 112–141, 126 Stat 405; 49 CFR 1.91.
This part establishes private investment project procedures that seek to identify and address Federal Transit Administration requirements that are impediments to the greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects, while protecting the public interest and any public investment in such projects.
This part applies to any recipient subject to 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 that funds a public transportation capital project with Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) (23 U.S.C. 181–189, 601–609), the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program (45 U.S.C. 821–823), or with any other Federal financial assistance.
All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 are applicable to this part. The following definitions also apply to this part:
(a) A recipient may, subject to the requirements of this part, submit applications to modify or waive existing FTA requirements for an eligible project. For projects with multiple recipients, recipients may, but are not required to, submit an application for a project jointly; however, only one application per phase of a project may be submitted. Applications may contain requests for modification or waiver of more than one FTA requirement. All applications shall comply with the requirements of § 650.31.
(b) Subject to § 650.13, the Administrator may modify or waive FTA requirements if the Administrator determines the recipient has demonstrated that—
(1) The FTA requirement proposed for modification discourages the use of a public-private partnership, a joint development, or other private sector investment in a federally assisted public transportation capital project,
(2) The proposed modification or waiver of the FTA requirements is likely to have the effect of encouraging a public-private partnership, a joint development, or other private sector investment in a Federally-assisted public transportation capital project,
(3) The amount of private sector participation or risk transfer proposed is sufficient to warrant modification or waiver of FTA requirements, and
(4) Modification or waiver of the FTA requirements can be accomplished while protecting the public interest and any public investment in the proposed federally assisted public transportation capital project.
(a) Nothing in this part may be construed to allow the Administrator to modify or waive any requirement under—
(1) 49 U.S.C. 5333;
(2) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321,
(3) Any other provision of Federal statute.
(b) The Administrator's approval of an application under this part does not commit Federal-aid funding for the project.
For a project for which the Administrator has modified or waived any FTA requirement pursuant to this part, not later than one year after completion of construction, and not later than two years after a project that includes private entity involvement in operations or maintenance activities has entered revenue operations, the recipient shall submit to FTA a report that evaluates the effects of the modification or waiver of Federal requirements on the delivery of the project. The report shall describe the modification or waiver applied to the project; evaluate the success or failure of the modification or waiver; evaluate the extent to which the modification or waiver addressed impediments to greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects; and may include any recommended statutory, regulatory or other changes with an explanation of how the changes would encourage greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects.
(a) Applications must be submitted to the FTA Private Sector Liaison at FTA Headquarters and provide a copy to the FTA Regional Administrator for the region in which the project is located. Addresses for FTA Headquarters and Regions are available at
(b) To be considered, an application submitted under this part must—
(1) Describe the proposed project with respect to anticipated scope, cost, schedule, and anticipated source and amount of Federal financial assistance,
(2) Identify whether the project is to be delivered as a public-private partnership, as a joint development or with other private sector investment,
(3) Describe in detail the role of the private sector investor, if any, in delivering the project,
(4) Identify the specific FTA requirement(s) that the recipient requests to have modified or waived and a proposal as to how the requirement(s) should be modified,
(5) Provide a justification for the modification(s) or waiver(s), including an explanation of how the FTA requirement(s) presents an impediment to a public-private partnership, joint development, or other private sector investment,
(6) Explain how the public interest and public investment in the project will be protected and how FTA can ensure the appropriate level of public oversight and control, as determined by the Administrator, is undertaken if the modification(s) or waiver(s) is allowed,
(7) Provide other recipients' concurrence with submission of the application and waiver of the right to submit a separate application for the same project, where a project has more than one recipient at the time of application,
(8) Provide a financial plan identifying sources and uses of funds
(9) Explain the expected benefits that the modification or waiver of FTA requirements would provide to address impediments to the greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in the project.
(c) The Administrator shall notify the recipient in writing if the application fails to meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. If the recipient does not supplement an incomplete application within thirty days of the date of the Administrator's notification, the application will be considered withdrawn without prejudice. The Administrator will not consider an application until the application is complete. The Administrator reserves the right to request additional information beyond the requirements in paragraph (b) upon determining that more information is needed to evaluate an application.
(d) For applications that have been deemed complete, the Administrator will notify the recipient in writing as to whether the request for modification or waiver is approved or denied. Any approval may be given in whole or in part and may be conditioned or contingent upon the recipient satisfying the conditions identified in the approval.
(e) FTA will publish on its public website information related to waivers the FTA Administrator has granted. This may include a copy of the waiver application and any supporting documents, with proprietary information redacted.
Under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.91.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Request for information (RFI).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is initiating a data collection process through this request for information to consider whether to amend DOE's test procedure for metal halide lamp fixtures (MHLFs). To inform interested parties and to facilitate this process, DOE has gathered data and identified several issues associated with the currently applicable test procedure on which DOE is interested in receiving comment. The issues outlined in this document mainly concern updates to industry standards and potential clarifications to the existing test procedure for MHLFs. DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of this document, including topics not directly outlined in this RFI. DOE also welcomes comments on any additional topics that may inform DOE's decisions in a potential future test procedure rulemaking, such as methods to reduce regulatory burden while ensuring the procedure's accuracy.
Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before June 29, 2018.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
1.
2.
3.
4.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section 0 of this document.
The docket web page can be found at
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–1604. Email:
Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–6111. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by email:
MHLFs are included in the list of “covered products” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19)) DOE's test procedures for MHLFs are prescribed at 10 CFR 431.324. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish and amend test procedures for MHLFs, as well as relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for MHLFs.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or “the Act”),
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of the Act include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those consumer products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered product, including MHLFs, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) If the Secretary determines, on his own behalf or in response to a petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the
In addition to the test procedure review provision discussed above, EPCA requires DOE to establish test procedures for metal halide lamp ballasts based on the industry standard ANSI C82.6–2005 “Ballasts for High-Intensity Discharge Lamps—Method of Measurement.” (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(18)) EPCA also requires that energy conservation standards and test procedures address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)) On March 9, 2010, DOE published a final rule establishing active mode and standby mode test procedures for MHLFs based on measuring ballast efficiency in accordance with ANSI C82.6–2005 (2010 MHLF TP final rule). 75 FR 10950. DOE determined that per EPCA's definition of “off mode,” it is not possible for MHLFs to meet off mode criteria because there is no condition in which the components of an MHLF are connected to the main power source and are not already in a mode accounted for in either active or standby mode. 75 FR 10954–10955 (March 9, 2010).
In a 2014 MHLF energy conservation standards final rule, DOE amended the test procedure to specify the input voltage at which a ballast is to be tested, and to require measuring and calculating ballast efficiency to three significant figures. 79 FR 7746, 7757–7759 (February 10, 2014). DOE's current test procedure for MHLFs for active mode and standby mode operation appears at 10 CFR 431.324 (“Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency and standby mode energy consumption of metal halide lamp ballasts”). Although MHLFs are the equipment at issue in this RFI, the test procedure requires measurement of metal halide ballast efficiency.
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and economic analyses regarding whether an amended test procedure for MHLFs may be warranted. Specifically, DOE is requesting comment on any opportunities to streamline and simplify testing requirements for MHLFs.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this process that may not specifically be identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
As stated previously, although MHLFs are the covered product, the Federal test procedure requires measurement of
The current test procedure for MHLFs appears at 10 CFR 431.324. As noted previously, the test procedure for MHLFs incorporates by reference the 2005 version of ANSI C82.6 (ANSI C82.6–2005). ANSI C82.6 outlines procedures for measuring the performance of low-frequency ballasts, including metal halide ballasts, designed to operate HID lamps. Testing requires the use of a reference lamp, which is to be operated by the ballast under test conditions until the ballast reaches operational stability. Ballast efficiency is then calculated as the measured ballast output power divided by the ballast input power.
In 2015, ANSI published a revised version of C82.6, “Ballasts for High-Intensity Discharge Lamps—Methods of Measurement,” (ANSI C82.6–2015).
DOE also has found that the industry standard referenced in its definition of “ballast efficiency” has been updated. Per DOE regulations, “ballast efficiency,” or the efficiency of a lamp and ballast combination, is the measured operating lamp wattage (
Based on a recent survey of the market, DOE identified metal halide lamp fixtures that contain ballasts that may be able to operate lamps of more than one wattage (
DOE established an active mode test method in the 2010 MHLF TP final rule, which incorporated relevant sections of ANSI C82.6–2005 to measure ballast efficiency as required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(18)); 75 FR 10950 (March 9, 2010). DOE also clarified in the 2010 MHLF TP final rule that active mode applies to a functioning ballast operating with any amount of system light output (
As required by EPCA, the 2010 MHLF TP final rule established a test method for measuring standby mode power. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)); 75 FR 10959–10961 (March 9, 2010). DOE developed the standby mode test method for metal halide ballasts to be consistent with the industry standard International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62301: 2005, “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power” (first edition, June 2005), but also referenced language and methodologies presented in ANSI C82.6–2005. 75 FR 10951 (March 9, 2010). As such, the 2010 MHLF TP final rule adopted test procedure provisions for measuring standby power that include the following steps: (1) A signal is sent to the ballast instructing it to reduce light output to zero percent; (2) the main input power to the ballast is measured; and (3) the power from the control signal path is measured in one of three ways, depending on how the signal from the control system is delivered to the ballast. 75 FR 10959–10960 (March 9, 2010). DOE is considering the implications of
As discussed in section II.B.1, the current test procedure incorporates by reference ANSI C82.6–2005 for testing both electronic and magnetic metal halide ballasts. However, neither ANSI C82.6–2005 nor the revised 2015 version provide a method specifically for testing high-frequency electronic (HFE) ballasts. A HFE metal halide ballast is defined by DOE as an electronic ballast that operates a lamp at an output frequency of 1000 Hz or greater. 10 CFR 431.322. In the 2013 MHLF energy conservation standards notice of proposed rulemaking, DOE considered adopting procedures for testing HFE ballasts based on the instrumentation used for testing electronic fluorescent lamp ballasts. 78 FR 51464, 51480–51481 (August 20, 2013). However, in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE declined to amend the test procedure to include a procedure for HFE ballasts due to the lack of industry specifications for reference lamps to be paired with the ballasts during testing and the lack of a complete test method specific to HFE ballasts. 79 FR 7758 (February 10, 2014).
Subsequently, an ANSI standard for HFE metal halide ballasts titled ANSI C82.17–2017, “High Frequency (HF) Electronic Ballasts for Metal Halide Lamps,” (ANSI C82.17–2017) was recently published on August 11, 2017.
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE welcomes comment on any other aspect of the existing test procedure for MHLFs not already addressed by the specific areas identified in this document. DOE particularly seeks information that would assist DOE in assuring that the test procedure accurately reflects the energy use of the products during a representative average use cycle, and information that would improve the repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. DOE also requests information that would help DOE create a procedure that would limit manufacturer test burden through streamlining or simplifying testing requirements. Comments regarding the repeatability and reproducibility are also welcome.
DOE also requests feedback on any potential amendments to the existing test procedure that could be considered to address impacts on manufacturers, including small businesses. DOE also seeks comment on the degree to which the Federal test procedure should consider and be harmonized with the most recent relevant industry standards for MHLFs, and whether there are any changes to the Federal test procedure that would provide additional benefits to the public.
DOE also requests comment on the benefits and burdens of adopting any industry/voluntary consensus-based or other appropriate test procedure, without modification. One topic for consideration, for example, is the specification of input voltage and stabilization criteria for ballasts of high intensity discharge lamps beyond what is required by ANSI C82.6. Another topic for consideration is the clarification of testing direction pertaining to the types of metal halide lamps to pair with metal halide ballasts under test, or control devices to be used, during standby mode testing beyond the requirements of IEC 62301: 2011. DOE requests comment on whether the addition of these types of requirements are worth the additional burden on manufacturers.
Additionally, DOE requests comment on whether the existing test procedure limits a manufacturer's ability to provide additional MHLF features to customers. DOE particularly seeks information on how the test procedure could be amended to reduce the cost of new or additional features, and make it more likely that such features are included in MHLFs.
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing, by the date listed in the
Submitting comments via
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of this process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this process should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or via email at
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notification of tribal consultation meetings.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announces that it is holding tribal consultation meetings in Albuquerque, New Mexico and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma concerning the regulations governing the 8(a) Business Development (BD) program and the HUBZone program. SBA seeks to reduce unnecessary or excessive regulatory burdens in those programs and to make them more attractive to procuring agencies and small businesses. Testimony presented at these tribal consultations will become part of the administrative record for SBA's consideration when the Agency deliberates on approaches to changes in the regulations pertaining to these programs.
The Tribal Consultation meeting dates are as follows:
1. Thursday, June 7, 2018, 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. (MDT), Albuquerque, New Mexico. The pre-registration deadline date for this Tribal Consultation meeting is May 31, 2018.
2. Friday, June 8, 2018, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (CDT), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The pre-registration deadline date for this Tribal Consultation meeting is June 1, 2018.
•
•
Chequita Carter, Program Assistant for SBA's Office of Native American Affairs, at
SBA is contemplating making substantive changes to the regulations governing both the 8(a) BD (13 CFR part 124) and HUBZone (13 CFR part 126) programs, and requests comments and input on how best to reduce unnecessary or excessive regulatory burdens in those programs. Particularly, SBA is interested in comments related to two planned rulemakings: (1) Small Business HUBZone Program and Government Contracting Programs (RIN 3245–AG38); and (2) Consolidation of Mentor Protégé Programs and Other Government Contracting Amendments (RIN 3245–AG94). The first-mentioned planned rulemaking would constitute a comprehensive revision of part 126 of SBA's regulations to clarify current HUBZone program regulations, and implement various new procedures. The latter planned rulemaking contemplates consolidating the All Small Mentor Protégé Program and the 8(a) Mentor Protégé Program into one program and possibly eliminating SBA's role in approving joint venture agreements for 8(a) competitive contracts. In addition, it would revise SBA's process for approving management changes in entity-owned 8(a) firms. It is SBA's intent to implement changes that will make it easier for small business concerns to understand and comply with the programs' requirements. SBA is also seeking to make these programs more effective and improve the delivery of them to the small business community. SBA understands that some of its regulations have significantly adversely affected small business concerns owned and controlled by tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs), including 8(a) change of ownership requirements and the process for changing an 8(a) firm's primary NAICS code, and seeks tribal participation to ease these burdens. Lastly, SBA notes that the HUBZone program is often not being fully utilized by procuring agencies, and seeks input on what changes could be made to make the HUBZone program more attractive to both procuring agencies and small businesses.
In addition to the above, the Agency is seeking comments on two recommended regulatory amendments that were proposed during a May 9, 2018, tribal consultation meeting, in Anchorage, Alaska. One such amendment would require prospective 8(a) BD program applicants to complete a preparatory tutorial designed to help such concerns determine whether they are ready to fully benefit from the program's business development assistance. SBA requests input as to whether an 8(a) preparatory tutorial would be helpful to the small business community, and whether any such tutorial should be optional or mandatory for firms seeking to obtain 8(a) certification. The other amendment would allow mentors participating in SBA's mentor protégé programs to have more than three protégés at one time. SBA is concerned that allowing a large business mentor to have additional protégé firms at one time could permit them to unduly benefit from small business contracts, through joint ventures with their protégé firms, which they would otherwise not be eligible for. Nevertheless, SBA is seeking comments on whether lifting the current regulatory limit would benefit small businesses and further the programs' purpose.
The purpose of these tribal consultation meetings is to conform to the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Tribal Consultations; to provide interested parties with an opportunity to discuss their views on the issues; and for SBA to obtain the views of SBA's stakeholders on approaches to the 8(a) BD program and HUBZone program regulations. SBA considers tribal consultation meetings a valuable component of its deliberations and believes that these tribal consultation meetings will allow for constructive dialogue with the Tribal community, Tribal Leaders, Tribal Elders, elected members of Alaska Native Villages or their appointed representatives, and principals of tribally-owned and ANC-owned firms participating in the 8(a) BD and HUBZone programs.
The format of these tribal consultation meetings will consist of a panel of SBA representatives who will preside over the session. The oral and written testimony as well as any comments SBA receives will become part of the administrative record for SBA's consideration. Written testimony may be submitted in lieu of oral testimony. SBA will analyze the testimony, both oral and written, along with any written comments received. SBA officials may ask questions of a presenter to clarify or further explain the testimony. The purpose of these tribal consultations is to assist SBA with gathering information to guide SBA's review process and to potentially develop new proposals. SBA requests that the comments focus on SBA's two planned rulemakings relating to the 8(a) BD and HUBZone programs, the two proposed regulatory revisions SBA received at the tribal consultation in Anchorage, Alaska, general issues as they pertain to the 8(a) BD and HUBZone regulations, input related to what changes could be made to make these programs more attractive to procuring agencies and small businesses, or the unique concerns of the Tribal communities. SBA requests that commenters do not raise issues pertaining to other SBA small business programs. Presenters are encouraged to provide a written copy of their testimony. SBA will accept written material that the presenter wishes to provide that further supplements his or
Each tribal consultation meeting will be held for one day. The meeting in Albuquerque, NM will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 2:30 p.m. (MDT) and the meeting in Oklahoma City, OK will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 2:00 p.m. (CDT). SBA will adjourn early if all those scheduled have delivered their testimony.
SBA respectfully requests that any elected or appointed representative of the tribal communities or principal of a tribally-owned or ANC-owned 8(a) firm that is interested in attending please pre-register in advance and indicate whether you would like to testify at the hearing. Registration requests for the tribal consultation meetings in Albuquerque and Oklahoma City should be received by SBA by May 31, 2018 and June 1, 2018, respectively. Please contact Chequita Carter of SBA's Office of Native American Affairs in writing at
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the tribal consultation meeting, contact Chequita Carter at the telephone number or email address indicated under the
15 U.S.C. 634 and E.O. 13175, 65 FR 67249.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of rejected take-offs due to untimely inboard flap retraction. This proposed AD would require modification of the slat/flap control wiring and replacement of the slat/flap control box with an improved box. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 16, 2018.
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 Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201–440–6700; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–3226.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017–0219, dated November 14, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The MCAI states:
An occurrence was reported where, during the take-off run, a red CAS [crew alerting system] message “NO TAKE OFF” was displayed, and an aural warning was given. The flight crew elected to abort the take-off. The configuration of the affected aeroplane was SF1 and indicated airspeed (IAS) was at 100 kts. Investigations showed that the outboard slat extended microswitch, located at track #7, was not correctly adjusted. A design review revealed that this deficiency may affect only Falcon 900LX (commercial designation) without modification M5636, during take-off in SF1 configuration.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an uncommanded retraction of inboard slats and flaps during take-off, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, DA [Dassault Aviation] designed modification M6043 and published Service Bulletin (SB) F900EX–522 to provide instructions for embodiment of this modification in-service.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a wiring modification and replacement of the slat/flap control box with an improved box.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Dassault Aviation has issued Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX–522, also referred to as 522, dated March 8, 2017. This service information describes procedures for modifying the slat/flap control wiring and replacing the slat/flap control box. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 16, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, certificated in any category, serial number 240 and serial numbers 242 through 273 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of rejected take-offs due to untimely inboard flap retraction. We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncommanded retraction of the inboard slats and flaps during take-off, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, modify the slat/flap control wiring and replace the slat/flap control box having part number (P/N) 6–7061 with an improved control box, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX–522, also referred to as 522, dated March 8, 2017.
After modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no person may install any slat/flap control box having P/N 6–7061 on that airplane.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017–0219, dated November 14, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–3226.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201–440–6700; internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 747–8 and 747–8F series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that flightcrew oxygen masks did not deploy correctly during flight testing. This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine if certain oxygen masks/regulators and stowage boxes are installed and replacement if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 16, 2018.
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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone 562–797–1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206–231–3570; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received a report indicating that during flight tests, flightcrew oxygen masks/regulators did not deploy correctly. Users could not put the flightcrew oxygen masks/regulators on quickly because the harness tubing became caught in the mask or goggles. This condition, if not addressed, could result in a delay for the flightcrew to put
We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–35–2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacing certain oxygen masks/regulators and stowage boxes. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are 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 an inspection to determine if certain oxygen masks/regulators and stowage boxes are installed and, if certain oxygen masks/regulators and stowage boxes are installed, accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–35–2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017, described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information,” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–35–2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017, refers to or specifies installing a new (or changed) part, for this proposed AD, we have determined a new or serviceable (or changed) part is acceptable.
In addition, the effectivity of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–35–2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017, is limited. However, this proposed AD applies to all Model 747–8 and 747–8F series airplanes. Because the affected parts are rotable parts, we have determined that these parts could later be installed on airplanes that were initially delivered with acceptable parts, thereby subjecting those airplanes to the unsafe condition. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 18 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 16, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747–8 and 747–8F series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.
This AD was prompted by a report that flightcrew oxygen masks did not function as designed during flight testing. We are issuing this AD to address flightcrew oxygen masks/regulators that do not deploy correctly, which could result in a delay for the flightcrew to put on the masks, which may lead to hypoxia and loss of useful consciousness, potentially resulting in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness, or an original export certificate of airworthiness, issued on or before the effective date of this AD: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect for oxygen mask/regulator part number (P/N) MLD20–626–1 and stowage box P/N MXP806–1. If any oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20–626–1 or stowage box P/N MXP806–1 is found, within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–35–2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of the part number inspection if the part numbers of the oxygen mask/regulator and stowage box can be conclusively determined from that review.
Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–35–2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017, refers to or specifies installing a new (or changed) part, for this AD, a new or serviceable (or changed) part is acceptable.
(1) For airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness, or an original export certificate of airworthiness, issued on or before the effective date of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20–626–1 on any airplane, except that prior to 72 months after the effective date of this AD, installation of P/N MLD20–626–1 is acceptable for unscheduled maintenance as a replacement only for another P/N MLD20–626–1 and only into a stowage box P/N MXP806–1. If an oxygen mask/regulator having a part number other than P/N MLD20–626–1 is installed, it may not be replaced with P/N MLD20–626–1. For the purposes of this AD, unscheduled maintenance is defined as maintenance that was not planned for or scheduled in advance, such as changing a defective or unserviceable oxygen mask at dispatch.
(2) For airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or an original export certificate of airworthiness issued after the effective date of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20–626–1, on any airplane.
(3) For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20–726–1, in combination with any stowage box part number that is not P/N MXP806–7, on any airplane.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206–231–3570; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone 562–797–1717; internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98–18–24, which applies to certain Airbus Model A320 series airplanes. AD 98–18–24 requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking in the inner flange of a certain door frame, and corrective actions, if necessary. AD 98–18–24 also provides an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. Since we issued AD 98–18–24, it has been determined that the compliance times for the repetitive inspections must be reduced. This proposed AD would continue to require the repetitive inspections of the inner flange of a certain door frame, with reduced repetitive inspection intervals, and corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 16, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–3223.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 98–18–24, Amendment 39–10740 (63 FR 49272, September 15, 1998) (“AD 98–18–24”), for certain A320 series airplanes. AD 98–18–24 was prompted by the results of a fatigue test on simulated flights which revealed cracks on the inner flange of door frame 66 at stringers 18 and 20. The cracks were located in the gusset plate attachment holes and were hidden by the gusset plates. AD 98–18–24 requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking in the inner flange of door frame 66, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 98–18–24 also provides an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We issued AD 98–18–24 to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the inner flange of door frame 66, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 98–18–24, based on the results from a full scale fatigue test, it has been determined that the repetitive inspection intervals must be reduced.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017–0128, dated July 24, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A320–211 and A320–231 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During fatigue test on simulated flights, cracks developed on the inner flange of door frame 66 at stringer 18 and 20 positions. These cracks were located in the gusset plate attachment holes and were hidden by the plates.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the fuselage.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320–53–1071, later revised, to provide instructions to inspect and repair the gusset plate attachment holes at frame 66, at stringers 18, 20 and 22 both left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) side of the fuselage (hereafter collectively referred to as “the attachment holes” in this [EASA] AD), and [Airbus] SB A320–53–1072, providing instructions for reworking of the attachment holes.
Consequently, DGAC France issued [French] AD 1996–234–087, later revised [which corresponds to FAA AD 98–18–24], requiring repetitive inspections and, depending on findings, repair of the attachment holes, and including reference to a reworking procedure, which constitutes optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections of the attachment holes.
Since that [French] AD was issued, based on results from a full scale fatigue test, it was determined that the inspection intervals must be reduced. Airbus issued SB A320–53–1071 Revision 03, modifying the inspection threshold and intervals, and not changing the inspection instructions.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirement of DGAC France AD 1996–234–087 R1, which is superseded, and requires reduction of the repetitive inspection interval.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320–53–1071, Revision 03, dated July 20, 2017. This service information describes procedures for detailed inspections of the gusset plate attachment holes at door frame 66 for cracking and corrective action.
Airbus also issued Service Bulletin A320–53–1072, Revision 02, dated May 5, 2016. This service information describes procedures for modification of the gusset frame attachment at door frame 66.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 3 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 98–18–24, and retained in this proposed AD take about 8 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 98–18–24 is $680 per product.
We estimate that it would take about 19 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $4,845, or $1,615 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
In addition, we estimate that the optional terminating action would take about 20 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts costs would be about $60. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the optional terminating action would be $1,760 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $255, or $85 per product.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120–0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 16, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 98–18–24 Amendment 39–10740 (63 FR 49272, September 15, 1998) (“AD 98–18–24”).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A320–211 and Model A320–231 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 0029, 0045, 0046, 0049 through 0057 inclusive, 0059, 0064, and 0065.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracks on the inner flange of door frame 66 at stringer 18 and 20 positions and by the results of a full scale fatigue test that indicated the intervals for the repetitive inspections required by AD 98–18–24 must be reduced. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the inner flange of door frame 66, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 98–18–24, with no changes. For Model A320 series airplanes on which Airbus Modification 21778 (reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1072, dated November 7, 1995, as revised by Change Notice 0A, dated July 5, 1996) has not been accomplished: Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within 1 year after October 20, 1998 (the effective date of AD 98–18–24), whichever occurs later: Perform a rotating probe eddy current inspection to detect cracking around the edges of the gusset plate attachment holes of the inner flange of door frame 66, left and right, at stringer positions P18, P20, and P22, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1071, dated November 7, 1995, as revised by Change Notice 0A, dated July 5,
This paragraph restates the optional terminating action of paragraph (b) of AD 98–18–24, with no changes. Modification of the gusset plate attachment holes of the inner flange of door frame 66, left and right (Airbus Modification 21778), in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1072, dated November 7, 1995, as revised by Change Notice 0A, dated July 5, 1996, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
At the applicable compliance time specified in figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD, do a rotating probe eddy current inspection to detect cracking around the edges of the gusset plate attachment holes of the inner flange of door frame 66, left and right, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1071, Revision 03, dated July 20, 2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10,900 flight cycles.
(1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, any crack is found on a gusset plate attachment hole: Before further flight, repair the affected attachment hole, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1071, Revision 03, dated July 20, 2017, except as required by paragraph (n) of this AD.
(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, any crack is found on any other hole of the gusset plate: Before further flight, contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA); for approved repair instructions and accomplish those instructions accordingly. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(1) Repair of an attachment hole area as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD for that attachment hole area on that airplane only.
(2) Repair of any other hole of the gusset plate, as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, does not terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD for that airplane, unless specified otherwise in the repair instructions provided by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
(3) Accomplishing the initial inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
Modification of the gusset plate attachment holes of the inner flange of door frame 66, left and right, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1072, Revision 02, dated May 5, 2016, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD for that airplane.
Report the results of the inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD that are done on or after the effective date of this AD to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (
Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1071, Revision 03, dated July 20, 2017, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (q)(2) of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1071, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2002; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1071, Revision 02, dated May 5, 2016.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions identified in paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1072, dated November 7, 1995, as revised by Change Notice 0A, dated July 5, 1996; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1072, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2002.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200.
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 98–18–24 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017–0128, dated July 24, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–3223.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC–8–400 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of the nose landing gear (NLG) locking in a partially extended position due to loose bushings on the lock link of the NLG locking mechanism. This proposed AD would require inspecting the bushings and the lower lock link of the NLG for discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 16, 2018.
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 Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone: 416–375–4000; fax: 416–375–4539; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, New York ACO Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516–228–7318; fax 516–794–5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF–2018–01, dated January 24, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC–8–400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
A landing incident took place whereby the aeroplane's nose landing gear (NLG) was locked in a partially-extended position, leading to gear collapse upon NLG touch down. The investigation revealed that the NLG was locked in this position due to the bushings on the lock link of the NLG locking mechanism becoming loose. This condition was present due to insufficient interference fit which resulted in some bushing outer diameter wear and fretting. A dislodged bushing will also cause the bushing sealant to break. Broken sealant allows moisture ingress and corrosion that can accelerate free play buildup. Excessive free play at the lock link can result in the inability to fully retract or deploy the NLG, resulting in a risk of NLG collapse on landing.
Bombardier Inc. has developed an inspection to identify and correct this condition. This [Canadian] AD requires a repetitive inspection and corrective actions based on the inspection findings.
Discrepancies include any signs of migration of the bushings, broken or missing edge sealant, diagonal paint cracks on the sealant, and paint stripe misalignment. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84–32–153, dated September 22, 2017. The service information describes procedures for a visual inspection of the bushings and the lower lock link of the NLG for discrepancies. The service bulletin also describes procedures for repair or replacement of the lock link if any discrepancy is found. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 16, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC–8–400, –401, and –402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001 and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of the nose landing gear (NLG) locking in a partially extended position due to loose bushings on the lock link of the NLG locking mechanism. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct excessive free play at the lock link of the NLG locking mechanism, and consequent inability to fully retract or deploy the NLG, which could result in collapse of the NLG and affect the safe landing of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Do a general visual inspection of the bushings and the lower lock link of the NLG locking mechanism for discrepancies, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–153, dated September 22, 2017. If any discrepancy is found, before further flight, repair or replace the lower lock link, as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,600 flight cycles.
(1) For airplanes on which all NLG lower lock links have accumulated 7,200 or fewer total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Before the accumulation of 8,000 total flight cycles.
(2) For airplanes on which any NLG lower lock link has accumulated more than 7,200 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Within 800 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF–2018–01, dated January 24, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, New York ACO Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516–228–7318; fax 516–794–5531.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone: 416–375–4000; fax: 416–375–4539; email:
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Proposed amendment; notice of intent.
The Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this notice of intent to publish a temporary order to schedule the synthetic cannabinoids, Naphthalen-1-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1
May 30, 2018.
Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598–6812.
This notice of intent contained in this document is issued pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) intends to issue a temporary scheduling order (in the form of a temporary amendment) placing NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.
Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance in schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance permanently are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) while the substance is temporarily controlled under section 811(h), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).
Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1); 21 CFR part 1308. The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.
Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of his intention to temporarily place a substance in schedule I of the CSA.
To find that placing a substance temporarily in schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(c): The substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).
A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).
The illicit use of the synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) has continued throughout the United States, resulting in severe adverse effects, overdoses and deaths. While new SCs continue to emerge on the illicit market, some substances identified at their peak in previous years have continued to be abused by the user population.
SCs are substances synthesized in laboratories that mimic the biological effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. SCs were introduced on the designer drug market in several European countries as “herbal incense” before the initial encounter in the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in November 2008. From 2009 to the present, misuse of SCs has increased in the United States with law enforcement encounters describing SCs applied onto plant material and in other designer drug products intended for human consumption. Hospital reports, scientific publications and/or law enforcement reports demonstrate that NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA and their associated designer drug products are abused for their psychoactive properties. As with many generations of SCs encountered since 2009, the abuse of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA is impacting or will negatively impact communities.
As observed by the DEA and CBP, SCs originate from foreign sources, such as China. Bulk powder substances are smuggled via common carrier into the United States and find their way to clandestine designer drug product manufacturing operations located in residential neighborhoods, garages, warehouses, and other similar destinations throughout the country. According to online discussion boards and law enforcement encounters,
NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA have no accepted medical use in the United States. Use of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA and 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA has been reported to result in adverse effects in humans in the United States. In addition, NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA and MMB-CHMICA have been seized by law enforcement in the United States. Use of 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA has not been documented in the United States yet, but its use has been reported to result in serious adverse events, including death, in other countries. Use of other SCs has resulted in signs of addiction and withdrawal. Based on the pharmacological similarities between NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA and other SCs, they are likely to produce signs of addiction and withdrawal similar to those produced by other SCs.
NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA are SCs that have pharmacological effects similar to the schedule I hallucinogen THC and other temporarily and permanently controlled schedule I SCs. In addition, the misuse of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA and 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA has been associated with multiple overdoses requiring emergency medical intervention in the United States. With no approved medical use and limited safety or toxicological information, NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA have emerged on the designer drug market, and the abuse or trafficking of these substances for their psychoactive properties is concerning.
Synthetic cannabinoids have been developed by researchers over the last 30 years as tools for investigating the endocannabinoid system (
Numerous SCs have been identified as product adulterants, and law enforcement has seized bulk amounts of these substances. As successive generations of SCs have been identified and included within schedule I, illicit distributors have developed new SC substances that vary only by slight modifications to their chemical structure while retaining pharmacological effects related to their abuse potential. These substances and products laced with these substances are marketed under the guise of “herbal incense” and promoted as a “legal high” with a disclaimer that they are “not for human consumption.” Thus, after section 1152 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), Public Law 112–144, placed cannabimimetic agents and 26 specific substances in schedule I, law enforcement documented the emergence of new SCs, including UR-144, XLR11, AKB48, PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA. After these substances were temporarily scheduled (78 FR 28735, 79 FR 7577), another generation of SCs appeared, including AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201. These substances were also temporarily, and then permanently, scheduled in schedule I (80 FR 5042, 82 FR 8593).
NM2201 was first identified in November 2012 in seized drug evidence, followed by 5F-AB-PINCA (August, 2013), MMB-CHMICA (December, 2015) and most recently 4-CN-CUMYL BUTINACA (January, 2016). While 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA has not been encountered within the U.S. yet, the use of this substance and resulting adverse events have been documented in Europe. Based on the similarity between trafficking patterns, distribution and use of 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA versus other illicit SCs, 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA poses significant risk for emergence in illicit drug markets in the United States. Following their manufacture in China, SCs are often encountered in countries including New Zealand, Australia and Russia before appearing throughout Europe and eventually the U.S. Recent law enforcement seizures are demonstrating that some SCs whose popularity peaked in 2014 and 2015 have remained popular within the illicit market (
The powder form of SCs is typically dissolved in solvents (
NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA similar to other SCs, have been found in powder form or mixed with dried leaves or herbal blends that were marketed for human use. Presentations at emergency departments directly linked to the abuse of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA or 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA have resulted in adverse symptoms, including diaphoresis, tachycardia, hypertension, seizures, agitation, violence, nausea and memory impairment.
SCs continue to be encountered on the illicit market despite scheduling actions that attempt to safeguard the public from the adverse effects and safety issues associated with these substances (see factor 5 in supporting documentation). Novel substances continue to be encountered, differing
As described by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), many substances being encountered in the illicit market, specifically SCs, have been available for years but have reentered the marketplace due to a renewed popularity. This is especially true for substances like NM2201 and 5F-AB-PINACA, SCs that were popular in 2014 have remained popular on the illicit market. The threat of serious injury to the individual and the imminent threat to public safety following the ingestion of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA and other SCs persist.
Full reports of information obtained through STARLiMS,
As described previously, based on the similarity between trafficking patterns, distribution and the use of 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA versus other illicit SCs, 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA poses significant risk for emergence in illicit drug markets in the United States.
Since first being identified in the U.S. in 2008, the ingestion of SCs continues to result in serious adverse effects. Details of these events in the U.S. and/or abroad involving NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA are summarized below and detailed in the DEA 3-Factor Analysis. While no adverse event information is currently available for MMB-CHMICA, increasing law enforcement seizures, scientific publications regarding its abuse and the pharmacological similarity of MMB-CHMICA to other currently controlled schedule I SCs with known risks to public health (
1. A previously well 25-year-old man in the United Kingdom presented with agitation, double incontinence and left-sided incoordination. His symptoms started after smoking a synthetic cannabinoid (black mamba) 5 days earlier. Over 48 hours, he developed aphasia, generalized hypertonia, hyper-reflexia and dense left hemiparesis. This progressed to profuse diaphoresis, fever, tachycardia, hypertension and a possible seizure necessitating admission to the intensive care unit. An electroencephalogram showed widespread brain wave slowing, indicating diffuse cerebral dysfunction. Toxicology analysis of the substance confirmed a potent synthetic cannabinoid NM2201.
2. In December 2015, 25-30 people in Ocala, FL who used a synthetic cannabinoid product were taken to local hospitals following episodes of violence, fighting and experiencing seizures. Local laboratory analysis confirmed drug evidence seized from the overdose cluster as NM2201.
3. In June 2014, a 37 year old male in Japan drove a car from a busy downtown street onto a wide sidewalk for 30 meters and hit many pedestrians one after another until it was stopped by collision with a telephone booth. A woman was killed and seven persons were injured. The driver lost consciousness and was drooling. He had no memory of what occurred after smoking. 5F-AMB and AB-CHMINACA were detected in the herbal mixture. In addition, 5F-AB-PINACA was detected in the urine sample.
4. Between December 2017 and January 2018, at least 37 confirmed or suspected cases of intoxication occurred in Utah following ingestion of products labeled either “CBD Oil” or “YOLO.”. The products were liquids intended to be used in a vaping device or directly ingested sublingually. Further testing of these products determined that they contained the synthetic cannabinoid 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA. As per the Utah Department of Health, adverse reactions included altered mental status, hallucinations, seizures, confusion, loss of consciousness, tachycardia or slurred speech.
5. In January 2018, 13 correctional facility workers were treated for overdose symptoms including diaphoresis, hypertension and tachycardia following ingestion of an airborne substance while conducting cell searches for contraband. In response to the overdose events, evidence retrieved from the searches tested positive for the synthetic cannabinoids 5F-ADB, 5F-EDMB-PINACA and 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA.
6. Eight countries within Europe have reported just over 50 detections of 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA was typically detected in plant material or as a powder. The biggest detections included a 5 kg seizure (December 2014) and 7 kg seizure (January 2015) of white powder believed to originate from China.
7. Two deaths with confirmed exposure to 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA (detected along with other substances) have been reported to the EMCDDA. These occurred in November 2016 and December 2016. In one of the cases, 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA was reported as the cause of death.
Because they share pharmacological similarities with schedule I substances (Δ
NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA are being encountered on the illicit drug market in the U.S. and/or Europe and have no accepted medical use in the United States. Regardless, these products continue to be easily available and abused by diverse populations.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3), based on the available data and information summarized above, the continued uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, conduct of research and chemical analysis, possession, and/or abuse of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA, resulting from the lack of control of these substances, pose an imminent hazard to the public safety. The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed in schedule I. Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA indicate that these SCs have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. As required by section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Acting Administrator, through a letter dated March 9, 2018, notified the Assistant Secretary of the DEA's intention to temporarily place NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA in schedule I.
This notice of intent provides the 30-day notice pursuant to section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), of the DEA's intent to issue a temporary scheduling order. In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Acting Administrator considered available data and information, herein set forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule Naphthalen-1-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1
The temporary placement of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA in schedule I of the CSA will take effect pursuant to a temporary scheduling order, which will not be issued before June 29, 2018. Because the Acting Administrator hereby finds that it is necessary to temporarily place NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA in schedule I to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the temporary order scheduling these substances will be effective on the date that order is published in the
The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).
Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for a temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the
Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this notice of intent. In the alternative, even assuming that this notice of intent might be subject to section 553 of the APA, the Acting Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of section 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.
Although the DEA believes this notice of intent to issue a temporary scheduling order is not subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the APA, the DEA notes that in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Acting Administrator took into consideration comments submitted by the Assistant Secretary in response to the notice that DEA transmitted to the
Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.
Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, the DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 956(b), unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) proposes to amend the Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases and the Rules of Practice in Filings Pursuant to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks to mandate electronic filing of trademark applications and submissions associated with trademark applications and registrations, and to require the designation of an email address for receiving USPTO correspondence. This proposed rule would further advance the USPTO's IT strategy to achieve complete end-to-end electronic processing of trademark-related submissions, thereby improving administrative efficiency by facilitating electronic file management, optimizing workflow processes, and reducing processing errors.
Comments must be received by July 30, 2018 to ensure consideration.
The USPTO prefers that comments be submitted via electronic mail message to
Although comments may be submitted by postal mail, the Office prefers to receive comments by electronic mail message over the internet because the Office may easily share such comments with the public. Electronic comments are preferred to be submitted in plain text, but also may be submitted in portable document format or DOC file format. Comments not submitted electronically should be submitted on paper in a format that facilitates convenient digital scanning into portable document format.
The comments will be available for public inspection on the USPTO's website at
Catherine Cain, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, by email at
This proposed rule is intended to maximize end-to-end electronic processing of applications and related submissions, as well as registration maintenance filings. Achieving complete end-to-end electronic processing of all trademark submissions is a strategic objective of the USPTO. End-to-end electronic processing means that an application and all application- and registration-related submissions are filed and processed electronically, and any related correspondence between the USPTO and the relevant party is conducted entirely electronically. Thus, an application that is processed electronically end to end would be submitted through TEAS, and all submissions related to the application, such as voluntary amendments, responses to Office actions, or allegations of use, would be filed through TEAS. With this change, outgoing USPTO correspondence regarding the application would be sent by email. Likewise, all submissions related to a registration would be filed through TEAS and outgoing USPTO correspondence regarding the registration would be sent by email communication.
Although more than 99% of applications under section 1 or section 44 are now filed electronically, only about 87% are prosecuted electronically from end to end. This means that approximately 12% of these filings still involve paper processing. Prior reductions in the filing fees for electronic submissions resulted in almost 100% of new applications being filed electronically, but did not completely close the loop on end-to-end electronic communication. The process for submitting responses and other documents is no different from the process for submitting an application. To the extent that several years ago there was a limitation on the file size that the USPTO electronic system could accept, which may have resulted in applicants and registrants submitting large evidentiary files on paper, that issue no longer exists. By mandating electronic filing of trademark applications and submissions concerning applications or registrations through TEAS, the proposed rules are intended to reduce paper processing to an absolute minimum and thus maximize end-to-end electronic processing.
End-to-end electronic processing of all applications, related correspondence, statutorily required registration maintenance submissions, and other submissions will benefit trademark customers and increase the USPTO's administrative efficiency by facilitating electronic file management, optimizing workflow processes, and reducing processing errors. Paper submissions hinder efficiency and accuracy and are more costly to process than electronic submissions because they require manual uploading of scanned copies of the documents into the USPTO electronic records system and manual data entry of information set forth in the documents. Electronic submissions through TEAS, on the other hand, generally do not require manual processing and are automatically categorized, labeled, and uploaded directly into an electronic file wrapper in the USPTO electronic records system for review by USPTO employees and the public. If a TEAS submission contains any amendments to the application or other changes to the information in the record, often those amendments and changes are automatically entered into the electronic records system. Furthermore, TEAS submissions are more likely to include all necessary information because the USPTO can update its forms to specifically tailor the requirements of a particular submission and require that the information be validated prior to submission. Consequently, preparing and submitting an application or related document through TEAS is likely to result in a more complete submission and take less time than preparing and mailing the paper equivalent. Thus, TEAS submissions expedite processing, shorten application pendency, minimize manual data entry and potential data-entry errors, and eliminate the potential for lost or missing papers.
This proposed rule also requires the designation of an email address for receiving USPTO correspondence concerning these submissions. Currently, in order to receive a filing date for a new application under section 1 or section 44, the USPTO requires, inter alia, that the applicant designate “an address for correspondence.” 37 CFR 2.21(a)(2). Applicants who file using the TEAS Plus or TEAS Reduced Fee (TEAS RF) options are required to designate an email address for correspondence. Those who file on paper or select the regular TEAS option may designate a postal address to satisfy this requirement. This proposed rule would require applicants and registrants, and parties to a proceeding before the TTAB, to provide and maintain an email address for correspondence. The requirement to designate an email address for receiving USPTO correspondence benefits the USPTO and its customers by reducing costs and increasing efficiency. Email correspondence can be sent, received, and processed faster than paper correspondence, which must be printed, collated, scanned, and uploaded to the electronic records system, and mailed domestically or internationally, at greater expense. Under this proposed rule, applicants and registrants, and parties to a proceeding before the TTAB, would also be required to provide and maintain a postal address, as would their qualified practitioner, if the applicant, registrant, or party is represented. This requirement ensures that the USPTO would always be able to contact the applicant, registrant, party, or practitioner in the event the email correspondence address cannot be used.
TEAS currently provides 58 forms for filing trademark applications and other submissions related to the prosecution of applications and the maintenance of
Despite these additional requirements, and the potential additional processing fee for noncompliance, the TEAS RF filing option is now the most popular filing option among USPTO customers, followed by TEAS Plus. These two filing options currently account for approximately 97% of all new trademark applications filed under section 1 and/or section 44, suggesting that most applicants are comfortable with filing and communicating with the USPTO electronically.
Furthermore, in January 2017, the USPTO revised its rules to (1) increase fees for paper filings to bring the fees nearer to the cost of processing the filings and encourage customers to use lower-cost electronic options and (2) require that all submissions to the TTAB be filed through ESTTA. As a result of these rule changes, the USPTO is now processing approximately 87% of applications filed under section 1 and/or section 44 electronically end to end.
(1) New Applications. Under this proposed rule, § 2.21 would be amended to require applicants to file electronically, through TEAS, any trademark, service mark, certification mark, collective membership mark, or collective trademark or service mark application for registration on the Principal or Supplemental Register under section 1 and/or section 44. As noted above, the requirement to file an application through TEAS would not apply to applications based on section 66(a) because they are initially processed by the IB and subsequently transmitted electronically to the USPTO.
The existing TEAS RF filing option, which currently requires applicants to maintain an email address for receiving USPTO correspondence regarding the application and file the application and related submissions through TEAS, would effectively become the default, or “standard,” filing option and would be renamed “TEAS Standard.” The filing fee for this option would remain $275 per class. The TEAS Plus option would also remain at $225 per class, while the TEAS option under 37 CFR 2.6(a)(1)(ii) at $400 per class would be eliminated. However, the per-class fee of $400 set forth in § 2.6(a)(1)(ii), which is the current filing fee for applications under section 66(a), would be retained as the filing fee for such applications.
Under this proposed rule, an application filed on paper under section 1 and/or section 44 would be denied a filing date unless it falls under one of the limited exceptions discussed below.
(2) Processing Fee. Currently, the additional processing fee under § 2.6(a)(1)(v) applies to TEAS Plus applications that fail to meet the requirements under § 2.22(a) at filing, and applies to both TEAS Plus and TEAS RF applications when certain submissions are not filed through TEAS or when the applicant fails to maintain a valid email address for receipt of communications from the Office. Under this proposed rule, the processing fee would apply only to TEAS Plus applications that fail to meet the proposed revised requirements under § 2.22(a) at filing. As discussed below, all applicants and registrants, except those specifically exempted, would be required to submit electronically submissions filed in connection with an application or registration and to designate and maintain an email address for correspondence. All applicants and registrants who seek acceptance of a submission filed on paper, pursuant to proposed § 2.147, or a waiver of the requirement to file such submissions electronically, must pay the relevant paper filing fee and the paper petition fee for any submission filed on paper. Because the fees for filing on paper are higher than those for filing electronically, the Office has determined that applicants who seek acceptance of a submission filed on paper or a waiver of the requirement to file electronically should not be further penalized by being required to pay this processing fee.
(3) Submissions Required to be Filed Through TEAS. This proposed rule would amend the rules at § 2.23 to also require that correspondence concerning a trademark application or registration under section 1, section 44, or section 66(a) be filed through TEAS, except for correspondence required to be submitted to the Assignment Recordation Branch or through ESTTA. Although all correspondence is required to be filed electronically, the USPTO recognizes that there may be certain instances when a paper filing is necessary. For those instances, the Office also proposes to codify a new regulatory section, at 37 CFR 2.147, which sets out a procedure for requesting acceptance of paper submissions under particular specified circumstances. The proposed section is discussed below in the explanation of the limited exceptions to the proposed requirements.
Although this proposed rule would require that correspondence be filed through TEAS, it would make no such requirement for informal communications. Thus, consistent with current USPTO practice, an applicant or an applicant's attorney may still conduct informal communications with an examining attorney or post registration specialist regarding a particular application or registration by telephone or email.
(4) Email Correspondence Address. This proposed rule would amend §§ 2.21, 2.23, and 7.4 to require that applicants and registrants provide a valid email correspondence address.
As noted above, applications under section 66(a) are processed and transmitted electronically to the USPTO from the IB. These applications do not include an email address for receiving USPTO correspondence, but would be subject to the proposed requirements to file all submissions electronically and to provide an email address for receipt of correspondence from the USPTO under proposed §§ 2.23(b) and 2.32(a)(2), (4).
(1) International Agreements: The United States (U.S.) is a member of both the Trademark Law Treaty (TLT) and the subsequent Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks (STLT). TLT and STLT constitute two separate international instruments that may be ratified or acceded to independently by member countries. One provision of TLT mandates that its members accept paper trademark applications and related correspondence from nationals of other TLT members. STLT, on the other hand, allows its members to choose the means of transmittal of communications, whether on paper, in electronic form, or in any other form. This incongruity between the treaties was addressed in Article 27(2) of STLT, which provides that any Contracting Party to both STLT and TLT shall continue to apply TLT in its relation with Contracting Parties to TLT that are not parties to STLT. Accordingly, nationals of TLT members that are not also members of STLT at the time of submission of the relevant document to the USPTO would not be required to file electronically or receive communications from the Office via email, nor would they be required to submit a petition with a paper filing, until such time as their country joins STLT. Currently, the countries whose nationals the Office must accept paper trademark applications and related correspondence from are: Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, Peru, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, and Uzbekistan.
(2) Specimens for Scent, Flavor, or Other Non-Traditional Marks: This proposed rule would allow for the separate submission of physical specimens when it is not possible to submit the specimen through TEAS because of the nature of the mark. For example, if the application or registration is for a scent or flavor mark, because the required specimen must show use, or continued use, of the flavor or scent, it cannot be uploaded electronically. In that situation, the applicant may submit the application through TEAS and indicate that it is mailing the specimen to the USPTO. In these circumstances, all other requirements of this proposed rule would still apply. However, the applicant or registrant would not be required to submit a petition requesting acceptance of a specimen filed on paper or waiver of the requirement to file the specimen electronically. This exception does not apply to specimens for sound marks, which can be attached to the TEAS form as an electronic file.
(3) Petition to Accept a Paper Submission: The USPTO herein proposes a new regulatory section entitled “Petition to the Director to accept a paper submission,” which would be codified at § 2.147. Pursuant to this proposed section, an applicant or registrant may file a petition to the Director requesting acceptance of a submission filed on paper in three situations.
Under proposed § 2.147(a), the petition may be submitted if TEAS is unavailable on the date of the deadline for the submission specified in a regulation in parts 2 or 7 of this chapter or in a section of the Act. Under this provision, the applicant or registrant would be required to submit proof that TEAS was unavailable because a technical problem, on either the USPTO's part or the user's part, prevented the user from submitting the document electronically. Generally, if a user receives an error message the first time they attempt to submit a filing electronically, the Office expects that he or she will try to ascertain and resolve failures due to user error. In situations where the inability to submit the filing was not due to user error, the Office would encourage a user to make another attempt to submit the document electronically before resorting to the paper petition process.
The second scenario applies to a document identified in proposed § 2.147(b) that was timely submitted on paper, but not examined by the Office because it was not submitted electronically in accordance with proposed § 2.21(a) or § 2.23(a). The Office would notify the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding before the TTAB that the document was not examined and must be resubmitted electronically. The applicant, registrant, or party may request that the timely filed paper submission be accepted only if the applicant, registrant, or party is unable to timely resubmit the document electronically by the statutory deadline.
Finally, under proposed § 2.147(c), when an applicant or registrant does not meet the requirements under proposed § 2.147(a) or (b) for requesting acceptance of the paper submission, the applicant or registrant may petition the Director under § 2.146(a)(5), requesting a waiver of § 2.21(a) or § 2.23(a) and documenting the nature of the extraordinary situation that prevented the party from submitting the correspondence electronically. Because the assessment of what would qualify as an extraordinary situation depends on the specific facts, the Office would address particular situations on a case-by-case basis.
The Office intends to continue the approach it has employed in the past when USPTO technical problems rendered TEAS unavailable. For example, when verifiable issues with USPTO systems prevented electronic filing for extended periods, the Office has waived non-statutory deadlines on petition, such as the deadline for response to a post-registration Office action, as well as petition fees. Such measures help avoid negatively impacting applicants and registrants in
Note that the inability to submit an application or submission electronically due to regularly scheduled system maintenance does not qualify for relief under proposed § 2.147 or as an extraordinary situation under § 2.146. The USPTO routinely performs system maintenance between midnight and 5:30 a.m. Eastern Time on weeknights and at all hours on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Advance notice of the maintenance is generally posted on the USPTO Systems Status and Availability page on the USPTO website.
(4) Postal-service Interruptions or Emergencies. The Office intends to continue the approach it has employed when there has been a postal-service interruption or emergency related to a natural disaster. In such events, the Office has generally waived certain requirements of the rules, such as non-statutory deadlines and petition fees. The Office also issues notices regarding the specific procedures to be followed in such circumstances and posts the notices on the “Operating Status” page of the USPTO website.
The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.2 to revise paragraph (e) to include the abbreviation “USPTO” and paragraphs (f) and (g) to indicate that the definitions of TEAS and ESTTA include all related electronic systems required to complete an electronic submission through each and to delete the URLs. The USPTO also proposes to add: § 2.2(o), defining ETAS; § 2.2(p), defining “Eastern Time;” § 2.2(q), defining “electronic submission;” and § 2.2(r) defining “USPS.”
The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.6 to clarify that § 2.6(a)(1)(ii) applies to applications filed under section 66(a) of the Act. The USPTO also proposes to change the wording “Reduced Fee (RF)” to “Standard” and delete the reference to § 2.23 in § 2.6(a)(1)(iii), to reword § 2.6(a)(1)(iv) for clarity, and to delete the reference to § 2.23(c) in § 2.6(a)(1)(iv).
The USPTO proposes to delete the wording “and attorney” and the reference to TEAS in current § 2.17(d)(1), because it is unnecessary in view of proposed § 2.23(a), and to delete paragraph (d)(2) as unnecessary as a result of updates to the electronic form for filing a power of attorney.
The USPTO proposes to add introductory text to § 2.18(a) indicating that the following paragraphs set out the procedures by which the Office would determine the address to which correspondence would be sent. The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.18(a)(1) to define when the Office will send correspondence to the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding and § 2.18(a)(2) to define when the Office will send correspondence to a qualified practitioner. The USPTO also proposes to delete current paragraphs (a)(3)–(a)(5), to redesignate current § 2.18(a)(6) as § 2.18(b) and reword for clarity, and to delete current paragraph (a)(7) and incorporate the text into proposed § 2.18(a)(2). The USPTO proposes to redesignate current § 2.18(b) as § 2.18(c) and to incorporate and clarify the requirements in current § 2.18(b)(1)–(4), which would be deleted. The USPTO proposes to redesignate current § 2.18(c)(1) as § 2.18(d), to delete the second and third sentences in current § 2.18(c)(1), to clarify that the Office will change the address if a new address is provided, to add a cross reference to proposed § 2.18(a), and to delete current § 2.18(c)(2).
The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.21(a) to require that applications under section 1 or section 44 be filed through TEAS, to require the postal and email addresses for each applicant, and if the applicant is represented by a qualified practitioner, to require the postal and email addresses for the practitioner. The USPTO proposes to reword § 2.21(a)(5) for clarity, to reword § 2.21(b) and include a reference to proposed § 2.21(c), which sets out an exemption for certain countries.
The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.22(a) to specify that TEAS Plus applications must satisfy the requirements of § 2.21, to delete current paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(5), and (a)(6) and renumber the remaining paragraphs, to correct the cross reference in redesignated paragraph (a)(7) to § 2.6(a)(1)(iv), to delete the first sentence and the reference to a particular format in redesignated paragraph (a)(9), and to delete the URL in redesignated paragraph (a)(10). The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.22(b) to indicate that the applicant must comply with proposed § 2.23(a) and (b), to delete § 2.22(b)(1) and (b)(2), and to delete the second sentence in § 2.22(c).
The USPTO proposes to amend the title of § 2.23 to “Requirements to correspond electronically with the Office and duty to monitor status” and to delete the current text of the section. The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.23(a) to require that, unless stated otherwise, all trademark correspondence be filed through TEAS, to revise § 2.23(b) to require that applicants, registrants, and parties to a proceeding maintain a valid email correspondence address, to revise current § 2.23(c) to set out an exemption for nationals of a country that has acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, and to add § 2.23(d) to require applicants and registrants to monitor the status of their applications and registrations.
The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.24(a) to clarify that only an applicant or registrant that is not domiciled in the U.S. may designate a domestic representative. The USPTO proposes to delete § 2.24(a)(1)(i), to redesignate
The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.32(a)(2) to include a requirement for the postal and email addresses of each applicant, unless the applicant or registrant is a national of a country that has acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks. The USPTO also proposes to amend § 2.32(a)(4) to delete the current wording and require the name, postal address, and email address of an applicant's qualified practitioner. The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.32(d) to add the word “the” before “fee.”
The USPTO proposes to reword § 2.56(a) slightly for clarity, to amend § 2.56(d) to set out the requirements for submitting a specimen through TEAS, to revise current § 2.56(d)(1) and (2) to set out the exceptions to the proposed requirements, and to delete § 2.56(d)(3) and (4).
The USPTO proposes to amend the title of § 2.62 to “Procedure for submitting response,” to revise § 2.62(a) slightly for clarity, to revise § 2.62(c) for consistency with proposed § 2.23, and to add that responses filed via facsimile will not be accorded a date of receipt.
The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.111(c)(2) for consistency with proposed § 2.147(b).
The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.146(a) to add the words “in a trademark case” and to revise § 2.146(a)(2) and (4) to specify that the regulation applies to “parts 2, 3, 6, and 7” of Title 37.
The USPTO proposes to add § 2.147 to set out the requirements for submitting a petition requesting acceptance of a paper submission.
The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.148 to clarify that it applies to “parts 2, 3, 6, and 7 of this chapter.”
The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.151 to indicate that the certificate of registration will issue to the owner, to reword the second and third sentences for clarity, and to change the wording “accompany” in the last sentence to “issue with.”
The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.162 to change the word “includes” to “issues with the certificate” for consistency with proposed § 2.151.
The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.190(a) to clarify that the paragraph refers to paper documents and that the stated mailing address should be used when trademark documents are permitted to be filed by mail. The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.190(b) to state that trademark documents filed electronically must be submitted through TEAS and that documents related to TTAB proceedings must be filed through ESTTA, and to delete the URLs. The USPTO proposes to reword § 2.190(c) for clarity and to delete the mailing address and URL. The USPTO proposes to add “certified” to the title of § 2.190(d) and to delete the first sentence and the wording “or uncertified” in the second sentence. The USPTO proposes to correct the mailing address in § 2.190(e).
The USPTO proposes to amend the title of § 2.191 to “Action of the Office based on the written record” and to revise the section to state that all business must be recorded in writing, to reword for clarity, and to delete the last sentence.
The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.193(a)(2) and (b) to delete wording regarding submission of a photocopy or facsimile or by facsimile transmission. The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.193(c)(1) to change the wording “he or she” to “the signer,” and to revise § 2.193(d) to require submission of the first and last name and the title or position of the signatory and to delete the wording “in printed or typed form” and the wording after “the signature.” The USPTO proposes to amend the introductory text of § 2.193(e) to clarify that documents must be signed as specified in paragraphs (e)(1)–(10). The USPTO proposes to delete the term “paper” in § 2.193(e)(10), to reword § 2.193(g)(1) for clarity, and to change “correspondence” to “documents” and delete the last sentence in § 2.193(g)(2).
The USPTO proposes to amend the title of § 2.195 to “Filing date of trademark correspondence.” The USPTO proposes to delete current § 2.195(a)–(d) and to set out the procedures for determining the filing date of electronic and paper submissions in proposed § 2.195(a) and (b)(1) through (b)(2), to indicate when the Office is closed in proposed § 2.195(b)(3), to indicate that email and facsimile transmissions are not permitted in proposed § 2.195(c), and to redesignate current § 2.195(e) as § 2.195(d)(1)–(3) and delete current § 2.195(e)(3).
The USPTO proposes to amend the title of § 2.197 to “Certificate of mailing.” The USPTO proposes to delete current § 2.197(a)–(c) and to set out the requirements for obtaining a filing date based on a certificate of mailing in proposed § 2.197(a), the procedure when correspondence is mailed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section but not received by the Office in proposed § 2.197(b), and the filing date when the certificate of mailing does not meet the requirements in proposed § 2.197(c).
The USPTO proposes to delete current § 2.198(a)–(f) and to clarify the filing date of correspondence submitted under this section in proposed § 2.198(a) and (b) and the procedures when there is a discrepancy, error, or non-receipt in proposed § 2.198(c)–(e).
The USPTO proposes to amend § 7.1(c) to indicate that the definition of TEAS includes all related electronic systems required to complete an electronic submission through TEAS and to delete a URL. The USPTO proposes to amend § 7.1(d) to add “or the abbreviation
The USPTO proposes to amend the title of § 7.4 to “International applications and registrations originating from the USPTO—Requirements to electronically file and communicate with the Office.” The USPTO proposes to amend § 7.4(a) to specify that all correspondence relating to international applications and registrations originating from the USPTO must be submitted through TEAS and include a valid email correspondence address. The USPTO proposes to amend § 7.4(b) to require that applicants and registrants maintain a valid email correspondence address and to delete current paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2). The USPTO proposes to amend § 7.4(c) to set out an exemption for nationals of a country that has acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks and § 7.4(d) to set out the procedure if TEAS is unavailable or when there is an extraordinary situation, and to delete paragraphs (d)(1)–(d)(6). The USPTO also proposes to delete § 7.4(e).
The USPTO proposes to amend § 7.11(a) to delete the word “either,” to add a cross reference to § 7.4(a), and to specify that the Office will grant a date of receipt to an international application typed on the official paper form issued by the International Bureau if a paper submission is permitted under § 7.4(c) or accepted on petition pursuant to § 7.4(d). The USPTO also proposes to delete § 7.11(a)(12).
The USPTO proposes to amend § 7.21(b) to delete the word “either,” to add a cross reference to § 7.4(a), and to specify that the Office will grant a date of receipt to a subsequent designation typed on the official paper form issued by the International Bureau if a paper submission is permitted under § 7.4(c)
The USPTO proposes to revise § 7.25 to delete the reference to § 2.23 and replace it with a reference to § 2.22 and to add a cross reference to § 2.198.
The changes in this rulemaking involve rules of agency practice and procedure, and/or interpretive rules.
Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for the changes in this rulemaking are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), or any other law.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
For the reasons set forth herein, the Senior Counsel for Regulatory and Legislative Affairs of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would amend the regulations to require that applications filed under section 1 or section 44 of the Trademark Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 1051, 1126, and all submissions regarding an application or registration under section 1, section 44 and section 66(a), be filed electronically. The proposed rule will also require that applicants and registrants maintain a valid email correspondence address and continue to receive communications from the Office by email. The proposed rule will apply to all applicants and registrants unless acceptance of a submission filed on paper or a waiver of the proposed requirements is granted on petition, the applicant/registrant is a national of a country to which the requirements will not apply, or the requirement to file electronically is otherwise excepted, as for certain types of specimens. Applicants for a trademark are not industry specific and may consist of individuals, small businesses, non-profit organizations, and large corporations. The USPTO does not collect or maintain statistics on small- versus large-entity applicants, and this information would be required in order to determine the number of small entities that would be affected by the proposed rule.
The burdens to all entities, including small entities, imposed by these rule changes will be minor procedural requirements on parties submitting applications or documents and communications in connection with an application or registration. The vast majority of users already file and prosecute applications electronically in response to previous initiatives to increase end-to-end electronic processing. For example, the USPTO amended its rules to encourage electronic filing through TEAS and email communication by establishing the TEAS Plus and TEAS RF filing options for applications that are based on section 1 and/or section 44.
Furthermore, in January 2017, the USPTO revised its rules to (1) increase fees for paper filings to bring the fees nearer to the cost of processing the filings and encourage customers to use lower-cost electronic options and (2) require that all submissions to the TTAB be filed through ESTTA. As a result of these rule changes, the USPTO is now processing approximately 87% of applications filed under section 1 and/or section 44 electronically end to end.
The proposed changes do not impose any additional economic burden unless the applicant or registrant fails to file electronically. In such cases, the economic burden to the applicant or registrant would be the higher paper fee for the submission (if a fee is required) and the fee for the petition seeking acceptance of a submission filed on paper or a waiver of the requirement to file electronically. However, as mentioned above, since the vast majority of current users already file and prosecute applications electronically, the economic impact of filing on paper is expected to be small. Moreover, this proposed rule will lead to a greater adoption of lower filing-fee options and therefore outweigh any cost burdens and likely save applicants and registrants money. For these reasons, this rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Office has complied with Executive Order 13563. Specifically, the Office has, to the extent feasible and applicable: (1) Made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the rule to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5) identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) involved the public in an open exchange of information and perspectives among experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector and the public as a whole, and provided on-line access to the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization across government agencies and identified goals designed to promote innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and (9) ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information and processes.
This proposed rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).
This rulemaking will not: (1) Have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; or (3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000).
This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this rulemaking is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18, 2001).
This rulemaking meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).
This rulemaking does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr. 21, 1997).
This rulemaking will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).
Under the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801
The changes set forth in this notice do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the expenditure by the private sector of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rulemaking will not have any effect on the quality of the environment and is thus categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not applicable because this rulemaking does not contain provisions that involve the use of technical standards.
This rulemaking involves information collection requirements that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
You may send comments regarding the collections of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Nicholas A. Fraser, the Desk Officer for the United States Patent and Trademark Office; and (2) The Commissioner for Trademarks, by mail to P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313–1451, attention Catherine Cain; by hand delivery to the Trademark Assistance Center, Concourse Level, James Madison Building-East Wing, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, attention Catherine Cain; or by electronic mail message via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. All comments submitted directly to the USPTO or provided on the Federal eRulemaking Portal should include the docket number (PTO–T–2017–0004).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.
Administrative practice and procedure, International registration, Trademarks.
For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority contained in 15 U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2, as amended, the Office proposes to amend parts 2 and 7 of title 37 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, Section 10 of Pub. L. 112–29, unless otherwise noted.
(e) The term
(f) The acronym
(g) The acronym
(o) The acronym
(p)
(q) The term
(r) The abbreviation
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) For filing an application under section 66(a) of the Act, per class—$400.00
(iii) For filing a TEAS Standard application, per class—$275.00
(iv) For filing a TEAS Plus application under § 2.22, per class—$225.00
(v) Additional processing fee under § 2.22(c), per class—$125.00
(d)
(a)
(1) If the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding is not represented by a practitioner qualified to practice before the Office under § 11.14 of this chapter, the Office will send correspondence to the applicant, registrant, or party to the proceeding.
(2) If a power of attorney that meets the requirements of § 2.17(c) is filed, the Office will send correspondence to the qualified practitioner designated in the power. Or, if, pursuant to § 2.17(b)(1)(ii) or (g), a practitioner qualified under § 11.14 of this chapter submits a document(s) on behalf of an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding who is not already represented by another qualified practitioner from a different firm, the Office will send correspondence to the practitioner submitting the documents. Once the Office has recognized a practitioner qualified under § 11.14 of this chapter as the representative of the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding, the Office will communicate and conduct business only with that practitioner, or with another qualified practitioner from the same firm. A request to change the correspondence address does not revoke a power of attorney. Except for service of a cancellation petition, the Office will not conduct business directly with the applicant, registrant, or a party to a proceeding, or with another practitioner from a different firm, unless:
(i) The applicant or registrant files a revocation of the power of attorney under § 2.19(a) and/or a new power of attorney that meets the requirements of § 2.17(c); or
(ii) The practitioner has been suspended or excluded from practicing in trademark matters before the USPTO.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) The Office will grant a filing date to an application under section 1 or section 44 of the Act that is filed through TEAS, is written in the English language, and contains all of the following:
(1) The name, postal address, and email address of each applicant;
(2) If the applicant is represented by a practitioner qualified under § 11.14 of this chapter, the practitioner's name, postal address, and email address;
(3) A clear drawing of the mark;
(4) A listing of the goods or services; and
(5) The filing fee required under § 2.6 for at least one class of goods or services.
(b) If the applicant does not satisfy all the elements required in paragraph (a) of this section, the Office will deny a filing date to the application unless the applicant meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) If the applicant is a national of a country that has acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section to file through TEAS and provide an email address do not apply.
(a) A trademark/service mark application for registration on the Principal Register under section 1 and/or section 44 of the Act that meets the requirements for a filing date under § 2.21 will be entitled to a reduced filing fee under § 2.6(a)(1)(iv) if it includes:
(1) The applicant's legal entity;
(2) The citizenship of each individual applicant, or the state or country of incorporation or organization of each juristic applicant;
(3) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and citizenship of the applicant's general partners;
(4) One or more bases for filing that satisfy all the requirements of § 2.34. If more than one basis is set forth, the applicant must comply with the requirements of § 2.34 for each asserted basis;
(5) Correctly classified goods and/or services, with an identification of goods and/or services from the Office's Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual, available through the TEAS Plus form. In an application based on section 44 of the Act, the scope of the goods and/or services covered by the section 44 basis may not exceed the scope of the goods and/or services in the foreign application or registration;
(6) If the application contains goods and/or services in more than one class, compliance with § 2.86;
(7) A filing fee for each class of goods and/or services, as required by § 2.6(a)(1)(iv);
(8) A verified statement that meets the requirements of § 2.33, dated and signed by a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the owner pursuant to § 2.193(e)(1);
(9) If the applicant does not claim standard characters, the applicant must attach a digitized image of the mark. If the mark includes color, the drawing must show the mark in color;
(10) If the mark is in standard characters, a mark comprised only of characters in the Office's standard character set, typed in the appropriate field of the TEAS Plus form;
(11) If the mark includes color, a statement naming the color(s) and describing where the color(s) appears on the mark, and a claim that the color(s) is a feature of the mark;
(12) If the mark is not in standard characters, a description of the mark;
(13) If the mark includes non-English wording, an English translation of that wording;
(14) If the mark includes non-Latin characters, a transliteration of those characters;
(15) If the mark includes an individual's name or portrait, either:
(i) A statement that identifies the living individual whose name or likeness the mark comprises and written consent of the individual; or
(ii) A statement that the name or portrait does not identify a living individual (
(16) If the applicant owns one or more registrations for the same mark, and the owner(s) last listed in Office records of the prior registration(s) for the same mark differs from the owner(s) listed in the application, a claim of ownership of the registration(s) identified by the registration number(s), pursuant to § 2.36; and
(17) If the application is a concurrent use application, compliance with § 2.42.
(b) In addition to the filing requirements under paragraph (a) of this section, the applicant must comply with § 2.23(a) and (b).
(c) If an application does not fulfill the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the applicant must pay the processing fee required by § 2.6(a)(1)(v).
(d) The following types of applications cannot be filed as TEAS Plus applications:
(1) Applications for certification marks (
(2) Applications for collective trademarks and service marks (
(3) Applications for collective membership marks (
(4) Applications for registration on the Supplemental Register (
(a) Unless stated otherwise in this chapter, all trademark correspondence must be submitted through TEAS.
(b) Applicants, registrants, and parties to a proceeding must provide and maintain a valid email address for correspondence.
(c) If the applicant or registrant is a national of a country that has acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply.
(d) Notices issued or actions taken by the USPTO are displayed in the USPTO's electronic systems. Applicants and registrants are responsible for monitoring the status of their applications and registrations in the USPTO's electronic systems during the following time periods:
(1) At least every six months between the filing date of the application and issuance of a registration; and
(2) After filing an affidavit of use or excusable nonuse under section 8 or section 71 of the Trademark Act, or a renewal application under section 9 of the Act, at least every six months until the registrant receives notice that the affidavit or renewal application has been accepted.
(a) An applicant or registrant that is not domiciled in the United States may designate a domestic representative (
(b) The designation, or a request to change or revoke a designation, must set forth the name, email address, and postal address of the domestic representative and be signed pursuant to § 2.193(e)(8).
(c) The mere designation of a domestic representative does not authorize the person designated to represent the applicant or registrant.
(a) * * *
(2) The name, postal address, and email address of each applicant. If the applicant or registrant is a national of a country that has acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, the requirement to provide an email address does not apply;
(4) If the applicant is represented by a practitioner qualified under § 11.14 of this chapter, the practitioner's name, postal address, and email address;
(d) The application must include the fee required by § 2.6 for each class of goods or services.
(a) An application under section 1(a) of the Act, an amendment to allege use under § 2.76, or a statement of use under § 2.88 must include one specimen per class showing the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or services identified. When requested by the Office as reasonably necessary to proper
(d) The specimen must be submitted through TEAS in a file format designated as acceptable by the Office, unless:
(1) The mark consists of a scent, flavor, or similar non-traditional mark type, in which case the specimen may be mailed to the Office, pursuant to § 2.190(a), without resort to the procedures set forth in § 2.147; or
(2) Submission on paper is permitted under § 2.23(c) or is accepted on petition pursuant to § 2.147.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(c) * * *
(2)(i) In the event that ESTTA is unavailable due to technical problems, or when extraordinary circumstances are present, a petition to cancel may be filed in paper form. A paper petition to cancel a registration must be accompanied by a Petition to the Director under § 2.146, with the fees therefor and the showing required under this paragraph (c). Timeliness of the paper submission, if relevant to a ground asserted in the petition to cancel, will be determined in accordance with §§ 2.195 through 2.198.
(ii) For a petition to cancel a registration on the fifth year anniversary of the date of registration of the mark, a petitioner for cancellation who meets the requirements of § 2.147(b) may submit a petition to the Director to accept a timely filed paper petition to cancel.
(a) Petition may be taken to the Director in a trademark case:
(1) From any repeated or final formal requirement of the examiner in the ex parte prosecution of an application if permitted by § 2.63(a) and (b);
(2) In any case for which the Act of 1946, Title 35 of the United States Code, or parts 2, 3, 6, and 7 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations specifies that the matter is to be determined directly or reviewed by the Director;
(3) To invoke the supervisory authority of the Director in appropriate circumstances;
(4) In any case not specifically defined and provided for by parts 2, 3, 6, and 7 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations; or
(5) In an extraordinary situation, when justice requires and no other party is injured thereby, to request a suspension or waiver of any requirement of the rules not being a requirement of the Act of 1946.
(a)
(i) TEAS is unavailable on the date of the deadline for the submission specified in a regulation in part 2 or 7 of this chapter or in a section of the Act; and
(ii) The petition is timely filed, pursuant to § 2.197 or § 2.198, on the date of the deadline.
(2) The petition must include:
(i) The paper submission;
(ii) Proof that TEAS was unavailable on the date of the deadline;
(iii) A statement of the facts relevant to the petition, supported by a declaration under § 2.20 or 28 U.S.C. 1746 that is signed by the petitioner, someone with legal authority to bind the petitioner (
(iv) The fee for a petition filed on paper under § 2.6(a)(15)(i); and
(v) Any other required fee(s) under § 2.6 for the paper submission.
(b)
(i) An application seeking a priority filing date with a deadline under section 44(d)(1) of the Act;
(ii) A statement of use filed within the last six months of the period specified in section 1(d)(2) of the Act;
(iii) An affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse with a deadline under section 8(a)(3) or section 71(a)(3) of the Act;
(iv) A request for renewal of a registration with a deadline under section 9(a) of the Act;
(v) An application for transformation of an extension of protection into a United States application with a deadline under section 70 of the Act; or
(vi) A petition to cancel a registration under section 14 of the Act on the fifth year anniversary of the date of the registration of the mark.
(2) The petition must be filed by not later than two months after the issue date of the notice denying acceptance of the paper filing and must include:
(i) A statement of the facts relevant to the petition, supported by a declaration under § 2.20 or 28 U.S.C. 1746 that is signed by the petitioner, someone with legal authority to bind the petitioner (
(ii) Proof that a sufficient fee accompanied the original paper submission;
(iii) The required fee(s) under § 2.6 for the paper submission; and
(iv) The relevant petition fee under § 2.6(a)(15).
(c)
(d) This section does not apply to requirements for paper submissions to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board except as specified in paragraph (b)(vi).
In an extraordinary situation, when justice requires and no other party is injured thereby, any requirement of the
When the Office determines that a mark is registrable, the Office will issue to the owner a certificate of registration on the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register. The certificate will state the application filing date, the act under which the mark is registered, the date of issue, and the number of the registration and will include a reproduction of the mark and pertinent data from the application. A notice of the requirements of sections 8 and 71 of the Act will issue with the certificate.
When a certificate of registration is originally issued, the Office issues with the certificate a notice of the requirement for filing the affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse under section 8 of the Act. However, the affidavit or declaration must be filed within the time period required by section 8 of the Act even if this notice is not received.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
All business with the Office must be transacted in writing. The action of the Office will be based exclusively on the written record. No consideration will be given to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding when there is disagreement or doubt.
(a) * * *
(2) An electronic signature that meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, personally entered by the person named as the signatory. The Office will accept an electronic signature that meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section on correspondence filed on paper or through TEAS or ESTTA.
(b)
(c) * * *
(1) Personally enter any combination of letters, numbers, spaces and/or punctuation marks that the signer has adopted as a signature, placed between two forward slash (“/”) symbols in the signature block on the electronic submission; or
(d)
(e)
(10)
(g)
(2) Parties should not file duplicate copies of documents in a single application, registration, or proceeding file, unless the Office requires the filing of duplicate copies.
The filing date of trademark correspondence is determined as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(d)
(1) Be filed promptly after the ending of the designated interruption or emergency;
(2) Include the original correspondence or a copy of the original correspondence; and
(3) Include a statement that the correspondence would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service on the requested filing date but for the designated interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express® service; and that the correspondence attached to the petition is the original correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally attempted to be deposited as Priority Mail Express® on the requested filing date.
(a) The filing date of correspondence submitted under this section is the date of deposit with the USPS if the correspondence:
(1) Is addressed as set out in § 2.190 and deposited with the USPS with sufficient postage as first-class mail; and
(2) Includes a certificate of mailing for each piece of correspondence that:
(i) Attests to the mailing and the address used;
(ii) Includes the name of the document and the application serial number or USPTO reference number, if assigned, or registration number to which the document pertains;
(iii) Is signed separately from any signature for the correspondence by a person who has a reasonable basis to expect that the correspondence would be mailed on the date indicated; and
(iv) Sets forth the date of deposit with the USPS.
(b) If correspondence is mailed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, but not received by the Office, the party who mailed such correspondence may file a petition to the Director under § 2.146(a)(2) to consider such correspondence filed in the Office on the date of deposit with the USPS. The petition must:
(1) Be filed within two months after the date of mailing;
(2) Include a copy of the previously mailed correspondence and certificate; and
(3) Include a verified statement attesting to the facts of the original mailing.
(c) If the certificate of mailing does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the filing date is the date the Office receives the submission.
(a) The filing date of correspondence submitted under this section is the date of deposit with the USPS, as shown by the “date accepted” on the Priority Mail Express® label or other official USPS notation.
(b) If the USPS deposit date cannot be determined, the filing date is the date the Office receives the submission.
(c) If there is a discrepancy between the filing date accorded by the Office to the correspondence and the “date accepted,” the party who submitted the correspondence may file a petition to the Director under § 2.146(a)(2) to accord the correspondence a filing date as of the “date accepted.” The petition must:
(1) Be filed within two months after the date of deposit;
(2) Include a true copy of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label showing the “date accepted,” and any other official notation by the USPS relied upon to show the date of deposit; and
(3) Include a verified statement attesting to the facts of the original mailing.
(d) If the party who submitted the correspondence can show that the “date accepted” was incorrectly entered or omitted by the USPS, the party may file a petition to the Director under § 2.146(a)(2) to accord the correspondence a filing date as of the date the correspondence is shown to have been deposited with the USPS. The petition must:
(1) Be filed within two months after the date of deposit;
(2) Include proof that the correspondence was deposited in the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service prior to the last scheduled pickup on the requested filing date. Such proof must be corroborated by evidence from the USPS or evidence that came into being within one business day after the date of deposit; and
(3) Include a verified statement attesting to the facts of the original mailing.
(e) If correspondence is properly addressed to the Office pursuant to § 2.190 and deposited with sufficient postage in the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS, but not received by the Office, the party who submitted the correspondence may file a petition to the Director under § 2.146(a)(2) to consider such correspondence filed in the Office on the USPS deposit date. The petition must:
(1) Be filed within two months after the date of deposit;
(2) Include a copy of the previously mailed correspondence showing the number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label thereon; and
(3) Include a verified statement attesting to the facts of the original mailing.
15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted.
(c) The acronym
(d) The term
(f) The definitions specified in § 2.2(k), (n), and (p) through (r) of this chapter apply to this part.
(a) Unless stated otherwise in this chapter, all correspondence filed with the USPTO relating to international applications and registrations originating from the USPTO must be submitted through TEAS and include a valid email correspondence address.
(b) Applicants and registrants under this section must provide and maintain a valid email address for correspondence with the Office.
(c) If an applicant or registrant under this section is a national of a country
(d) If TEAS is unavailable, or in an extraordinary situation, an applicant or registrant under this section who is required to file a submission through TEAS may submit a petition to the Director under § 2.146(a)(5) and (c) of this chapter to accept the submission filed on paper.
(a) The Office will grant a date of receipt to an international application that is filed through TEAS in accordance with § 7.4(a), or typed on the official paper form issued by the International Bureau, if permitted under § 7.4(c) or accepted on petition pursuant to § 7.4(d). The international application must include all of the following:
(10) If the application is filed through TEAS, the international application fees for all classes, and the fees for all designated Contracting Parties identified in the international application (
(11) A statement that the applicant is entitled to file an international application in the Office, specifying that applicant: is a national of the United States; has a domicile in the United States; or has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the United States. Where an applicant's address is not in the United States, the applicant must provide the address of its U.S. domicile or establishment.
(b) The Office will grant a date of receipt to a subsequent designation that is filed through TEAS in accordance with § 7.4(a), or typed on the official paper form issued by the International Bureau, if permitted under § 7.4(c) or accepted on petition pursuant to § 7.4(d). The subsequent designation must contain all of the following:
(7) The U.S. transmittal fee required by § 7.6; and
(8) If the subsequent designation is filed through TEAS, the subsequent designation fees (
(a) Except for §§ 2.21, 2.22, 2.76, 2.88, 2.89, 2.130, 2.131, 2.160 through 2.166, 2.168, 2.173, 2.175, 2.181 through 2.186, 2.197, and 2.198, all sections in parts 2 and 11 of this chapter shall apply to an extension of protection of an international registration to the United States, including sections related to proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, unless otherwise stated.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
On May 4, 2018, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the portion of Kentucky that is within the bi-state Louisville, KY-IN fine particulate matter (PM
Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0390 at
Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory Management Section, in the Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Madolyn Sanchez may be reached by phone at (404) 562–9644 or via electronic mail at
The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) establishes a process for air quality management through the establishment and implementation of the NAAQS. After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required to designate areas, pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA, as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable. On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual NAAQS for PM
The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On December 18, 2014, EPA designated the majority of areas across the country as nonattainment, unclassifiable/attainment, or unclassifiable
In a follow-up designation action published on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18535), EPA designated five areas as unclassifiable/attainment in Georgia, including two neighboring counties in the bordering states of Alabama and South Carolina, that were initially deferred in EPA's January 15, 2015, rulemaking. In the same action, EPA changed the designations for one area in Ohio, two areas in Pennsylvania, and one bi-state area with portions in Kentucky and Ohio from nonattainment to unclassifiable/attainment. The bi-state Louisville Area was changed from nonattainment to unclassifiable.
EPA initially designated the bi-state Louisville Area as nonattainment in its January 15, 2015, rulemaking based on ambient air quality data collected from 2011–2013. In that time period, a monitor in Clark County, Indiana, showed a violation of the 2012 PM
Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA provides the framework for changing the area designations for any NAAQS pollutants. Section 107(d)(3)(A) provides that the Administrator may notify the Governor of any state that the designation of an area should be revised “on the basis of air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate.” The Act further provides in section 107(d)(3)(D) that even if the Administrator has not notified a state Governor that a designation should be revised, the Governor of any state may, on the Governor's own motion, submit a request to revise the designation of any area, and the Administrator must approve or deny the request.
When approving or denying a request to redesignate an area, EPA bases its decision on the air quality data for the area as well as the considerations under section 107(d)(3)(A).
In order to redesignate the Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 primary annual PM
Because the 3-year design values, based on complete, quality-assured data, demonstrate that the Area meets the 2012 primary annual PM
EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's May 4, 2018, request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the bi-state Louisville Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 primary annual PM
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to unclassifiable/attainment is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to unclassifiable/attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to redesignate an area to unclassifiable/attainment and does not impose additional requirements. 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 redesignations 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
• Will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The proposed action 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.
42 U.S.C. 7401,
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comment; correction.
This document contains a correction of a 60 day notice and request for comment for a currently approved information collection that was published in the April 9, 2018,
The document published on April 9, 2018 (83 FR 15125), is corrected as of May 30, 2018.
Candace A. Hildreth, Compliance Officer, at (202) 720–0203.
In FR Doc. 2018–07211 appearing in the
On page 15126, in the first column, the OMB Number should state: 0581–0306.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by June 29, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the interstate movement of regulated articles to prevent the spread of the pale cyst nematode to noninfested areas of the United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 30, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the interstate movement of regulated articles to prevent the spread of pale cyst nematode, contact Mr. Jonathon Jones, National Policy Manager, Plan Health Programs, Plant Protection and Quarantine, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 160, Riverdale, MD 20737 or at 301–851–2128. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at 301–851–2483.
In accordance with the regulations in “Subpart-Pale Cyst Nematode” (7 CFR 301.86 through 301.86–9), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of U.S. Department of Agriculture restricts the interstate movement of certain articles to help prevent the spread of pale cyst nematode, a major pest of potato crops in cool-temperature areas, via potatoes, soil, and other host material to noninfested areas of the United States. The regulations involve information collection activities such as certificates, permits, appeals, compliance agreements, self-certifications, packing facility process approvals, and labeling.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a revision of a currently approved information collection from organizations fighting hunger and poverty.
Written comments must be received on or before July 30, 2018.
All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 941, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Celeste Perkins at 703–305–2012.
The Clearinghouse includes a database of non-governmental, grassroots organizations in the areas of hunger and nutrition, along with a mailing list to communicate with these organizations. These organizations enter their information into the database, and Clearinghouse staff use that information to provide the public with information about where they can get food assistance. Surveys (FNS–543) will be completed online at
See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
This Notice announces that the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (Agency) is accepting fiscal year (FY) 2018 applications for the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grant (SDGG) program. The Agency will publish the program funding level on the SDGG website located at
The purpose of this program is to provide technical assistance to Socially-Disadvantaged Groups in rural areas. Eligible applicants include Cooperatives, Groups of Cooperatives, and Cooperative Development Centers. This program supports Rural Development's (RD) mission of improving the quality of life for rural Americans and commitment to directing resources to those who most need them.
Completed applications for grants must be submitted on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines:
Paper copies must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than July 30, 2018. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date.
Electronic copies must be received by
You should contact the USDA RD State Office (State Office) located in the State where you are headquartered if you have questions. Contact information for State Offices can be found at:
Susan Horst, Grants Division, Cooperative Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, MS 3253, Room 4208-South, Washington, DC 20250–3250, or call 202–690–1374.
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, the paperwork burden associated with this Notice has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570–0052.
The SDGG program is authorized by section 310B(e)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)(11)). The primary objective of the SDGG program is to provide Technical Assistance to Socially-Disadvantaged Groups. Grants are available for Cooperative Development Centers, individual Cooperatives, or Groups of Cooperatives that serve Socially-Disadvantaged Groups and where a majority of their board of directors or governing board is comprised of individuals who are members of Socially-Disadvantaged Groups.
The definitions you need to understand are as follows:
(1) Not in a city or town that has a population of more than 50,000
(2) The contiguous and adjacent urbanized area,
(3) Urbanized areas that are rural in character as defined by 7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13).
(4) For the purposes of this definition, cities and towns are incorporated population centers with definite boundaries, local self-government, and legal powers set forth in a charter granted by the State. Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, within the areas of the County of Honolulu, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Secretary may designate any part of the areas as a rural area if the Secretary determines that the part is not urban in character, other than any area included in the Honolulu census designated place (CDP) or the San Juan CDP.
Applicants must meet all the following eligibility requirements. Applications which fail to meet any of these requirements by the application deadline will be deemed ineligible and will not be evaluated further.
1.
(a) An applicant is ineligible if they have been debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension.” In addition, an applicant will be considered ineligible for a grant due to an outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal Court (other than U.S. Tax Court), is delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or is delinquent on Federal debt. The applicant must certify as part of the application that they do not have an outstanding judgment against them. The Agency will check the Credit Alert Interactive Voice Response System (CAIVRS) to verify this.
(b) Any corporation (i) that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or (ii) that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds appropriated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115–141), unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government. Applicants will be required to complete Form AD–3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. Institutions of Higher Education are not required to submit this form.
2.
3.
The Agency may approve requests to extend the grant period for up to an additional 12 months at its discretion. However, you may not have more than one SDGG during the same grant period. If you extend the period of performance for your current award, you may be deemed ineligible to receive a SDGG in the next grant cycle. Further guidance on grant period extensions will be provided in the award document.
The application template for applying on paper for this funding opportunity is located at
You may submit your application in paper form or electronically through
To apply electronically, you must follow the instructions for this funding announcement at
You can locate the
When you enter the
To use
You must submit all application documents electronically through
After applying electronically through
If you want to submit a paper application, send it to the State Office located in the State where you are headquartered. You can find State Office contact information at:
Your application must also contain the following required forms and proposal elements:
(a) Standard Form SF–424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” to include your DUNS number and SAM Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and expiration date. If you do not include your DUNS number in your application, it will not be considered for funding.
(b) Form SF–424A, “Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed and submitted as part of the application package.
(c) Form SF–424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed, signed, and submitted as part of the application package.
(d) Form AD–3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. A corporation is any entity that has filed articles of incorporation in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the various territories of the United States including American Samoa, Guam, Midway Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Corporations include both for profit and non-profit entities. Institutions of higher education are not required to submit this form.
(e) You must certify that there are no current outstanding Federal judgments against your property and that you will not use grant funds to pay for any judgment obtained by the United States. You must also certify that you are not delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or any Federal debt. To satisfy the Certification requirement, you should include this statement in your application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that the United States has not obtained an unsatisfied judgment against its property, is not delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or any Federal debt, and will not use grant funds to pay any judgments obtained by the United States.” A separate signature is not required.
(f) Table of Contents. Your application must contain a detailed Table of Contents (TOC). The TOC must include page numbers for each part of the application. Page numbers should begin immediately following the TOC.
(g) Executive Summary. A summary of the proposal, not to exceed one page, must briefly describe the Project, tasks to be completed, and other relevant information that provides a general overview of the Project.
(h) Eligibility Discussion. A detailed discussion, not to exceed four pages, must describe how you meet the following requirements:
(1)
You must verify your incorporation and status in the State that you have
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(i)
(j) The Agency has established annual performance evaluation measures to evaluate the SDGG program. You must provide estimates on the following performance evaluation measures as part of your narrative:
• Number of cooperatives assisted; and
• Number of socially disadvantaged groups assisted.
To be eligible (unless you are excepted under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c) or (d)), you are required to:
(a) Provide a valid DUNS number in your application, which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705–5711;
(b) Register in SAM before submitting your application. You may register in SAM at no cost at
(c) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which you have an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
If you have not fully complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and the Agency may use that determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant. Please refer to Section F. 2 for additional submission requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program.
Electronic applications must be RECEIVED by
Executive Order (E.O.) 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” applies to this program. This E.O. requires that Federal agencies provide opportunities for consultation on proposed assistance with State and local governments. Many States have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to facilitate this consultation. For a list of States that maintain a SPOC, please see the White House website:
If your State has a SPOC, you may submit a copy of the application directly for review. Any comments obtained through the SPOC must be provided to your State Office for consideration as part of your application. If your State has not established a SPOC, or if you do not want to submit a copy of the application, our State Offices will submit your application to the SPOC or other appropriate agency or agencies.
Grant funds must be used for Technical Assistance. No funds made available under this solicitation shall be used to:
(a) Plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility, including a processing facility;
(b) Purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment, including processing equipment;
(c) Purchase vehicles, including boats;
(d) Pay for the preparation of the grant application;
(e) Pay expenses not directly related to the funded Project;
(f) Fund political or lobbying activities;
(g) To fund any activities considered unallowable by the applicable grant cost principles, including 2 CFR part 200, subpart E and the Federal Acquisition Regulation;
(h) Fund architectural or engineering design work for a specific physical facility;
(i) Fund any direct expenses for the production of any commodity or product to which value will be added, including seed, rootstock, labor for harvesting the crop, and delivery of the commodity to a processing facility;
(j) Fund research and development;
(k) Purchase land;
(l) Duplicate current activities or activities paid for by other Federal grant programs;
(m) Pay costs of the Project incurred prior to the date of grant approval;
(n) Pay for assistance to any private business enterprise that does not have at least 51 percent ownership by those who are either citizens of the United States or reside in the United States after being legally admitted for permanent residence;
(o) Pay any judgment or debt owed to the United States;
(p) Pay any Operating Costs of the Cooperative, Group of Cooperatives, or Cooperative Development Center not directly related to the Project;
(q) Pay expenses for applicant employee training or professional development not directly related to the Project; or
(r) Pay for any goods or services from a person who has a Conflict of Interest with the grantee.
(s) Pay for Technical Assistance provided to a Cooperative that does not have a membership that consists of a majority of members from Socially-Disadvantaged Groups.
In addition, your application will not be considered for funding if it does any of the following:
• Requests more than the maximum grant amount;
• Proposes ineligible costs that equal more than 10 percent of total grant funds requested; or
• Proposes Participant Support Costs that equal more than 10 percent of total grant funds requested.
We will consider your application for funding if it includes ineligible costs of 10 percent or less of total grant funds requested, if it is determined eligible otherwise. However, if your application is successful, those ineligible costs must be removed and replaced with eligible costs before the Agency will make the grant award or the amount of the grant award will be reduced accordingly. If we cannot determine the percentage of ineligible costs, your application will not be considered for funding.
(a) You should not submit your application in more than one format. You must choose whether to submit your application in paper or electronically. Applications submitted in paper must be mailed or hand-delivered to the State Office located in the State where you are headquartered. You can find State Office contact information at:
(b) National Environmental Policy Act. This Notice has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, “Environmental Policies and Procedures.” We have determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required because the issuance of regulations and instructions, as well as amendments to them, describing administrative and financial procedures for processing, approving, and implementing the Agency's financial programs is categorically excluded in the Agency's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulation found at 7 CFR 1970.53(f). We have determined that this Notice does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The Agency will review each grant application to determine its compliance with 7 CFR part 1970. The applicant may be asked to provide additional information or documentation to assist the Agency with this determination.
(c) Civil Rights Compliance Requirements. All grants made under this Notice are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR part 15, subpart A) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in this Notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. A recommendation will be submitted to the Administrator to fund applications in highest ranking order.
Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's discretion.
All eligible and complete applications will be evaluated based on the following criteria. Evaluators will base scores only on the information provided or cross-referenced by page number in each individual scoring criterion. SDGG is a competitive program, so you will receive scores based on the quality of your responses. Simply addressing the criteria will not guarantee higher scores. The total points possible for the criteria are 105.
(a)
(1) Needs of the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups to be assisted and explain how those needs were determined,
(2) Proposed Technical Assistance to be provided to the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups; and
(3) Expected outcomes of the proposed Technical Assistance, including how Socially-Disadvantaged Groups will benefit from participating in the Project. You will score higher on this criterion if you provide examples of past projects that demonstrate successful outcomes in identifying specific needs and providing Technical Assistance to Socially-Disadvantaged Groups.
(b)
Applications that demonstrate strong credentials, education, capabilities, experience and availability of Project personnel that will contribute to a high likelihood of Project success will receive more points than those that demonstrate less potential for success in these areas.
Points will be awarded as follows:
(i) 0 points will be awarded if you do not substantively address the criterion.
(ii) 1–9 points will be awarded if qualifications and experience of some, but not all, staff is addressed and/or if necessary qualifications of unfilled positions are not provided.
(iii) 10–14 points will be awarded if (ii) is met, plus all project personnel are identified but do not demonstrate qualifications or experience relevant to the project.
(iv) 15–19 will be awarded if (ii) and (iii) are met, plus most, but not all, key personnel demonstrate strong credentials and/or experience, and
(v) 20–25 points will be awarded if (ii)–(iv) are met, plus all personnel demonstrate strong, relevant credentials or experience, and availability indicating a high likelihood of project success.
(c)
(d)
A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your work plan for detailed actions and an accompanying timetable for implementing the proposal. Clear, logical, realistic, and efficient plans that allocate costs to specific tasks using applicable budget object class categories provided on the Form SF–424A will result in a higher score. You must discuss at a minimum:
(i) Specific tasks to be completed using grant funds;
(ii) How customers will be identified;
(iii) Key personnel; and
(iv) The evaluation methods to be used to determine the success of specific tasks and overall project objectives. Please provide qualitative methods of evaluation. For example, evaluation methods should go beyond quantitative measurements of completing surveys or number of evaluations, such as discussion of evaluation methods per task.
(e)
Points will be awarded as follows:
(i) 0 points are awarded if you do not adequately address this criterion.
(ii) 1–5 points are awarded if you demonstrate support from potential beneficiaries and other developmental organizations in your discussion but do not provide letters of support.
(iii) Additional 1 point is awarded if you provide 2–3 support letters that show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.
(iv) Additional 2 points are awarded if you provide 4–5 support letters that show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.
(v) Additional 3 points are awarded if you provide 6–7 support letters that show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.
(vi) Additional 4 points are awarded if you provide 8–9 support letters that show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.
(vii) Additional 5 points are awarded if you provide 10 support letters that show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.
You may submit a maximum of 10 letters of support. Support letters should come from potential beneficiaries and other local organizations. Letters received from Congressional members and Technical Assistance providers will not be included in the count of support letters received. Additionally, identical form letters signed by multiple potential beneficiaries and/or local organizations will not be included in the count of support letters received. Support letters should be included as an attachment to the application in Appendix C and will not count against the maximum page total. Additional letters from industry groups, commodity groups, Congressional members, and similar organizations should be referenced, but not included in the application package. When referencing these letters, provide the name of the organization, date of the letter, the nature of the support, and the name and title of the person signing the letter.
(f)
Achieving e-Connectivity for Rural America;
Improving Quality of Life;
Supporting a Rural Workforce;
Harnessing Technological Innovation; and
Economic Development.
The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in this Notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. The review panel will convene to reach a consensus on the scores for each of the eligible applications. The Administrator may choose to award up to 10 Administrator priority points based on criterion (f) in section E.1. of this Notice. These points will be added to the cumulative score for a total possible score of 105. Applications will be funded in highest ranking order until the funding limitation has been reached. Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's discretion. If your application is ranked and not funded, it will not be carried forward into the next competition.
If you are selected for funding, you will receive a signed notice of Federal award by postal mail, containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award.
If you are not selected for funding, you will be notified in writing via postal mail and informed of any review and appeal rights. Funding of successfully
Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 2 CFR parts 200, 215, 400, 415, 417, 418, and 421. All recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation (See 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act reporting requirements (See 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)). These regulations may be obtained at
The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:
• Agency approved Grant Agreement.
• Letter of Conditions.
• Form RD 1940–1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
• Form RD 1942–46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”
• Form AD–1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions.”
• Form AD–1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”
• Form AD–1049, “Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirement (Grants).”
• Form AD–3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.” Must be signed by corporate applicants who receive an award under this Notice.
• Form RD 400–4, “Assurance Agreement.” By signing Form 400–4, Assurance Agreement recipients affirm that they will operate the program free from discrimination. The recipient will maintain the race and ethnic data on the board members and beneficiaries of the program. The Recipient will provide alternative forms of communication to persons with limited English proficiency. The Agency will conduct Civil Rights Compliance Reviews on recipients to identify the collection of racial and ethnic data on Program beneficiaries. In addition, the Compliance review will ensure that equal access to the Program benefits and activities are provided for persons with disabilities and language barriers.
• SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.
After grant approval and through grant completion, you will be required to provide the following:
a. A SF–425, “Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance report will be required on a semiannual basis (due 30 working days after end of the semiannual period). For the purposes of this grant, semiannual periods end on March 31st and September 30th. The project performance reports shall include a comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;
b. Reasons why established objectives were not met, if applicable;
c. Reasons for any problems, delays, or adverse conditions, if any, which have affected or will affect attainment of overall project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular objectives during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation; and
d. Objectives and timetable established for the next reporting period.
e. Provide a final project and financial status report within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.
f. Provide outcome project performance reports and final deliverables.
For general questions about this announcement and for program Technical Assistance, please contact the appropriate State Office as indicated in the
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
(1)
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
This Notice announces that the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (Agency) is accepting fiscal year (FY) 2018 applications for the Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG) program. The RCDG program is authorized under section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT).
The purpose of this program is to provide financial assistance to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development. Eligible applicants include a non-profit corporation or an institution of higher education.
Completed applications must be submitted on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines:
Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than July 30, 2018. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. Late applications are not eligible for funding under this Notice and will not be evaluated.
Electronic applications must be received by July 24, 2018, to be eligible for grant funding. Please review the
You should contact a USDA Rural Development State Office (State Office) if you have questions. You are encouraged to contact your State Office well in advance of the application deadline to discuss your project and ask any questions about the application process. Contact information for State Offices can be found at
Program guidance as well as application and matching funds templates may be obtained at
Grants Division, Cooperative Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop–3253, Room 4208–South, Washington, DC 20250–3253, (202) 690–1374.
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, the paperwork burden associated with this Notice has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570–0006.
The RCDG program is authorized under section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)) as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113–79). You are required to comply with the regulations for this program published at 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F, which are incorporated by reference in this Notice. Therefore, you should become familiar with these regulations. The primary objective of the RCDG program is to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis. The maximum award amount per grant is $200,000. Grants are available for non-profit corporations or higher education institutions only. Grant funds may be used to pay for up to 75 percent of the cost of establishing and operating centers for rural cooperative development. Grant funds may be used to pay for 95 percent of the cost of establishing and operating centers for rural cooperative development, when the applicant is a 1994 Institution as defined by 7 U.S.C. 301. The 1994 Institutions are commonly known as Tribal Land Grant Institutions. Centers may have the expertise on staff or they can contract out for the expertise, to assist individuals or entities in the startup, expansion or operational improvement of rural businesses, especially cooperative or mutually-owned businesses.
The terms you need to understand are defined and published at 7 CFR 4284.3 and 7 CFR 4284.504. In addition, the terms “rural” and “rural area,” defined at section 343(a)(13) of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)), are incorporated by reference, and will be used for this program instead of those terms currently published at 7 CFR 4284.3. The term “you” referenced throughout this Notice should be understood to mean “you” the applicant. Finally, there has been some confusion on the Agency's meaning of the terms “conflict of interest” and “mutually-owned business,” because they are not defined in the CONACT or in the regulations used for the program. Therefore, the terms are clarified and should be understood as follows.
Applicants must meet all of the following eligibility requirements. Applications which fail to meet any of these requirements by the application deadline will be deemed ineligible and will not be evaluated further.
You must be a nonprofit corporation or an institution of higher education to apply for this program. Public bodies and individuals cannot apply for this program. See 7 CFR 4284.507. You must also meet the following requirements:
a. An applicant is ineligible if they have been debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension.” The Agency will check the System for Award Management (SAM) to determine if the applicant has been debarred or suspended. In addition, an applicant will be considered ineligible for a grant due to an outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal Court (other than U.S. Tax Court), is delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or is delinquent on Federal debt. See 7 CFR 4284.6. The applicant must certify as part of the application that they do not have an outstanding judgment against them. The Agency will check the Credit Alert Interactive Voice Response System (CAIVRS) to verify this.
b. Any corporation that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds appropriated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115–141), unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government. Applicants will be required to complete Form AD–3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. Institutions of Higher Education are not required to submit this form.
c. Applications will be deemed ineligible if the application includes any funding restrictions identified under Section D.6.a. and b. Inclusion of funding restrictions outlined in Section D.6.a. and b. preclude the Agency from making a federal award.
d. Applications will be deemed ineligible if the application is not complete in accordance with the requirements stated in Section C.3.e.
Your matching funds requirement is 25 percent of the total project cost (5 percent for 1994 Institutions). See 7 CFR 4284.508. When you calculate your matching funds requirement, please round up or down to whole dollars as appropriate. An example of how to calculate your matching funds is as follows:
a. Take the amount of grant funds you are requesting and divide it by .75. This will give you your total project cost.
b. Subtract the amount of grant funds you are requesting from your total project cost. This will give you your matching funds requirement.
c. A quick way to double check that you have the correct amount of matching funds is to take your total project cost and multiply it by .25.
You must verify that all matching funds are available during the grant period and provide this documentation with your application in accordance with requirements identified in Section D.2.e.8. If you are awarded a grant, additional verification documentation may be required to confirm the availability of matching funds.
Other rules for matching funds that you must follow are listed below.
• They must be spent on eligible expenses during the grant period.
• They must be from eligible sources.
• They must be spent in advance or as a pro-rata portion of grant funds being spent.
• They must be provided by either the applicant or a third party in the form of cash or an in-kind contribution.
• They cannot include board/advisory council members' time.
• They cannot include other Federal grants unless provided by authorizing legislation.
• They cannot include cash or in-kind contributions donated outside the grant period.
• They cannot include over-valued, in-kind contributions.
• They cannot include any project costs that are ineligible under the RCDG program.
• They cannot include any project costs that are unallowable under the applicable grant “Cost Principles,” including 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (for-profits) or successor regulation.
• They can include loan funds from a Federal source.
• They can include travel and incidentals for board/advisory council members if you have established written policies explaining how these costs are normally reimbursed, including rates. You must include an explanation of this policy in your application or the contributions will not be considered as eligible matching funds.
• You must be able to document and verify the number of hours worked and the value associated with any in-kind contribution being used to meet a matching funds requirement.
• In-kind contributions provided by individuals, businesses, or cooperatives which are being assisted by you cannot be provided for the direct benefit of their own projects as USDA Rural Development considers this to be a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Your application must propose the establishment or continuation of a cooperative development center concept. You must use project funds, including grant and matching funds for eligible purposes only (see 7 CFR 4284.508). In addition, project funds may be used for programs providing for the coordination of services and sharing of information among the centers (see 7 U.S.C 1932(e) (4) (C) (vi)).
All project activities must be for the benefit of a rural area.
Only one application can be submitted per applicant. If two applications are submitted (regardless of
Your application must include a one-year grant period, or it will not be considered for funding. The grant period should begin no earlier than October 1, 2018, and no later than January 1, 2019. Applications that request funds for a time period ending after December 31, 2019, will not be considered for funding. Projects must be completed within a one-year timeframe. Prior approval is needed from the Agency if you are awarded a grant and desire the grant period to begin earlier or later than previously discussed.
The Agency may approve requests to extend the grant period for up to an additional 12 months at its discretion. However, you may not have more than one active RCDG during the same grant period. Further guidance on grant period extensions will be provided in the award document.
Your application will not be considered for funding if it fails to meet an eligibility criterion by time of application deadline and does not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring. You must include all of the forms and proposal elements as discussed in the regulation and as clarified further in this Notice. Incomplete applications will not be reviewed by the Agency. For more information on what is required for an application, see 7 CFR 4284.510.
You must be performing satisfactorily on any outstanding RCDG award to be considered eligible for a new award. Satisfactory performance includes being up-to-date on all financial and performance reports as prescribed in the grant award, and current on tasks and timeframes for utilizing grant and matching funds as approved in the work plan and budget. If you have any unspent grant funds on RCDG awards prior to fiscal year 2017, your application will not be considered for funding. If your fiscal year 2017 award has unspent funds of 50 percent or more than what your approved work plan and budget projected, at the time that your fiscal year 2018 application is being evaluated, your application will not be considered for funding. The Agency will verify the performance status of FY 2017 awards and make a determination after the FY 2018 application period closes.
Your application must demonstrate that you are providing services to new customers or new services to current customers. If your work plan and budget is duplicative of your existing award, your application will not be considered for funding. If your workplan and budget is duplicative of a previous or existing RCDG and/or Socially Disadvantaged Groups Grant (SDGG) award, your application will not be considered for funding. The Agency will make this determination.
Your negotiated indirect cost rate approval does not need to be included in your application, but you will be required to provide it if a grant is awarded. Approval for indirect costs that are requested in an application without an approved indirect cost rate agreement is at the discretion of the Agency.
For further information, you should contact your State Office at
You may submit your application in paper form or electronically through
To apply electronically, you must use the
You can locate the
When you enter the
To use
You must submit all your application documents electronically through
After electronically applying through
If you want to submit a paper application, send it to the State Office located in the State where your project will primarily take place. You can find State Office Contact information at:
Your application must contain all the required forms and proposal elements described in 7 CFR 4284.510 and as otherwise clarified in this Notice. Specifically, your application must include: (1) The required forms as described in 7 CFR 4284.510(b) and (2) the required proposal elements as described in 7 CFR 4284.510(c). If your application is incomplete, it is ineligible to compete for funds. Applications lacking sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring will be considered ineligible. Information submitted after the application deadline will not be accepted. You are encouraged, but not required to utilize the application template found at
• Standard Form (SF) 424—Your DUNS number should be identified in the “Organizational DUNS” field on SF 424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” In addition, you should provide the DUNS number and the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and expiration date under the applicant eligibility discussion in your proposal narrative. If you do not include the CAGE code and expiration date and the DUNS number in your application, it will not be considered for funding.
• Form AD–3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate
• You can voluntarily fill out and submit the “Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants,” as part of your application if you are a nonprofit organization.
1. You must include the title of the project as well as any other relevant identifying information on the Title Page.
2. You must include a Table of Contents with page numbers for each component of the application to facilitate review.
3. Your Executive Summary must include the items in 7 CFR 4284.510(c) (3), and discuss the percentage of work that will be performed among organizational staff, consultants, or other contractors. It should not exceed two pages.
4. Your Eligibility Discussion must not exceed two pages and cover how you meet the eligibility requirements for applicant, matching funds, and other eligibility requirements.
5. Your Proposal Narrative must not exceed 40 pages and should describe the essential aspects of the project.
i. You are only required to have one title page for the proposal.
ii. If you list the evaluation criteria on the Table of Contents and specifically and individually address each criterion in narrative form, then it is not necessary for you to include an Information Sheet. Otherwise, the Information Sheet is required under 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(ii).
iii. You must include the following under Goals of the Project:
A. A statement that substantiates that the Center will effectively serve rural areas in the United States;
B. A statement that the primary objective of the Center will be to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development;
C. A description of the contributions that the proposed activities are likely to make to the improvement of the economic conditions of the rural areas for which the Center will provide services. Expected economic impacts should be tied to tasks included in the work plan and budget; and
D. A statement that the Center, in carrying out its activities, will seek, where appropriate, the advice, participation, expertise, and assistance of representatives of business, industry, educational institutions, the Federal government, and State and local governments.
iv. The Agency has established annual performance evaluation measures to evaluate the RCDG program. You must provide estimates on the following performance evaluation measures.
• Number of groups who are not legal entities assisted.
• Number of businesses that are not cooperatives assisted.
• Number of cooperatives assisted.
• Number of businesses incorporated that are not cooperatives.
• Number of cooperatives incorporated.
• Total number of jobs created as a result of assistance.
• Total number of jobs saved as a result of assistance.
• Number of jobs created for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.
• Number of jobs saved for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.
It is permissible to have a zero in a performance element. When you calculate jobs created, estimates should be based upon actual jobs to be created by your organization because of the RCDG funding or actual jobs to be created by cooperative businesses or other businesses as a result of assistance from your organization. When you calculate jobs saved, estimates should be based only on actual jobs that would have been lost if your organization did not receive RCDG funding or actual jobs that would have been lost without assistance from your organization.
v. You can also suggest additional performance elements for example where job creation or jobs saved may not be a relevant indicator (
vi. You must describe in the application how you will undertake to do each of the following. We would prefer if you described these undertakings within proposal evaluation criteria to reduce duplication in your application. The specific proposal evaluation criterion where you should address each undertaking is noted below.
A. Take all practicable steps to develop continuing sources of financial support for the Center, particularly from sources in the private sector (should be presented under proposal evaluation criterion j., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.j.);
B. Make arrangements for the Center's activities to be monitored and evaluated (should be addressed under proposal evaluation criterion number h. utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.h.); and
C. Provide an accounting for the money received by the grantee in accordance with 7 CFR part 4284, subpart F. This should be addressed under proposal evaluation criterion number a., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.a.
vii. You should present the Work Plan and Budget proposal element under proposal evaluation criterion number h., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.h. of this Notice to reduce duplication in your application.
viii. You should present the Delivery of Cooperative development assistance proposal element under proposal evaluation criterion number b., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.b. of this Notice.
ix. You should present the Qualifications of Personnel proposal element under proposal evaluation criterion number i., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.i. of this Notice.
x. You should present the Local Support and Future Support proposal elements under proposal evaluation criterion number j., utilizing the requirements of Section E.1.j. of this Notice.
xi. Your application will not be considered for funding if you do not address all the proposal evaluation criteria. See Section E.1. of this Notice for a description of the proposal evaluation criteria.
xii. Only appendices A–C will be considered when evaluating your application. You must not include resumes of staff or consultants in the application.
6. You must certify that there are no current outstanding Federal judgments against your property and that you will not use grant funds to pay for any judgment obtained by the United States. To satisfy the Certification requirement, you should include this statement in your application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that the United States has not obtained an unsatisfied judgment against its property, is not delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or any Federal debt, and will not use grant funds to pay any judgments obtained by the United
7. You must certify that matching funds will be available at the same time grant funds are anticipated to be spent and that expenditures of matching funds are pro-rated or spent in advance of grant funding, such that for every dollar of the total project cost, not less than the required amount of matching funds will be expended. Please note that this Certification is a separate requirement from the Verification of Matching Funds requirement. To satisfy the Certification requirement, you should include this statement in your application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that matching funds will be available at the same time grant funds are anticipated to be spent and that expenditures of matching funds shall be pro-rated or spent in advance of grant funding, such that for every dollar of the total project cost, at least 25 cents (5 cents for 1994 Institutions) of matching funds will be expended.” A separate signature is not required.
8. You must provide documentation in your application to verify all of your proposed matching funds. The documentation must be included in Appendix A of your application and will not count towards the 40-page limitation. Template letters are available for each type of matching funds contribution at
a. If matching funds are to be provided in cash, you must meet the following requirements.
•
•
b. If matching funds are to be provided by an in-kind donation, you must meet the following requirements.
•
•
To ensure that you are identifying and verifying your matching funds appropriately, please note the following:
• If you are paying for goods and/or services as part of the matching funds requirement, the expenditure is considered a cash match, and you must verify it as such. Universities must verify the goods and services they are providing to the project as a cash match and the verification must be approved by the appropriate approval official (
• If you have already received cash from a third-party (
• Board resolutions for a cash match must be approved at the time of application.
• You can only consider goods or services for which no expenditure is made as an in-kind contribution.
• If a non-profit or another organization contributes the services of affiliated volunteers, they must follow the third-party, in-kind donation verification requirement for each individual volunteer.
• Expected program income may not be used to fulfill your matching funds requirement at the time you submit your application. However, if you have a contract to provide services in place at the time you submit your application, you can verify the amount of the contract as a cash match.
• The valuation processes you use for in-kind contributions does not need to be included in your application, but you must be able to demonstrate how the valuation was derived if you are awarded a grant. The grant award may be withdrawn, or the amount of the grant reduced if you cannot demonstrate how the valuation was derived.
Successful applicants must comply with requirements identified in Section F, Federal Award Administration.
To be eligible (unless you are excepted under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c) or (d), you are required to:
(a) Provide a valid DUNS number in your application, which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705–5711;
(b) Register in SAM before submitting your application. You may register in SAM at no cost at
(c) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which you have an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
If you have not fully complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and the Agency may use that determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant. Please refer to Section F.2. for additional submission requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program.
Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than July 30, 2018, to be eligible for grant funding. The Agency will determine whether your application is late based on the date shown on the postmark or shipping invoice. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the reporting package is due the next business day. Late applications will automatically be deemed ineligible.
Electronic applications must be received by
Executive Order (E.O.) 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” applies to this program. This E.O. requires that Federal agencies provide opportunities for consultation on proposed assistance with State and local governments. Many States have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to facilitate this consultation. For a list of States that maintain a SPOC, please see the White House website:
a. Project funds, including grant and matching funds, cannot be used for ineligible grant purposes (see 7 CFR 4284.10). Also, you shall not use project funds for the following:
• To purchase, rent, or install laboratory equipment or processing machinery;
• To pay for the operating costs of any entity receiving assistance from the Center;
• To pay costs of the project where a conflict of interest exists;
• To fund any activities prohibited by 2 CFR part 200; or
• To fund any activities considered unallowable by 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, “Cost Principles,” and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (for-profits) or successor regulations.
b. In addition, your application will not be considered for funding if it does any of the following:
• Focuses assistance on only one cooperative or mutually-owned business;
• Requests more than the maximum grant amount; or
• Proposes ineligible costs that equal more than 10 percent of total project costs. The ineligible costs will NOT be removed at this stage to proceed with application processing. For purposes of this determination, the grant amount requested plus the matching funds amount constitutes the total project costs.
We will consider your application for funding if it includes ineligible costs of 10 percent or less of total project costs, if the remaining costs are determined eligible otherwise. However, if your application is successful, those ineligible costs must be removed and replaced with eligible costs before the Agency will make the grant award, or the amount of the grant award will be reduced accordingly. If we cannot determine the percentage of ineligible costs, your application will not be considered for funding.
a. You should not submit your application in more than one format. You must choose whether to submit your application in paper or electronically. Applications submitted on paper must be mailed or hand-delivered to the State Office located in the State where you are headquartered. You can find State Office contact information at:
b. National Environmental Policy Act.
All recipients under this Notice are subject to the requirements of 7 CFR part 1970. However, technical assistance awards under this Notice are classified as a Categorical Exclusion according to 7 CFR 1970.53(b), and usually do not require any additional documentation.
The Agency will review each grant application to determine its compliance with 7 CFR part 1970. The applicant may be asked to provide additional information or documentation to assist the Agency with this determination.
c. Civil Rights Compliance Requirements.
All grants made under this Notice are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR part 15, subpart A) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F, this Notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. Applications will be funded in rank order until the funding limitation has been reached. Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's discretion.
Scoring criteria will follow criteria published at 7 CFR 4284.513 as supplemented below including any amendments made by the Section 6013 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–234), which is incorporated by reference in this Notice. The regulatory and statutory criteria are clarified and supplemented below. You should also include information as described in Section D.2.e.5.vi. if you choose to address these items under the scoring criteria. Evaluators will base scores only on the information provided or cross-referenced by page number in each individual evaluation criterion. The maximum amount of points available is 110. Newly established or proposed Centers that do not yet have a track record on which to evaluate the following criteria should refer to the expertise and track records of staff or consultants expected to perform tasks related to the respective criteria. Proposed or newly established Centers must be organized well-enough at time of application to address its capabilities for meeting these criteria.
a. Administrative capabilities (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated track record in carrying out activities in support of development assistance to cooperatively and mutually owned businesses. At a minimum, you must discuss the following administrative capabilities:
1. Financial systems and audit controls;
2. Personnel and program administration performance measures;
3. Clear written rules of governance; and
4. Experience administering Federal grant funding no later than the last 5 years, including but not limited to past RCDGs. Please list the name of the Federal grant program(s), the amount(s), and the date(s) of funding received.
You will score higher on this criterion if you can demonstrate that the Center has independent governance. For applicants that are universities or parent organizations, you should demonstrate that there is a separate board of directors for the Center.
b. Technical assistance and other services (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated expertise no later than the last 5 years in providing
1. Your potential for delivering effective technical assistance;
2. The types of assistance provided;
3. The expected effects of that assistance;
4. The sustainability of organizations receiving the assistance; and
5. The transferability of your cooperative development strategies and focus to other areas of the U.S.
A chart or table showing the outcomes of your demonstrated expertise based upon the performance elements listed in Section D.2.e.5.iv. or as identified in your award document on previous RCDG awards. At a minimum, please provide information for FY 2014–FY 2016 awards. We prefer that you provide one chart or table separating out award years. The intention here is for you to provide actual performance numbers based upon award years (fiscal year) even though your grant period for the award was for the next calendar or fiscal year. Please provide a narrative explanation if you have not received a RCDG award.
You will score higher on this criterion if you provide more than 3 years of outcomes and can demonstrate that the organizations you assisted within the last 5 years are sustainable. Additional outcome information should be provided on RCDG grants awarded before FY 2014. Please describe specific project(s) when addressing 1–5 of this paragraph. To reduce duplication, descriptions of specific projects and their impacts, outcomes and roles can be discussed once under criterion b or c. However, you must cross-reference the information under the other criterion.
c. Economic development (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated ability to facilitate:
1. Establishment of cooperatives or mutually owned businesses;
2. New cooperative approaches (
3. Retention of businesses, generation of employment opportunities or other factors, as applicable, that will otherwise improve the economic conditions of rural areas.
You will score higher on this criterion if you provide economic measurements showing the impacts of your past development projects no later than 5 years old and identify your role in the economic development outcomes.
d. Past performance in establishing legal business entities (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated past performance in establishing legal cooperative business entities and other legal business entities during January 1, 2015–December 31, 2017. Provide the name of the organization(s) established, the date of formation and your role in assisting with the incorporation(s) under this criterion. In addition, documentation verifying the establishment of legal business entities must be included in Appendix C of your application and will not count against the 40-page limit for the narrative. The documentation must include proof that organizational documents were filed with the Secretary of State's Office (
e. Networking and regional focus (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated commitment to:
1. Networking with other cooperative development centers, and other organizations involved in rural economic development efforts, and
2. Developing multi-organization and multi-State approaches to addressing the economic development and cooperative needs of rural areas.
You will score higher on this criterion if you can demonstrate the outcomes of your multi-organizational and multi-State approaches. Please describe the project(s), partners and the outcome(s) that resulted from the approach.
f. Commitment (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your commitment to providing technical assistance and other services to under-served and economically distressed areas in rural areas of the United States. You will score higher on this criterion if you define and describe the underserved and economically distressed areas within your service area, provide economic statistics, and identify past or current projects within or affecting these areas, as appropriate.
g. Matching Funds (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your commitment for the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) matching funds requirement. A chart or table should be provided to describe all matching funds being committed to the project. However, formal documentation to verify all the matching funds must be included in Appendix A of your application. You will be scored on how you identify your matching funds.
1. If you met the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) matching requirement, points will be assigned as follows:
• In-kind only—1 point,
• Mix of in-kind and cash—3–4 points (maximum points will be awarded if the ratio of cash to in-kind is 30 percent and above of matching funds), or
• Cash only—5 points.
2. If you exceeded the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) matching requirement, points will be assigned as follows:
• In-kind only—2 points,
• Mix of in-kind and cash—6–7 points (maximum points will be awarded if the ratio of cash to in-kind is 30 percent and above of matching funds), or
• Cash only—10 points.
h. Work Plan/Budget (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your work plan for detailed actions and an accompanying timetable for implementing the proposal. The budget must present a breakdown of the estimated costs associated with cooperative and business development activities as well as the operation of the Center and allocate these costs to each of the tasks to be undertaken. Matching funds as well as grant funds must be accounted for in the budget.
You must discuss at a minimum:
1. Specific tasks (whether it be by type of service or specific project) to be completed using grant and matching funds;
2. How customers will be identified;
3. Key personnel; and
4. The evaluation methods to be used to determine the success of specific tasks and overall objectives of Center operations. Please provide qualitative methods of evaluation. For example,
You will score higher on this criterion if you present a clear, logical, realistic, and efficient work plan and budget.
i. Qualifications of those Performing the Tasks (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your application to determine if the personnel expected to perform key tasks have a track record of:
1. Positive solutions for complex cooperative development and/or marketing problems; or
2. A successful record of conducting accurate feasibility studies, business plans, marketing analysis, or other activities relevant to your success as determined by the tasks identified in the work plan; and
3. Whether the personnel expected to perform the tasks are full/part-time employees of your organization or are contract personnel.
You will score higher on this criterion if you demonstrate commitment and availability of qualified personnel expected to perform the tasks.
j. Local and Future Support (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your application for local and future support. Support should be discussed directly within the response to this criterion.
1. Discussion on local support should include previous and/or expected local support and plans for coordinating with other developmental organizations in the proposed service area or with state and local government institutions. You will score higher if you demonstrate strong support from potential beneficiaries and formal evidence of intent to coordinate with other developmental organizations. You may also submit a maximum of 10 letters of support or intent to coordinate with the application to verify your discussion. These letters should be included in Appendix B of your application and will not count against the 40-page limit for the narrative.
2. Discussion on future support will include your vision for funding operations in future years. You should document:
(i) New and existing funding sources that support your goals;
(ii) Alternative funding sources that reduce reliance on Federal, State, and local grants; and
(iii) The use of in-house personnel for providing services versus contracting out for that expertise. Please discuss your strategy for building in-house technical assistance capacity.
You will score higher if you can demonstrate that your future support will result in long-term sustainability of the Center.
k. Administrator Discretionary Points (maximum of 10 points). The Administrator may choose to award up to 10 points to an eligible non-profit corporation or institution of higher education who has never previously been awarded an RCDG grant; and whose workplan and budget seeks to help rural communities build robust and sustainable economies through strategic investments in infrastructure, partnerships and innovation. Eligible applicants who want to be considered for discretionary points must discuss how their workplan and budget supports one or more of the five following key strategies:
Achieving e-Connectivity for Rural America;
Improving Quality of Life;
Supporting a Rural Workforce;
Harnessing Technological Innovation; and
Economic Development.
The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F, this Notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. The Administrator may choose to award up to 10 Administrator priority points based on criterion (k) in section E.1. of this Notice. These points will be added to the cumulative score for a total possible score of 110. Applications will be funded in highest ranking order until the funding limitation has been reached. Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's discretion. If your application is evaluated, but not funded, it will not be carried forward into the next competition.
If you are selected for funding, you will receive a signed notice of Federal award by postal mail from the State Office where your application was submitted, containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award.
If you are not selected for funding, you will be notified in writing via postal mail and informed of any review and appeal rights. You must comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and notice requirements before the grant award will be approved. There will be no available funds for successful appellants once all FY 2018 funds are awarded and obligated. See 7 CFR part 11 for USDA National Appeals Division procedures.
Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart F; the Grants and Agreements regulations of the Department of Agriculture codified in 2 CFR parts 180, 400, 415, 417, 418, 421; 2 CFR parts 25 and 170; and 48 CFR 31.2, and successor regulations to these parts.
In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)).
The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:
• Agency-approved Grant Agreement.
• Letter of Conditions.
• Form RD 1940–1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
• Form RD 1942–46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”
• Form AD–1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions.”
• Form AD–1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”
• Form AD–1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants).”
• Form RD 400–4, “Assurance Agreement.”
• SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.
• Form AD–3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.” Must be signed by corporate applicants who receive an award under this Notice. Institutions of Higher Education do not need to submit this form.
After grant approval and through grant completion, you will be required to provide the following:
a. An SF–425, “Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance report will be required on a semiannual basis (due 30 working days after end of the semiannual period). The project performance reports shall include the following: A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;
b. Reasons why established objectives were not met, if applicable;
c. Reasons for any problems, delays, or adverse conditions, if any, which have affected or will affect attainment of overall project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular objectives during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation; and
d. Objectives and timetable established for the next reporting period.
e. Provide a final project and financial status report within 60 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.
f. Provide outcome project performance reports and final deliverables.
If you have questions about this Notice, please contact the appropriate State Office at
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
(1)
(2)
(3)
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of request for public comments and public hearing.
On May 23, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce initiated an investigation to determine the effects on the national security of imports of automobiles, including cars, SUVs, vans and light trucks, and automotive parts. This investigation has been initiated under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or other information pertinent to the investigation to the Department of Commerce by June 22, 2018. Rebuttal comments will be due by July 6, 2018. The Department of Commerce will also hold a public hearing on the investigation on July 19 and 20, 2018 in Washington, DC. This notice identifies the issues on which the Department is interested in obtaining the public's views. It also sets forth the procedures for public participation in the hearing.
The due date for filing comments, for requests to appear at the public hearing, and for submissions of a summary of expected testimony at the public hearing is June 22, 2018.
The due date is July 6, 2018 for rebuttal comments submitted in response to any comments filed on or before June 22, 2018.
The public hearings will be held on July 19 and 20, 2018. The hearings will begin at 8:30 a.m. local time and conclude at 5:00 p.m. local time, each day.
Sahra Park-Su, U.S. Department of Commerce (202) 482–2811. For more information about the section 232 program, including the regulations and the text of previous investigations, see
On May 23, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce (“Secretary”) initiated an
This investigation is being undertaken in accordance with part 705 of the National Security Industrial Base Regulations (15 CFR parts 700 to 709) (“NSIBR”). Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or information pertinent to this investigation to the U.S. Department of Commerce by June 22, 2018. Rebuttal comments submitted in response to comments received on or before June 22, 2018 may be filed no later than July 6, 2018.
The Department is particularly interested in comments and information directed to the criteria listed in § 705.4 of the NSIBR as they affect national security, including the following:
• The quantity and nature of imports of automobiles, including cars, SUVs, vans and light trucks, and automotive parts and other circumstances related to the importation of automobiles and automotive parts;
• Domestic production needed for projected national defense requirements;
• Domestic production and productive capacity needed for automobiles and automotive parts to meet projected national defense requirements;
• The existing and anticipated availability of human resources, products, raw materials, production equipment, and facilities to produce automobiles and automotive parts;
• The growth requirements of the automobiles and automotive parts industry to meet national defense requirements and/or requirements to assure such growth, particularly with respect to investment and research and development;
• The impact of foreign competition on the economic welfare of the U.S. automobiles and automotive parts industry;
• The displacement of any domestic automobiles and automotive parts causing substantial unemployment, decrease in the revenues of government, loss of investment or specialized skills and productive capacity, or other serious effects;
• Relevant factors that are causing or will cause a weakening of our national economy;
• The extent to which innovation in new automotive technologies is necessary to meet projected national defense requirements;
• Whether and, if so, how the analysis of the above factors changes when U.S. production by majority U.S.-owned firms is considered separately from U.S. production by majority foreign-owned firms; and
• Any other relevant factors.
The
Comments will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection, except confidential business information. Comments may be viewed on
Material that is business confidential information will be exempted from public disclosure as provided for by § 705.6 of the regulations. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion of the submission, then file a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed, and provide a non-confidential version of the submission which can be placed in the public file on
For comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. The file name of the non-confidential version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments or rebuttal comments. Filers submitting comments containing no business confidential information should name their file using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.
Communications from agencies of the United States Government will not be made available for public inspection. Please note that the submission of a summary of expected testimony at the public hearing is separate from the submission of other written comments and should be submitted separately.
Consistent with the interest of the U.S. Department of Commerce in soliciting public comments on issues affecting U.S. industry and national security, the Department is holding a public hearing as part of the investigation. The hearing will further assist the Department in determining whether imports of automobiles and automotive parts threaten to impair the national security and in recommending remedies if such a threat is found to exist. Public comments at the hearing should address the criteria listed in § 705.4 of the NSIBR as they affect national security described above.
The hearing will be held on July 19 and 20, 2018 at the U.S. Department of Commerce auditorium, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. The hearing will begin at 8:30 a.m. local time and conclude at 5:00 p.m. local time, each day.
The Department encourages interested public participants to present their views orally at the hearing. Any person wishing to make an oral presentation at the hearing must submit a written request to the Department of Commerce by June 22, 2018. The request to appear must include a summary of the expected testimony, and may also be accompanied by additional material. Remarks at the hearing may be limited to five minutes to allow for possible questions from U.S. government representatives.
All submissions must be in English and sent electronically via
The request to speak should include (1) the name and address of the person requesting to make a presentation; (2) a daytime phone number where the person who would be making the oral presentation may be contacted before the hearing; (3) the organization or company they represent; and (4) an email address.
Please note that the submission of a summary of expected testimony at the public hearing is separate from the request for written comments. Since it may be necessary to limit the number of persons making presentations, the written request to participate in the public hearing should describe the individual's interest in the hearing and, where appropriate, explain why the individual is a proper representative of a group or class of persons that has such an interest. If all interested parties cannot be accommodated at the hearing, the summaries of the oral presentations will be used to allocate speaking time and to ensure that a full range of comments is heard.
Each person selected to make a presentation will be notified by the Department of Commerce no later than 8:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on July 12, 2018. The Department will arrange the presentation times for the speakers. Persons selected to be heard are requested to bring 20 copies of their oral presentation and of all exhibits to the hearing site on the day of the hearing. All such material must be of a size consistent with ease of handling, transportation and filing. While large exhibits may be used during a hearing, copies of such exhibits in reduced size must be provided to the hearing panel. Written submissions by persons not selected to make presentations will be made part of the public record of the proceeding. Confidential business information may not be submitted at a public hearing. In the event confidential business information is submitted it will be handled according to the same procedures applicable to such information provided in the course of an investigation. See 15 CFR 705.6. The hearing will be recorded.
The transcript of the hearing will be available on
The Department reserves the right to select the persons to be heard at the hearing, to schedule their respective presentations, and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the hearing. Each speaker may be limited to 5 minutes, and comments must be directly related to the criteria listed in 15 CFR 705.4 of the regulations. Attendees will be seated on a first-come, first-served basis.
A Department official will be designated to preside at the hearing. The presiding officer shall determine all procedural matters during the hearing. Representatives from the Department, and other U.S. Government agencies as appropriate, will make up the hearing panel. This will be a fact-finding proceeding; it will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type hearing. Only members of the hearing panel may ask questions, and there will be no cross-examination of persons presenting statements. However, questions submitted to the presiding officer in writing may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be posed to the presenter. No formal rules of evidence will apply to the hearing.
Any further procedural rules for the proper conduct of the hearing will be announced by the presiding officer.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be received by the Department of Commerce no later than June 22, 2018 by contacting the Department of Commerce official identified in this Notice.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from India is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.
Applicable May 30, 2018.
Patrick O'Connor, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0989.
On January 5, 2018, Commerce published the
Commerce has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. The revised deadline for the final determination in this investigation is now May 23, 2018.
We provided parties an opportunity to provide comments on all issues regarding product coverage (
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in January and March 2018, we conducted a verification of the information reported by the mandatory respondent Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), for use in this final determination.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
As in the
As noted above, we are now basing RIL's dumping margin on facts available with an adverse inference. Moreover, we have revised the all-others rate as explained below.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate “shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of fine denier PSF from India as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 5, 2018, the date of publication of the
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and/or exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.
Further, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value (NV) exceeds the U.S. price, as shown above, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies found in the final determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation. Consistent with Commerce's practice, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, Commerce instructs CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute any export subsidies.
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final determination in the
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final affirmative determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of fine denier PSF from India no later than 45 days after Commerce's final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on appropriate imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 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 the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.201(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3 decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component polyester fiber having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component, which is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from the People's Republic of China (China) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. The period of investigation is October 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.
Applicable May 30, 2018.
Edythe Artman 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) 482–3931 or (202) 482–3019, respectively.
On January 5, 2018, Commerce published the
Commerce has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. The revised deadline for the final determination in this investigation is now May 23, 2018.
We provided parties an opportunity to provide comments on all issues regarding product coverage (
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verifications of the sales and factors-of-production information reported by Jiangyin Hailun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (Hailun)
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
Based on Commerce's analysis of the comments received and findings at verification, we made certain changes to our dumping margin calculations. For further discussion,
For the reasons explained in the
In selecting the AFA rate for the China-wide entity, Commerce's practice is to select a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated.
In the
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of fine denier PSF from China as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 5, 2018, the date of publication of the
Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(d), upon the publication of this notice, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the table above will be the rate identified in the table; (2) for all combinations of Chinese exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration that have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the China-wide entity; and (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of merchandise under consideration which have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate applicable to the Chinese exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Consistent with our practice, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price or constructed export price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies.
We will disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in this proceeding within five days of the date of announcement of this determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final affirmative determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of fine denier PSF from China no later than 45 days after Commerce's final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on appropriate imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their
This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The following products are excluded from the scope:
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3 decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component polyester fiber having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component, which is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.
Applicable May 30, 2018.
Karine Gziryan or Celeste Chen, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4081 of (202) 482–0890 respectively.
On January 5, 2018, Commerce published the
Commerce has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. The revised deadline for the final determination in this investigation is now May 23, 2018.
We provided parties an opportunity to provide comments on all issues regarding product coverage (
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, from January 15 through 19, 2018, we conducted a verification of the information reported by the mandatory respondent Toray Chemical Korea Inc. (TCK), for use in this final determination.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
As in the
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made changes to the dumping margin calculations for TCK. For further discussion,
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, if the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero,
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
Consistent with section 735(a)(4) of the Act, based on the zero rate for TCK, Commerce determined that TCK has not sold merchandise which it produced and exported at LTFV.
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of fine denier PSF from Korea as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 5, 2018, the date of publication of the
Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for TCK is zero, entries of shipments of subject merchandise both produced and exported by TCK will not be subject to suspension of liquidation or cash deposit requirements. In such situations, Commerce applies the exclusion to the provisional measures to the producer/exporter combination that was examined in the investigation. Accordingly, Commerce is directing CBP to not suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise exported and produced by TCK. Entries of shipments of subject merchandise from TCK in any other producer/exporter combination, or by third parties that sourced subject merchandise from the excluded producer/exporter combination, are subject to the provisional measures at the all-others rate.
Because the final estimated weighted-average dumping margin for subject merchandise exported and produced by TCK is zero, entries of shipments of subject merchandise from this producer/exporter combination will be excluded from the antidumping duty order. This exclusion is not applicable to merchandise exported to the United States by TCK in any other producer/exporter combinations or by third parties that sourced subject merchandise from the excluded producer/exporter combination.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final affirmative determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of fine denier PSF from Korea no later than 45 days after Commerce's final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on appropriate imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 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 the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The following products are excluded from the scope:
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3 decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component polyester fiber having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component, which is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from Taiwan is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.
Applicable May 30, 2018.
Lilit Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6412.
On January 5, 2018, Commerce published the
Commerce has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. The revised deadline for the final determination in this investigation is now May 23, 2018.
We provided parties an opportunity to provide comments on all issues regarding product coverage (
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, from January 8 through 19, 2018, we conducted a verification of the information reported by the mandatory respondent Tainan Spinning Co., Ltd. (TSCL), for use in this final determination.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
As in the
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to the dumping margin calculations for TSCL. For further discussion,
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, if the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero,
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
Consistent with section 735(a)(4) of the Act, based on the zero rate for TSCL, Commerce has determined that TSCL has not sold merchandise which it produced and exported at LTFV.
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of fine denier PSF from Taiwan as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 5, 2018, the date of publication of the
Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for TSCL is zero, entries of shipments of subject merchandise both produced and exported by TSCL will not be subject to suspension of liquidation or cash deposit requirements. In such situations, Commerce applies the exclusion to the provisional measures to the producer/exporter combination that was examined in the investigation. Accordingly, Commerce is directing CBP to not suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by TSCL. Entries of shipments of subject merchandise from TSCL in any other producer/exporter combination, or by third parties that sourced subject merchandise from the excluded producer/exporter combination, are subject to the provisional measures at the all-others rate.
Because the final estimated weighted-average dumping margin for subject merchandise produced and exported by TSCL is zero, entries of shipments of subject merchandise from this producer/exporter combination will be excluded from the antidumping duty order. This exclusion is not applicable to merchandise exported to the United States by TSCL in any other producer/exporter combinations or by third parties that sourced subject merchandise from the excluded producer/exporter combination.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final affirmative determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of fine denier PSF from Taiwan no later than 45 days after Commerce's final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on appropriate imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 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 the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The following products are excluded from the scope:
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3 decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component polyester fiber having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component, which is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Notice and request for comments.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), on behalf of the Department of Commerce (Department), is requesting comment on actions that can be taken to improve the quality and accuracy of broadband availability data, particularly in rural areas, as part of the activities directed by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018. Through this Request for Comments (RFC), NTIA seeks input from a broad range of interested stakeholders—including private industry; academia; federal, state, and local government; not-for-profits; and other stakeholders with an interest in broadband availability—on ways to improve the nation's ability to analyze broadband availability, with the intention of identifying gaps in broadband availability that can be used to improve policymaking and inform public investments.
Comments are due on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on July 16, 2018.
Written comments may be submitted by email to
Andy Spurgeon, tel.: (720) 389–4900, email:
NTIA, in collaboration with the FCC, pioneered the collection of extensive broadband deployment data when it launched the State Broadband Initiative (SBI) in 2009. Through this program, NTIA worked with every state, territory, and the District of Columbia to collect fixed and mobile broadband availability data for over 11 million Census blocks every six months for five years. To make these data accessible to a broad audience, NTIA launched the National Broadband Map (NBM) in 2011. Although the SBI program ended in 2015, NTIA continues its extensive work to collect, analyze, and disseminate data relevant to broadband availability and adoption.
Presently, the only source of nationwide broadband availability data is that collected from broadband service provider responses to the FCC Form 477 Fixed Broadband Deployment data process. Form 477 data are submitted by voice and broadband telecommunications service providers semi-annually and include information on services each provider offers, at the Census block level.
Moreover, there is no independent validation or verification process for Form 477 data service providers to submit to the FCC. While NTIA believes that the Form 477 data program is impressively large and useful, and benefits broadband policy research and decision-making, as well as the FCC's internal needs, NTIA also believes that the Form 477 data collection program suffers from issues with data accuracy.
Recognizing the deficiencies of the current broadband data collection process, Congress directed NTIA to update the national broadband availability map in coordination with the FCC and use partnerships previously developed with the states. Unlike the SBI program, in which NTIA worked with the states to collect and validate broadband availability data independent from the FCC's Form 477 data collection process, this is not a new program to fund the primary collection of broadband availability or subscription data, nor to fund specific data collection activities by states or third parties. Rather, Congress directed NTIA to acquire and display available third-party data sets to the extent it is able to negotiate inclusion to augment data from the FCC, other federal government agencies, state government, and the private sector. The objective of these updates is to identify regions of the country with insufficient broadband capacity, particularly in rural areas.
NTIA is well-suited to perform this task. It has extensive experience collecting data on broadband adoption and usage in the United States, creating decades of datasets that complement the Form 477 data collections on broadband deployment and subscription. Since 1994, NTIA has partnered with the Census Bureau (Census) to survey approximately 53,000 U.S. households on their internet and computer use. NTIA's questionnaire, administered as a supplement to Census's Current Population Survey (CPS), includes more than 50 questions to gather a wealth of information on household and individual internet use and
NTIA issues this RFC to solicit informed recommendations and feedback on sources of broadband availability data, mechanisms to validate broadband availability data using multiple data sources or new techniques, and approaches to leverage such data and techniques to inform broadband planning at the state and national levels by promoting the most efficient use of state or federal funding to areas that are insufficiently served by broadband.
1.
a. What additional data on broadband availability are available from federal, state, not-for-profit, academic, or private-sector sources to augment the FCC Form 477 data set?
b. What obstacles—such as concerns about the quality, scope, or format of the data, as well as contractual, confidentiality, or data privacy concerns—might prevent the collaborative use of such data?
2.
a. For each broadband availability data source, please define the specific broadband technologies (
b. Describe how frequently the data set is updated and the methodology used for collection and what measures are employed to validate or otherwise ensure the data is accurate. Please explain whether the data set differentiates between subscribed bandwidth and maximum available speeds.
c. For each data set, please provide the name(s) and type(s) of entity that collects the data.
d. Finally, please specify the format of the data (
3.
4.
a. What methodologies, policies, standards, or technologies can be implemented to validate and compare various broadband availability data sources and identify and address conflicts between them?
b. Do examples or studies of such validation exist?
c. What thresholds or benchmarks should be taken into account when validating broadband availability, such as bandwidth, latency, geographic coverage, technology type, etc.? How can conformance to such standards be used to evaluate the accuracy of broadband data sets? How could those standards be used to improve policymaking, program management, or research in broadband-related fields?
5.
a. What data improvements can the government implement to better identify areas with insufficient broadband capacity?
b. What other inputs should NTIA seek to inform data-driven broadband policy- and decision-making?
Department of the Army, DoD.
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 29, 2018.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Fred Licari, 571–372–0493, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, DoD.
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 29, 2018.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Fred Licari, 571–372–0493, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 29, 2018.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Cortney Higgins, DoD Desk Officer, at
Fred Licari, 571–372–0493, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 29, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Maria Hishikawa, 202–260–1473.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Under section 459 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), the Secretary of Education (Secretary) intends to repay to the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) an amount that represents approximately 75 percent of the amount of funds recovered by the Department of Education (Department) under Title I, Part A and Title IV, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.010A. This notice describes PDE's plans for the use of the repaid funds and the terms and conditions under which the Secretary intends to make grantback funds available. This notice invites comments on the proposed grantback.
We must receive your comments on or before June 29, 2018.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
James Butler, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W246, Washington, DC 20202–4260. Telephone: 202–260–9737. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W246, Washington, DC 20202 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. If you want to schedule time to inspect comments, please contact the person listed under
In March 2017, the Department recovered $7,186,222 from PDE relating to findings in a March 29, 2011, program determination letter (PDL) issued by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. The PDL followed an audit report by the Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the School District of Philadelphia's (SDP) control over Federal expenditures, covering the audit period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006 (Audit Control Number ED–OIG–A03H0010). The PDL sustained certain audit findings and disallowed a total of $9,968,423. Through settlement negotiations, the Department and PDE agreed that $2,782,201 was barred from recovery by the statute of limitations. PDE appealed the remaining $7,186,222 liability to an Administrative Law Judge, the Secretary, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit denied PDE's petition for review, and sustained the remaining liability. PDE filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on October 3, 2016. SDP paid the full liability to PDE, and in turn, PDE has paid the full liability to the Department.
The claims arose under the ESEA, as amended by NCLB (Pub. L. 107–110), 20 U.S.C. 6301
The Department's claims of $7,074,599 related to Title I, Part A were contained in Findings 2, 4, and 5 of the March 29, 2011 PDL, and the claims of $111,007 related to SDFSCA were contained in Findings 4 and 5. As for Title I, Part A, the Department found that SDP had violated section 1120A(b) of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, by using Title I, Part A funds to supplant non-Federal funds in payments for certain consulting contracts, and that SDP had charged the full cost, rather than the incremental cost, as allowed, of transporting students to the school of their choice. In addition, the Department found that SDP had inadequate procedures for processing transportation costs for afterschool programs, resulting in overcharges to Title I, Part A and violations of 34 CFR 76.731, 80.20, and 80.22(b), and OMB Circular A–87, Attachment A, Section C.
Following the release of the OIG Audit Report, PDE and SDP immediately took steps to ensure that the practices that led to the audit findings would not reoccur. In collaboration with PDE and the Department's Risk Management Service, SDP developed and began implementing five corrective action initiatives directly
Section 459(a) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1234h(a), provides that, whenever the Secretary has recovered funds under an applicable program because the recipient made an expenditure of funds that was not allowable, the Secretary may consider those funds to be additional funds available for the program and may arrange to repay to the grantee affected by that determination an amount not to exceed 75 percent of the recovered funds. The Secretary may enter into this grantback requested by PDE if the Secretary determines that—
(a) The practices and procedures that resulted in the audit findings in question have been corrected, and the recipients are in compliance with the requirements of the applicable programs;
(b) PDE has submitted to the Secretary a plan for the use of the funds to be awarded under the grantback arrangement that meets the requirements of the program and, to the extent possible, benefits the population that was affected by the failure to comply or by misexpenditures that resulted in the recovery; and
(c) The use of funds to be awarded under the grantback arrangement in accordance with that plan would serve to achieve the purposes of the program under which the funds were originally granted.
Pursuant to section 459(a)(2) of GEPA, PDE has applied for a grantback totaling $5,389,204, which is approximately 75 percent of the principal amount of the recovered Title I, Part A and SDFSCA funds, and has submitted a plan outlining the activities that would be supported with the grantback funds. While the ESSA amendments to the ESEA eliminated SDFSCA, activities formerly authorized under SDFSCA can currently be supported through Title I, Part A of the ESEA, as amended by ESSA, and PDE plans to use $85,000 in grantback funds—slightly more than the proportion of grantback funds related to SDFSCA—for activities that would have been authorized under SDFSCA.
SDP plans to use grantback funds for three activities in the 2018–19 school year. First, SDP proposes a math initiative to improve teaching skills and student learning. As proposed, SDP would provide approximately 1,000 kindergarten through 12th grade math teachers with a week-long professional learning institute in the summer of 2018. Additionally, SDP would provide designated math lead teachers in participating schools with compensation for leading planning and professional development sessions outside of the school day. Finally, SDP would provide eligible schools that participated in the summer institute with funds for extracurricular salary support for facilitating before and after school sessions for students, and give preference for those funds to low-performing schools.
Next, SDP plans to use grantback funds to provide seven full-time reading specialists to support kindergarten through third grade students who are significantly behind their expected reading level. The specialists would work with targeted students at least weekly in small groups using specially designed lesson plans that use best practices to scaffold student learning.
Finally, SDP plans to use grantback funds to support a school climate initiative in five schools. A coach would provide participating schools with training on how to implement a curriculum centered on social and emotional learning as well as bullying prevention. The coach would work with each school to develop a training plan, provide technical assistance in implementing and teaching the lessons, and monitor implementation.
The Secretary has carefully reviewed the plan submitted by PDE. Based upon that review, the Secretary has determined that the conditions under section 459(a) of GEPA have been met.
This determination is based upon the best information available to the Secretary at the present time. If this information is not accurate or complete, the Secretary is not precluded from taking appropriate administrative action. In finding that the conditions of section 459(a) of GEPA have been met, the Secretary makes no determination concerning any pending audit recommendations or final audit determinations.
The Secretary also has concluded that, to the extent possible, this grantback award would support the provision of services to the population of intended beneficiaries of the program under which the Title I, Part A and SDFSCA grants were originally made. The population of intended beneficiaries may not have received the full benefit of the services intended by the Title I, Part A and SDFSCA grant awards, due to the problems that gave rise to the audit recovery described in Section A of this notice. However, the Secretary has determined that if awarded, this grantback would advance and support the same policy goals and purposes of the statutory provisions that authorized the Title I, Part A and SDFSCA programs, and would be used in compliance with all current statutory and regulatory program requirements.
Section 459(d) of GEPA requires that, at least 30 days before entering into an arrangement to award funds under a grantback, the Secretary publish in the
PDE agrees to comply with the following terms and conditions under which payments under a grantback arrangement would be made:
(a) The funds awarded under the grantback must be spent in accordance with—
(1) All applicable statutory and regulatory requirements;
(2) The submitted plan and any amendments to the plan that are approved in advance by the Secretary; and
(3) The budget submitted with the approved plan and any amendments to the budget that are approved in advance by the Secretary.
(b) All funds received under the grantback arrangement must be obligated by September 30, 2020, in accordance with section 459(c) of GEPA and PDE's approved plan.
(c) PDE must, no later than December 31 of each year for which it has funds under this grantback, submit a report to the Secretary that documents the expenditure of funds and progress of activities under the grantback arrangement.
(d) PDE must, no later than December 31, 2020, submit a report to the Secretary that—
(1) Indicates that the funds awarded under the grantback have been spent in
(2) Describes the results and effectiveness of the project for which the funds were spent.
(e) PDE must maintain separate accounting records documenting the expenditures of funds awarded under the grantback arrangement.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
Notice.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) received a revised HAVA State Plan from the State of West Virginia in accordance with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Pursuant to HAVA, the EAC is required to publish the revised HAVA State Plan in the
Revisions become applicable after 30-day publication in the
Mark Abbott, Telephone 301–563–3956 or 1–866–747–1471 (toll-free).
The EAC in accordance with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) (52 U.S.C. 21005(b)) published in the
West Virginia confirms that its amendments to the State plan were developed and submitted to public comment in accordance with HAVA Sections 254(a)(11), 255, and 256. (52 U.S.C. 21004–21006).
Upon the expiration of thirty days from May 30, 2018, the State is eligible to implement the changes addressed in the plan that is published herein, in accordance with HAVA Section 254(a)(11)(C). EAC wishes to acknowledge the effort that went into revising this State plan and encourages further public comment, in writing, to the State election official listed below.
Mr. Donald Kersey, III, Elections Director & Deputy Legal Counsel, 1900 Kanawha Boulevard E, State Capital Room 157–K, Charleston, West Virginia 25305–0770. (304) 558–6000 Fax: (304) 588–0900.
Thank you for your interest in improving the voting process in America.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petition for waiver, grant of an interim waiver, and request for comments.
This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from NCP seeking an exemption from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure for determining the efficiency of central air conditioners and heat pumps. NCP seeks to use an alternate test procedure to address issues involved in testing certain basic models identified in its petition. According to NCP, the basic models of space constrained central air conditioner and heat pump units listed in its petition are designed and intended to be sold exclusively with NCP's NCPAH–A series or other blower-coil indoor units with electronically commutated (“ECM”) motors. These efficient blower-coil indoor units operate at much lower wattage than the default required by the DOE test procedure. As such, the current DOE test procedure does not result in representative ratings for these basic models. NCP seeks to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate their basic models paired only with air handler indoor units (
DOE will accept comments, data, and information with respect to the NCP Petition until June 29, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by case number “2017–008” and Docket number “EERE–2017–BT–WAV–0030,” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The docket web page can be found
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE–2J, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–1604. Email:
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC–33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0103. Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email:
Title III, Part B
DOE's regulations set forth at 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a covered product when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that either (1) prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii).
DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
The waiver process also allows DOE to grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the
On March 20, 2017, NCP filed a petition for waiver and an application for interim waiver from the CAC and HP test procedure set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M. According to NCP, basic models of space constrained central air conditioner and heat pump outdoor units listed in its petition
NCP also requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. An interim waiver may be granted if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2).
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures to make representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their products and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 430.27, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for the equipment identified by NCP in a subsequent Decision and Order.
As an alternate test procedure, NCP proposes that the basic models listed in the petition be tested according to the test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, as applicable, except for the requirement under 10 CFR 429.16 that represented values for each model of outdoor unit be determined based on testing with a model of a coil-only indoor unit that is the least efficient indoor unit distributed in commerce with that particular outdoor unit. Instead, NCP requests that the specified basic models be tested and representations be determined by pairing the models only with blower-coil indoor units.
On May 30, 2017, NCP submitted supplemental materials to their original petition consisting of public-facing materials (
In addition to the material submitted by NCP, DOE conducted a review of NCP's other public-facing materials including websites, marketing materials, product spec sheets, labels, installation manuals, other consumer facing disclosures, etc. to confirm that these materials support NCP's assertions set forth in the petition about how they distribute the specified basic models in commerce. The public-facing materials that DOE found state that these basic models are compatible with NCP air handlers or certain other air handlers with ECM motors (combinations that are rated in the DOE Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS) database) and that any combinations not rated in the DOE CCMS database will require factory testing and listing with DOE. DOE's review also indicates that NCP does not market the basic models for sale with indoor units that do not have electronically commutated fan motors. All materials reviewed by DOE can be found in the docket. DOE understands from NCP's petition that, absent an interim waiver, NCP's specified models cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true energy consumption characteristics. DOE has reviewed the alternate test procedure suggested by NCP and concludes that it will allow for the accurate measurement of the efficiency of these specified models, while alleviating the testing problems associated with NCP's implementation of CAC and HP testing. DOE has determined that NCP's petition for waiver will likely be granted and that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant NCP immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver.
For the reasons stated above, DOE has granted NCP's application for interim waiver for its specified basic models of space constrained central air conditioners and heat pumps. The substance of DOE's Interim Waiver Order is summarized below.
Therefore, DOE has issued an Order, stating:
(1) NCP must test and rate the CAC and HP basic models listed in paragraph (A) with the alternate test procedure set forth in paragraph (2).
(A) NCPE–418–1010, NCPE–418–3010, NCPE–418–4010, NCPE–418–5010, NCPE–424–1010, NCPE–424–3010, NCPE–424–4010, NCPE–424–5010, NCPE–430–1010, NCPE–430–3010, NCPE–430–4010, NCPE–430–5010.
(2) The applicable method of test for the NCP basic models listed in subparagraph (1)(A) is the test procedure for CAC and HP prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, except the determination of represented value requirements and units required for test per 10 CFR 429.16(a)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(2)(i) shall be as detailed below. All other requirements of 10 CFR part 429.16 remain applicable.
In 429.16(a),
(1) Required represented values for single-split system space-constrained AC with single-stage or two-stage compressor. Determine the represented values (including SEER, EER, HSPF, SEER2, EER2, HSPF2, PW,OFF, cooling capacity, and heating capacity, as applicable) for the individual models/combinations (or “tested combinations”) specified in the following table.
In 429.16(b),
(2) Individual model/combination selection for testing of single-split system space-constrained AC with single-stage or two-stage compressor. (i) The table identifies the minimum testing requirements for each basic model that includes multiple individual models/combinations; if a basic model spans multiple categories or subcategories listed in the table, multiple testing requirements apply. For each basic model that includes only one individual model/combination, test that individual model/combination.
(3)
(4) This interim waiver shall remain in effect consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(h) and (k).
(5) This interim waiver is issued to NCP on the condition that: (1) The statements, representations, test data, and documentary materials provided by the petitioner are valid, (2) NCP continues to distribute the specified basic models for exclusive installation with air-handler units that include electronically commutated motors, (3) All public-facing materials, including websites, marketing materials, product spec sheets, labels, nameplates, etc., make no representations that these basic models be installed in any other way; and (4) All public-facing materials state “Please consult the DOE CCMS data base [link to DOE CCMS database] for a list of rated combinations of indoor and outdoor units. Combinations of outdoor and indoor units that are not rated will require factory testing and listing with DOE. Please consult the factory.” DOE may revoke or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, the above listed conditions are not met, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics.
(6) Granting of this interim waiver does not release NCP from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429, other than those explicitly stated in paragraph (2).
DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. NCP may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional models of central air conditioners and heat pumps. Alternatively, if appropriate, NCP may request that this interim waiver (or subsequent waiver, if applicable) be extended to additional basic models employing the same technology as basic models specifically set out in this petition (see 10 CFR 430.27(g)).
Through this notice, DOE announces receipt of NCP's petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for certain basic models and announces DOE's decision to grant NCP an interim waiver from the test procedure for the basic models listed in NCP's petition. DOE is publishing NCP's petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv). The petition contains no confidential information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure, as specified in section III of this notice, to determine the energy consumption of NCP's specified space constrained central air conditioner and heat pump basic models. DOE may consider including the alternate procedure specified in the Order in a subsequent Decision and Order.
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by June 29, 2018, comments and information on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and calculation and rating methodology. DOE also seeks comment and data on NCP's assertion that it exclusively distributes the space constrained air conditioner and heat pump basic models as blower-coil installations. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Jean-Cyril Walker, Keller and Heckman LLP, 1001 G Street NW, Suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001.
Submitting comments via
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents,
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petition for waiver, grant of an interim waiver, and request for comments.
This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from AeroSys seeking an exemption from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure for determining the efficiency of central air conditioners and heat pumps. AeroSys seeks to use an alternate test procedure to address issues involved in testing certain basic models identified in its petition.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information with respect to the AeroSys Petition until June 29, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by case number “2017–010” and Docket number “EERE–2017–BT–WAV–0042”, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The docket web page can be found at
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE–2J, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–1604. Email:
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC–33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0103. Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email:
Title III, Part B
DOE's regulations set forth at 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a covered product when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that either (1) prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii).
DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
The waiver process also allows DOE to grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the
On May 29, 2017, AeroSys filed a petition for waiver and an application for interim waiver from the CAC and HP test procedure set forth in 10 CFR part
According to AeroSys, testing the space constrained basic models listed in its petition
AeroSys also requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. An interim waiver may be granted if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2).
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures to make representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their products and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 430.27, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for the equipment identified by AeroSys in a subsequent Decision and Order.
As an alternate test procedure, AeroSys proposes that the basic models listed in the petition be tested according to the test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, as applicable, except for the requirement under 10 CFR 429.16 that represented values for each model of outdoor unit be determined based on testing with a model of a coil-only indoor unit that is the least efficient indoor unit distributed in commerce with that particular outdoor unit. Instead, AeroSys requests that the specified basic models be tested and representations be determined by pairing the models only with blower-coil indoor units.
DOE conducted a review of AeroSys' public-facing materials, including websites, marketing materials, product spec sheets, labels, installation manuals, other consumer facing disclosures, etc. to confirm that these materials support AeroSys' assertions set forth in the petition about how they distribute the specified basic models in commerce. The public-facing materials that DOE found state that these models are “sold and intended for use only with blower coil indoor units,” “AeroSys is not responsible for the performance and operation of a mismatched system,” and “Installers are encouraged to match to air handlers that are approved by AeroSys and listed in the [CCMS/AHRI] database.” All materials reviewed by DOE can be found in the docket. DOE understands from AeroSys' petition that, absent an interim waiver, AeroSys' specified models cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true energy consumption characteristics. DOE has reviewed the alternate test procedure suggested by AeroSys and concludes that it will allow for the accurate measurement of the efficiency of these specified models, while alleviating the testing problems associated with AeroSys' implementation of CAC and HP testing. DOE has determined that AeroSys' petition for waiver will likely be granted and that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant AeroSys immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver.
For the reasons stated, DOE has granted AeroSys' application for interim waiver for its specified basic models of space constrained central air conditioners and heat pumps. The substance of DOE's Interim Waiver Order is summarized below.
Therefore, DOE has issued an Order, stating:
(1) AeroSys must test and rate the CAC and HP basic models listed in paragraph (A) with the alternate test procedure set forth in paragraph (2):
(2) The applicable method of test for the AeroSys basic models listed in paragraph (1)(A) is the test procedure for CAC and HP prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, except the determination of represented value requirements and units required for test per 10 CFR 429.16(a)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(2)(i) shall be as detailed below. All other requirements of 10 CFR part 429.16 remain applicable.
In 429.16(a),
(1) Required represented values for single-split system space-constrained AC with single-stage or two-stage compressor. Determine the represented values (including SEER, EER, HSPF, SEER2, EER2, HSPF2, PW, OFF, cooling capacity, and heating capacity, as applicable) for the individual models/combinations (or “tested combinations”) specified in the following table.
In 429.16(b),
(2) Individual model/combination selection for testing of single-split system space-constrained AC with single-stage or two-stage compressor. (i) The table identifies the minimum testing requirements for each basic model that includes multiple individual models/combinations; if a basic model spans multiple categories or subcategories listed in the table, multiple testing requirements apply. For each basic model that includes only one individual model/combination, test that individual model/combination.
(3)
(4) This interim waiver shall remain in effect consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(h) and (k).
(5) This interim waiver is issued to AeroSys on the condition that: (1) The statements, representations, test data, and documentary materials provided by the petitioner are valid, (2) AeroSys continues to distribute the specified basic models for exclusive installation with blower-coil indoor units; (3) All public-facing materials, including websites, marketing materials, product spec sheets, labels, nameplates, etc., make no representations that these basic models be installed in any other way; and (4) All public-facing materials state that these models are: “sold and intended for use only with blower coil indoor units. AeroSys is not responsible for the performance and operation of a mismatched system. Installers are encouraged to match to air handlers that are approved by AeroSys and listed in the [CCMS/AHRI] database.” DOE may revoke or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, the above listed conditions are not met, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics.
(6) Granting of this interim waiver does not release AeroSys from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429, other than those explicitly stated in paragraph (2).
DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. AeroSys may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional models of central air conditioners and heat pumps. Alternatively, if appropriate, AeroSys may request that this interim waiver (or subsequent waiver, if applicable) be extended to additional basic models employing the same technology as basic models specifically set out in this petition (see 10 CFR 430.27(g)).
Through this notice, DOE announces receipt of AeroSys' petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for certain basic models and announces DOE's decision to grant AeroSys an interim waiver from the test procedure for the basic models listed in AeroSys' petition. DOE is publishing AeroSys' petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv). The petition contains no confidential information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure, as specified in section III of this notice, to determine the energy consumption of AeroSys' specified space constrained central air conditioner and heat pump basic models. DOE may consider including the alternate procedure specified in the Order in a subsequent Decision and Order.
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by June 29, 2018, comments and information on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and calculation and rating methodology. DOE also seeks comment and data on AeroSys' assertion that it exclusively distributes the space constrained air conditioner and heat pump basic models as blower-coil installations. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Scott Blake Harris, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, 1919 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Submitting comments via
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
In the Matter of Energy Efficiency Program: Test Procedure for Testing Space-Constrained Trough-the-Wall Condensing Units, Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0004; RIN 1904–AB94.
AeroSys Inc. respectfully submits this Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver
AeroSys is a small American manufacturer of air conditioning equipment, including space- constrained TTW condensing units. It is located at 929 Eldridge Drive, Hagerstown, MD 21740. Phone: (301) 620–0002; fax: (301) 620–0685;
The space-constrained TTW condensing units listed in Appendix I meet the criteria for a waiver.
Indeed, DOE has already recognized this specific situation and has solicited waiver requests to resolve it.
AeroSys asks that a waiver be granted to allow it to use an alternate test procedure that provides for testing these basic models with blower coil testing instead of coil-only tests. This will more accurately measure the energy consumption of these products.
The basic models for which a waiver is requested are the models set forth in Appendix I. They are manufactured by AeroSys in the United States and are distributed in commerce under the AeroSys brand name.
AeroSys manufactures space-constrained TTW condensing units. These products are beneficial in a number of special settings, such as multi-story residential applications with limited space. AeroSys' models are certified for use with high efficiency blower coil indoor units (air handlers).
Due to the space-constrained nature of the TTW condensing units, they are sold and intended for use only with high efficiency blower coil indoor units fitted with ECM motors. At no time has AeroSys sold these models with anything other than blower coil indoor units. This is clearly stated in AeroSys' public-facing materials. For example, a sales brochure states:
AeroSys TTWC–R**H Series units are sold and intended for use only with blower coil indoor units. To see a list of approved air handlers please go to
Such statements also are on the AeroSys website
Testing these models with coil-only combinations, rather than in the intended manner with blower coil indoor units, will overstate energy usage and thus would not reflect the models' true energy characteristics. That is because the default value for wattage in coil-only testing exceeds the actual wattage of the high efficiency motors used in the AeroSys models.
DOE has addressed this situation and recently solicited waiver requests to deal with it.
Requiring testing of the models in Appendix I with coil-only combinations will effectively eliminate such products due to the default value for wattage in coil-only testing. It will cause grave economic hardship for AeroSys—jeopardizing the company's viability. It will also create substantial difficulty for the housing industry, which will be deprived of these beneficial products.
AeroSys proposes the following alternate test procedure to evaluate the performance of the basic models listed in Appendix I.
AeroSys shall be required to test the performance of the basic models listed in Appendix I according to the test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 C.F.R. part 430, subpart B, Appendix M or Appendix M1 (when effective), as applicable, except as follows:
The basic models shall not be subject to coil-only testing or rating and shall instead be tested using a blower-coil test in accordance with 10 C.F.R. part 430, subpart B, Appendix M or Appendix M1 (when effective), as applicable. The waiver should continue until DOE adopts an applicable amended test procedure.
AeroSys also requests an interim waiver for its testing and rating of the foregoing basic models. DOE “will grant an interim waiver” if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver.
The petition for waiver is likely to be granted, as evidenced by its merits. And immediate relief is warranted based on public policy reasons. Without waiver relief, AeroSys will be subject to requirements that should not apply to such products. These useful products will be effectively eliminated, causing grave economic hardship for AeroSys and negative effects for housing.
A list of manufacturers of all other basic models distributed in commerce in the United States and known to AeroSys to incorporate design characteristic(s) similar to those found in the basic model(s) that are the subject of the petition is set forth in Appendix II.
DOE should grant AeroSys the requested waiver and interim waiver for the models listed in Appendix I. Further, AeroSys requests expedited treatment of the Petition and Application. It is also willing to provide promptly any additional information the Department thinks it needs to act with expedition.
The waiver and interim waiver requested herein should apply to testing and rating of the following basic models.
THDC–18PGA, THDC–18PGB, THDC–18RGA, THDC–18SGB, THDC–18TGB, THDC–24PGA, THDC–24PGB, THDC–24RGA, THDC–24SGB, THDC–24TGB, THDC–30PGB, THDC–30RGA, THDC–30SGB, THDC–30TGB, TTWC–R18P21, TTWC–R18R21, TTWC–R18S21, TTWC–R18T21, TTWC–R24P21, TTWC–R24R21, TTWC–R24S21, TTWC–R24T21, TTWC–R30P21, TTWC–R30R21, TTWC–R30S21, TTWC–R30T21, TTWH–R18H21, TTWH–R24H21, TTWH–R30H21, TTWC–R36H21
The following are manufacturers of all other basic models distributed in commerce in the United States and known to AeroSys to incorporate design characteristic(s) similar to those found in the basic model(s) that are the subject of the petition for waiver.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petition for waiver and grant of an interim waiver, and request for comments.
This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from GD Midea Heating & Ventilating Equipment Co., Ltd. (GD Midea) seeking a waiver from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure for determining the efficiency of central air conditioners (CACs) and heat pumps (HPs). GD Midea seeks to use an alternate test procedure to address issues involved in testing certain basic models identified in its petition. According to GD Midea, the appendix M test procedure does not include a method for testing specified CAC and
DOE will accept comments, data, and information with respect to the GD Midea petition until June 29, 2018.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
•
•
•
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section V of this document.
The docket web page can be found at
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE–5B, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Email:
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC–33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0103. Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email:
Title III, Part B
DOE's regulations set forth at 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a covered product when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that either (1) prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii).
DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
The waiver process also allows DOE to grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the
On October 27, 2017, GD Midea filed a petition for waiver and an application for interim waiver from the CAC and HP test procedure set forth in appendix M. According to GD Midea, appendix M does not include provisions for determining cooling intermediate air volume rate, cooling minimum air volume rate, and heating intermediate air volume rate for its variable-speed coil-only single-split systems.
GD Midea seeks to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate specific CAC and HP basic models of its variable-speed coil-only single-split systems, which would specify the use of cooling full-load air volume rates as determined in section 3.1.4.1.1.c of appendix M as cooling intermediate and cooling minimum air volume rates, and would specify the use of heating full-load air volume rates as determined in section 3.1.4.4.1.a of appendix M as heating intermediate air volume rate.
GD Midea also requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. An interim waiver may be granted if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2).
DOE understands that absent an interim waiver, the specified variable-speed coil-only single-split models that are subject of the waiver cannot be tested under the existing test procedure because appendix M does not include provisions for determining certain air volume rates for variable-speed coil-only single-split systems. Typical variable-speed single-split systems have a communicating system,
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures to make representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their products and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 430.27, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for the equipment identified by GD Midea in a subsequent Decision and Order.
In its petition, GD Midea requests that specified basic models listed in the petition be tested according to the test procedure for central CACs and HPs prescribed by DOE at appendix M, except that for coil-only systems, the cooling full-load air volume rate is also used as the cooling intermediate and cooling minimum air volume rates, and the heating full-load air volume rate is used as the heating intermediate air volume rate.
DOE has reviewed GD Midea's petition for interim waiver, the alternate procedure requested by GD Midea, and public-facing materials (
Therefore, DOE has issued an Order, stating:
(1) GD Midea must test and rate the GD Midea Heating & Ventilating Equipment Co., Ltd brand and Bosch Thermotechnology Corp brand single-split CAC and HP basic models MOVA–36HDN1–M18M and MOVA–60HDN1–M18M (which contain individual combinations that each consist of an outdoor unit that uses a variable speed compressor matched with a coil-only indoor unit, and is designed to operate as part of a non-communicative system in which the compressor speed varies based only on controls located in the outdoor unit and the indoor blower unit maintains a constant indoor blower fan speed), using the alternate test procedure set forth in paragraph (2).
GD Midea basic models MOVA–36HDN1–M18M and MOVA–60HDN1–M18M include the following individual combinations listed by brand name:
(2) The applicable method of test for the GD Midea basic models identified in paragraph (1) is the test procedure for CACs and HPs prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, except that, for coil-only combinations:
In 3.1.4.2,
f. For ducted variable-speed compressor systems tested with a coil-only indoor unit, the cooling minimum air volume rate is the same as the cooling full-load air volume rate determined in section 3.1.4.1.1.c.
In 3.1.4.3,
d. For ducted variable-speed compressor systems tested with a coil-only indoor unit, the cooling intermediate air volume rate is the same as the cooling full-load air volume rate determined in section 3.1.4.1.1.c.
In 3.1.4.6,
d. For ducted variable-speed compressor systems tested with a coil-only indoor unit, the heating intermediate air volume rate is the same as the heating full-load air volume rate determined in section 3.1.4.4.1.a.
(3) Representations. GD Midea is permitted to make representations about the efficiency of basic models that meet the requirements of paragraph (1) for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that the basic model has been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth in the alternate test procedure and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in accordance with 10 CFR 429.16 and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M.
(4) This interim waiver shall remain in effect consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(h) and (k).
(5) This interim waiver is issued to GC Midea on the condition that the statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by the petitioner are valid. If GD Midea makes any modifications to the controls or configurations of these basic models, the waiver would no longer be valid and GD Midea would either be required to use the current Federal test method or submit a new application for a test procedure waiver. DOE may revoke or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics.
(6) Granting of this interim waiver does not release GD Midea from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.
DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future basic models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. GD Midea may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional basic models of central air conditioners and heat pumps. Alternatively, if appropriate, GD Midea may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic model(s) set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(g).
DOE is publishing GD Midea's petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv). The petition did not identify any information as confidential business information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure, as specified in section III of this notice, to determine the energy consumption of GD Midea's specified CAC and HP basic models. DOE may consider including the alternate procedure specified in the Order in a subsequent Decision and Order.
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by June 29, 2018, comments and information on all aspects of the petition, including the alternate test procedure. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Jack Wang, Certification Engineer, GD Midea Heating & Ventilating Equipment Co., Ltd., Midea Industrial City, Beijiao, Shunde District Foshan, Guangdong, P.R.C. 528311,
Submitting comments via
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection [FERC–716, Good Faith Requests for Transmission Service and Good Faith Responses by Transmitting Utilities Under Sections 211(a) and 213(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)] to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously published a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by June 29, 2018.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902–0170, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC18–8–000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The Commission's regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 18 CFR 2.20, provide standards by which the Commission determines if and when a valid good faith request for transmission has been made under section 211 of the FPA. By developing the standards, the Commission sought to encourage an open exchange of data with a reasonable degree of specificity and completeness between the party requesting transmission services and the transmitting utility. As a result, 18 CFR 2.20 identifies 12 components of a good faith estimate and 5 components of a reply to a good faith request.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.
Order extending time for comments.
In this order, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) extends the comment due date for the Notice of Inquiry (NOI) published in the
Comments are extended to July 25, 2018.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
•
•
1. On April 19, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) seeking information and stakeholder perspectives to help the Commission explore whether, and if so how, it should revise its approach under its currently effective policy statement on the certification of new natural gas transportation facilities (Policy Statement) to determine whether a proposed natural gas project is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity, as that standard is established in section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
2. In the NOI, the Commission sought input on whether, and if so how, the Commission should adjust: (1) Its methodology for determining whether there is a need for a proposed project, including the Commission's consideration of precedent agreements and contracts for service as evidence of such need; (2) its consideration of the potential exercise of eminent domain and of landowner interests related to a proposed project; and (3) its evaluation of the environmental impact of a proposed project. The Commission also sought input on whether there are specific changes the Commission could consider implementing to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its certificate processes including pre-filing, post-filing, and post-order issuance. The Commission granted 60 days from the date of the publication of the NOI in the
3. As we stated in the NOI, 19 years have passed since the Commission issued the Policy Statement. Since that time, we have seen significant changes in the energy markets, as well as in the production, use and consumption of natural gas. In the NOI, the Commission asked a series of questions to elicit information to develop a good record on which to decide any future action in this matter, and many of those questions identify complex issues. The Commission believes our work on this matter will benefit from a robust record and as much relevant information and thoughtful input as possible. Indeed, it is important that we base any next steps on the best available information, and we encourage input from stakeholders across the energy spectrum. Given the complexity of the issues, and our desire to ensure the best possible record, the Commission has decided to extend the time for interested entities to submit their comments in this matter by 30 days—to July 25, 2018.
The time for interested entities to submit comments in this proceeding is hereby extended 30 days, as discussed in the body of this order.
By the Commission.
Take notice that on May 14, 2018, Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC (MRT), 1111 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed a prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205, and 157.208(f)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and MRT's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82–489–000. MRT requests authorization to decrease the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of its Line A–86 located in Jefferson County, Missouri. The decrease in the MAOP is required to maintain Department of Transportation compliance, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is open to the public for inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Lisa Yoho, Sr. Director Regulatory & FERC Compliance, Enable Mississippi River Transmission, P.O. Box 1336, Houston, Texas 77251 or phone (346) 701–2539 or fax (346) 701–2905 or by email
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Antelope Expansion 2, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 12, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will hold a joint meeting on Thursday, June 7, 2018 at the headquarters of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The meeting is expected to begin at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at approximately 11:15 a.m. Eastern Time. Members of the public may attend this meeting. Commissioners from both agencies are expected to participate.
The format for the joint meeting will consist of discussions between the two sets of Commissioners following presentations by their respective staffs. In addition, representatives of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) will attend and participate in this meeting.
The technical conference will be transcribed. Transcripts of the technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. ((202) 347–3700 or 1 (800) 336–6646). There will be a free webcast of the conference. The webcast will allow persons to listen to the technical conference, but not participate. Anyone with internet access can listen to the conference by navigating to the Calendar of Events at
Pre-registration is not required but is highly encouraged for those attending in person. Attendees may register in advance at the following web page:
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
Questions about the meeting should be directed to Sarah McKinley at
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on March 30, 2018. Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage LLC provided public notice of its request on April 10, 2018. In a letter dated May 22, 2018, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402. We are also initiating consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (
o. Register online at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on May 22, 2018, Peter A. Vigue filed a supplement to the April 24, 2018 filing application for authorization to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 18 U.S.C. 825d(f), and section 45.4 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Regulations, 18 CFR 45.8.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR)—NESHAP for Beryllium Rocket Motor Fuel Firing (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1125.08, OMB Control Number 2060–0394—to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through May 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 29, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2013–0322, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–2970; fax number: (202) 564–0050; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit the below listed information collection requests (ICRs) (See item specific ICR title, EPA ICR Number and OMB Control Number provided in the text) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. These are proposed extensions of 73 currently approved ICRs. 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.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 30, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID numbers provided for each item in the text, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–2970; fax number: (202) 564–0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for these ICRs. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0069; Title: NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards (40 CFR part 63, subpart YY) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1871.10; OMB Control Number 2060–0420; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(2) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0071; Title: NESHAP for Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1891.10; OMB Control Number 2060–0428; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(3) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0076; Title: NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Large Household and Commerical Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1954.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0457; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(4) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0075; Title: NESHAP for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1938.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0505; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(5) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0081; Title: NESHAP for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1976.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0509; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(6) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2011–0274; Title: NESHAP for the Wood Products Surface Coating Industry (40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2034.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0510; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(7) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0077; Title: NESHAP for Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1951.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0511; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(8) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0088; Title: NESHAP for Refractory Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2040.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0515; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(9) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0086; Title: NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2027.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0516; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(10) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2011–0271; Title: NESHAP for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2003.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0517; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(11) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0089; Title: NESHAP for Semiconductor Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2042.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0519; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(12) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0087; Title: NESHAP for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2029.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0520; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(13) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0084; Title: NESHAP for Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1995.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0521; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(14) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0092; Title: NESHAP for Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2071.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0522; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(15) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2011–0275; Title: NESHAP for Hydrochloric Acid Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2032.09; OMB Control Number 2060–0529; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(16) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2011–0264; Title: NSPS for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines (40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2196.06; OMB Control Number 2060–0590; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(17) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0098; Title: NESHAP for Nine Metal Fabrication and Area Finishing Source (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2298.05; OMB Control Number 2060–0622; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(18) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0526; Title: NESHAP for Aluminum, Copper, and Other Non-Ferrous Foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZZ) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2332.05; OMB Control Number 2060–0630; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(19) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0101; Title: NESHAP for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymer Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH) (Renewal); EPA ICR
(20) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0102; Title: NSPS for Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2437.04; OMB Control Number 2060–0673; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(21) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0103; Title: NSPS for Nitric Acid Plants for which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced after October 14, 2011 (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ga) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2445.04; OMB Control Number 2060–0674; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(22) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0104; Title: NESHAP for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2454.03; OMB Control Number 2060–0684; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(23) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2018–0250; Title: NSPS for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces (40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQQ) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2442.03; OMB Control Number 2060–0693; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.
(24) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0533; Title: NSPS for the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry (40 CFR part 60, subparts T, U, V, W, and X) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1061.14; OMB Control Number 2060–0037; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.
(25) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0528; Title: NSPS for Synthetic Fiber Production Facilities (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHH) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1156.14; OMB Control Number 2060–0059; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.
(26) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0535; Title: NSPS for Secondary Lead Smelters (40 CFR part 60, subpart L) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1128.12; OMB Control Number 2060–0080; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.
(27) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0534; Title: NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines (40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1093.12; OMB Control Number 2060–0162; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.
(28) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0517; Title: NSPS for Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed on or before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1901.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0424; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.
(29) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0518; Title: NESHAP for Metal Furniture Surface Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1952.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0518; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.
(30) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2011–0228; Title: NSPS for Petroleum Refineries for which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced after May 14, 2007 (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2263.06; OMB Control Number 2060–0602; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.
(31) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0525; Title: NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2323.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0621; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.
(32) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2011–0208; Title: NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart S) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2452.04; OMB Control Number 2060–0681; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.
(33) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0497; Title: NSPS for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generating Units (40 CR part 63, subpart D) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1052.12; OMB Control Number 2060–0026; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(34) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0655; Title: NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart PP) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1066.09; OMB Control Number 2060–0032; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(35) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2011–0239; Title: NSPS for Grain Elevators (40 CFR part 60, subpart DD) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1130.12; OMB Control Number 2060–0082; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(36) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0498; Title: NSPS for Coal Preparation and Processing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart Y) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1062.15; OMB Control Number 2060–0122; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(37) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0502; Title: NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1692.10; OMB Control Number 2060–0340; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(38) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0502; Title: NSPS for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1730.11; OMB Control Number 2060–0363; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(39) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0503; Title: Emission Guidelines for Large Municipal Waste Combustors Constructed on or Before September 20, 1994 (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1847.08; OMB Control Number 2060–0390; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(40) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2013–0337; Title: NESHAP for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1801.13; OMB Control Number 2060–0416; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(41) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2011–0272; Title: Emission Guidelines for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce and 40 CFR part 62, subpart HHH) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1899.09; OMB Control Number 2060–0422; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(42) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0506; Title: NSPS for Small Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 60, subpart AAAA) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1900.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0423; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(43) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0505; Title: NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1894.09; OMB Control Number 2060–0433; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(44) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0090; Title: NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2056.06; OMB Control Number 2060–0486; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(45) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2015–0191; Title: NESHAP for Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1969.06; OMB Control Number 2060–0533; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(46) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0524; Title: NSPS for Stationary Combustion Turbines (40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2177.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0582; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(47) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0527; Title: NESHAP for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Area Source Category (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2348.05; OMB Control Number 2060–0633; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(48) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0496; Title: NESHAP for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAAAA) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2352.05; OMB Control Number 2060–0634; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(49) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0642; Title: NESHAP for Chemical Preparations Industry (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBBB) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2356.05; OMB Control Number 2060–0636; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(50) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2018–0251; Title: NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2453.03; OMB Control Number 2060–0683; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.
(51) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0666; Title: NESHAP for the Printing and Publishing Industry (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1739.09; OMB Control Number 2060–0335; Expiration Date: June 30, 2019.
(52) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0677; Title: NSPS for Standards of Peformance for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for which Construction, Reconstruction or Modification Commenced after June 11,
(53) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0699; Title: NESHAP for Primary Magnesium Refining (40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTTT) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2098.08; OMB Control Number 2060–0536; Expiration Date: June 30, 2019.
(54) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0693; Title: NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing (40 CFR part 63 subpart RRRRR) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2050.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0538; Expiration Date: June 30, 2019.
(55) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0691; Title: NESHAP for Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIIII) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2046.09; OMB Control Number 2060–0542; Expiration Date: June 30, 2019.
(56) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0702; Title: NESHAP for Area Sources: Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production, Primary Copper Smelting, Secondary Copper Smelting, and Primary Nonferrous Metals-Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2240.06; OMB Control Number 2060–0596; Expiration Date: June 30, 2019.
(57) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0703; Title: NESHAP for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDDD) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2354.05; OMB Control Number 2060–0635; Expiration Date: June 30, 2019.
(58) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2018–0249; Title: NSPS for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Electric Utility Generating Units (40 CFR part 60, Subpart TTTT) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2465.04; OMB Control Number 2060–0685; Expiration Date: July 31, 2019.
(59) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0643; Title: NSPS for Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating (40 CFR part 60, subpart RR) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 0658.13; OMB Control Number 2060–0004; Expiration Date: August 31, 2019.
(60) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0653; Title: NSPS for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels (40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1060.18; OMB Control Number 2060–0038; Expiration Date: August 31, 2019.
(61) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0659; Title: NESHAP for Perchlorethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart M) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1415.12; OMB Control Number 2060–0234; Expiration Date: August 31, 2019.
(62) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0680; Title: Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc and 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1893.08; OMB Control Number 2060–0430; Expiration Date: August 31, 2019.
(63) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0688; Title: NESHAP for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2044.07; OMB Control Number 2060–0537; Expiration Date: August 31, 2019.
(64) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2013–0355; Title: NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, Glass Manufacturing and Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subparts RRRRRR, SSSSSS, and TTTTTT) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2274.06; OMB Control Number 2060–0606; Expiration Date: August 31, 2019.
(65) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2015–0190; Title: NSPS for Nitric Acid Plants (40 CFR part 60, subparts G and Ga) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1056.13; OMB Control Number 2060–0019; Expiration Date: September 30, 2019.
(66) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0654; Title: NSPS for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations (40 CFR part 60, subpart MM) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1064.19; OMB Control Number 2060–0034; Expiration Date: September 30, 2019.
(67) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0657; Title: NSPS for Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing (40 CFR part 60, subpart FFF) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1157.12; OMB Control Number 2060–0073; Expiration Date: September 30, 2019.
(68) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0656; Title: NSPS for Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR part 60, subpart KK) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1072.12; OMB Control Number 2060–0081; Expiration Date: September 30, 2019.
(69) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0658; Title: NSPS/
(70) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0660; Title: NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaners/Halogenated Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR part 63, subpart T) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1652.10; OMB Control Number 2060–0273; Expiration Date: September 30, 2019.
(71) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0665; Title: NESHAP for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart EE) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1678.10; OMB Control Number 2060–0326; Expiration Date: September 30, 2019.
(72) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0678; Title: NESHAP for Mineral Wool Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1799.10; OMB Control Number 2060–0362; Expiration Date: September 30, 2019.
(73) Docket ID Number: EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0669; Title: NESHAP for Oil and Natural Gas Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart HH) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1788.12; OMB Control Number 2060–0417; Expiration Date: September 30, 2019.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR)—NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1131.12, OMB Control Number 2060–0054—to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through May 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 29, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0041, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A,
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Continuous Release Reporting Regulations (CRRR) Under CERCLA 1980 (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1445.13, OMB Control No. 2050–0086) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2018. 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.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 30, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0100 online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Sicy Jacob, Regulations Implementation Division, Office of Emergency Management, (5104A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–8019; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Reporting under the Emergency Planning Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) section 304 is closely tied to reporting under CERCLA section 103. Under the provisions of EPCRA section 304, all releases of CERCLA hazardous substances that must be reported under CERCLA section 103(a), as well as EPCRA EHSs, must also be reported to State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs) and Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) if the releases have a potential for off-site exposure. Releases of other EHSs, that are not CERCLA hazardous substances must be reported to SERCs and LEPCs if they occur in a manner that would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a). Similarly, releases exempt from reporting under CERCLA section 103(a), such as federally permitted releases, or releases subject to reduced reporting requirements under CERCLA section 103(f)(2), are not subject to immediate notification under EPCRA section 304.
The previous ICR inadvertently omitted collection activities and the burden and cost analysis under EPCRA, and are now being accounted for in this ICR renewal.
The continuous release reporting regulations (CRRR) is codified in 40 CFR 302.8 and 355.32 for CERCLA and EPCRA, respectively.
Section 103(f)(2) of CERCLA provides facilities relief from this per-occurrence notification requirement if the hazardous substance release at or above the RQ is continuous and stable in quantity and rate. To ensure that government authorities receive timely and sufficient information to evaluate potentially dangerous hazardous substance releases reported under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA Section 304, the Continuous Release Reporting Requirements (CRRR), requires reporting a release as a continuous release. The regulations require facilities to make an initial telephone call to the NRC, the SERC, and the LEPC, an initial written report to the EPA Region, the SERC, and the LEPC, and, if the source and chemical composition of the continuous release does not change and the level of the continuous release does not significantly increase, a follow-up written report to the EPA Region one year after submission of the initial written report. If the source or chemical composition of the previously reported continuous release changes, notifying the NRC, the EPA Region, the SERC, and the LEPC of a change in the source or composition of the release is required. Further, a significant increase in the level of the previously reported continuous release must be reported immediately to the NRC, the SERC, and the LEPC according to section 103(a) of CERCLA and EPCRA section 304. Finally, any change in information submitted in support of a continuous release notification must be reported to the EPA Region.
The reporting of a hazardous substance release that is equal to or above the substance's RQ allows the Federal government to determine whether a Federal response action is required to control or mitigate any potential adverse effects to public health or welfare or the environment.
The continuous release of hazardous substance information collected under CERCLA section 103(f)(2) is also available to EPA program offices and other Federal agencies who use the information to evaluate the potential need for additional regulations, new permitting requirements for specific substances or sources, or improved emergency response planning. State and local government authorities and facilities subject to the CRRR use release information for purposes of local emergency response planning. Members of the public, who have access to release information through the Freedom of Information Act, may request release information for purposes of maintaining an awareness of what types of releases are occurring in different localities and what actions, if any, are being taken to protect public health and welfare and the environment. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
T
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Charter Renewal.
Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) is in the public interest and is necessary in connection with the performance of EPA's duties. Accordingly, the BOSC will be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose of BOSC is to provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator regarding science and engineering research, programs and plans, laboratories, and research management practices. Inquiries may be directed to Tom Tracy, U.S. EPA, (Mail Code 8104R), 1200 Pennsylvania
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extends the deadline to submit a letter of interest (LOI) from prospective borrowers seeking credit assistance from EPA. EPA takes this action to allow more time for the preparation and submission of LOIs by prospective borrowers.
Deadline for Submittal of Letter of Interest: 12:00 p.m. (noon) EDT on July 31, 2018.
Prospective borrowers should submit all LOIs electronically via email at:
EPA will notify prospective borrowers that their letter of interest has been received via a confirmation email.
Prospective borrowers can access additional information, including the WIFIA program handbook and application materials, on the WIFIA website:
On April 12, 2018 EPA published in the
All information in the NOFA published on April 12, 2018 (83 FR 15828), remains the same, except for the deadline date, which has been changed to 12:00 p.m. (noon) EDT on July 31, 2018, and the deadline to request a link to EPA's SharePoint site to upload documents, which has been changed to 12:00 p.m. (noon) EDT on July 27, 2018.
EPA will host a question and answer webinar about submitting a LOI on May 30, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. EDT. EPA will also host a webinar providing an overview of the WIFIA program and the current LOI submittal round on June 4, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. EDT. Registration directions can be found on the WIFIA program website:
Prospective borrowers with questions about the program or interest in meeting with WIFIA program staff may send a request to
33 U.S.C. 3901–3914; 40 CFR part 35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit requests to renew several currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICRs are identified in this document by their corresponding titles, EPA ICR numbers, OMB Control numbers, and related docket identification (ID) numbers. Before submitting these ICRs to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the information collection activities that are summarized in this document. The ICRs and accompanying material are available for public review and comment in the relevant dockets identified in this document for the ICR.
Comments must be received on or before July 30, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by the ID number for the corresponding ICR as identified in this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Ryne Yarger, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 605–1193; email address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
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 estimates 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.
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,
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Submit your comments by the deadline identified under
6. Identify the docket ID number assigned to the ICR action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the ICR title and related EPA and OMB numbers.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information subject to PRA approval unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are further displayed either by publication in the
As used in the PRA context, burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
EPA is planning to submit two currently approved ICRs to OMB for review and approval under the PRA. In addition to specifically identifying the ICRs by title and corresponding ICR, OMB and docket ID numbers, this unit provides summaries of the information collection activities and the Agency's estimated burden. The Supporting Statement for each ICR, a copy of which is available in the corresponding docket, provides a more detailed explanation.
Prior to the regulatory update, the WPS regulations already had provisions for training and notification of pesticide-related information for workers who enter pesticide-treated areas after pesticide application to perform crop-related tasks, as well as for handlers who mix, load, and apply pesticides. Agricultural employers and commercial pesticide handling establishments (CPHEs) are responsible for providing required training, notifications and information to their employees to ensure worker and handler safety. The changes to the regulation in 2015 improved protections and included revisions to many of the provisions as well as the addition of new requirements. The regulation now includes expanded and more frequent training for workers and handlers, improved posting of pesticide-treated areas, additional information for workers before they enter a pesticide-treated area while a restricted entry interval (REI) is in effect, access to more general and application-specific information about pesticides used on the establishment, and recordkeeping of training to improve enforceability and compliance.
Under 40 CFR 152.25(f), EPA has exempted from the requirement of FIFRA registration certain pesticide products if they are composed of specified ingredients and labeled accordingly. EPA created the exemption for minimum risk pesticides to eliminate the need for industry or business to expend significant resources to apply for and maintain regulated products that are deemed to be of minimum risk to human health and the environment. In addition, exempting such products freed Agency resources to focus on evaluating formulations whose toxicity was less well characterized, or was of higher toxicity.
The 2015 Final Rule reorganized the ingredients lists and added specific chemical identifiers to clarify to manufacturers, the public, and Federal, state, and tribal inspectors the specific chemical substances that are permitted in minimum risk pesticide products. EPA also modified the label requirements to require the use of specific label display names of ingredients and to require producer contact information on the label. The primary goal of this rulemaking was to clarify the conditions of exemption for minimum risk pesticides by clarifying the specific ingredients that are permitted in minimum risk pesticide products and to provide company contact information on the label. The previous version of this ICR covered the paperwork burdens associated with existing products updating their labels to comply with the new requirements during the 2015 Final Rule's compliance period. EPA anticipates that those burdens have been realized, and is now accounting for the potential burden for new products coming into the market.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the individual ICRs as appropriate. The final ICR packages will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of finding of adequacy.
In this notice, the EPA is notifying the public that we find the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
This finding is applicable June 14, 2018.
Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section (AR–18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777,
Throughout this document, whenever “we”, “us” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On February 28, 2017, IDEM submitted to EPA a 15% Rate of Progress Plan for the Indiana portion of the 2008 8-hour ozone Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area, and provided further clarification to the Plan on January 9, 2018. This plan included MVEBs for VOC and NO
The 2017 MVEBs for Lake and Porter Counties are 16.68 tons per day (tpd) of NO
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do conform. Conformity to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay
The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's MVEBs are adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and is also a separate action from EPA's evaluation of and decision whether to approve a proposed SIP revision.
42 U.S.C. 7401–7671 q.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Multi-Buyer Policy: Reasonable Spread of Risk (RSOR) Exclusions Worksheet will be used by external customers, current policyholders and portfolio managers to determine eligibility of Export-Import Bank support under the RSOR Policy. Program changes that were made in 2017 have resulted in revitalized demand of the RSOR product in the marketplace. This form will be available on EXIM's website and will standardize the collection of required information into a user friendly format that can be submitted electronically via email or as an attachment to an EXIM Online application.
Comments should be received on or before July 30, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
The form can be viewed at:
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 June 29, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418–2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to
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.
More recently, on August 23, 2016, the Commission adopted the
On July 7, 2017, the Commission adopted the
Further, since the previous filing deadline associated with this collection, changing circumstances have made filing certain information no longer necessary or required under the rules. For instance, the final Connect America Phase I incremental support deployment deadlines were in early 2017, so there are no longer any reporting obligations associated with that support. Moreover, because the Connect America Phase II challenge process has ended, the Commission proposes to remove Form 505 from this collection. The Commission also proposes to move FCC Form 507, FCC Form 508, FCC Form 509 and the accompanying instructions to information collection 3060–0233.
The Commission therefore proposes to revise this information collection, as well as Form 481 and its accompanying instructions, to reflect these new or modified requirements. The Commission also proposes a number of non-substantive changes to the Form 481 and accompanying instructions. Any increased burdens for particular reporting requirements are associated with ETCs newly subject to those requirements as a condition of receiving high-cost support.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Notice and request for comment.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FTC is seeking public comments on its request to OMB to extend for three years the current PRA clearances for information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules and regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act (Fur Rules or Rules). The clearance expires on May 31, 2018.
Comments must be received by June 29, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Jock K. Chung, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mail Code CC–9528, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–2984.
On March 9, 2018, the Commission sought comment on the information collection requirements in the Fur Rules. 83 FR 10482. One germane comment was received.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before June 29, 2018. Write “Fur Rules: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Fur Rules: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC–5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments can also be sent via email to
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before June 29, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
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 meeting of the NHLBI Institutional Training Mechanism Review Committee.
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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the NHLBI Clinical Trials Review Committee.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, June 26, 2018, 8:00 a.m. to June 26, 2018, 5:00 p.m., Courtyard by Marriott Chevy Chase, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the meeting title from Review of MIRA Applications to Review of NIGMS Support of Competitive Research (SCORE) Awards. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the NHLBI Special Emphasis Panel.
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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the NHLBI Institutional Training Mechanism Review Committee.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, June 14, 2018, 11:00 a.m. to June 14, 2018, 1:00 p.m., Sir Francis Drake Hotel, 450 Powell Street at Sutter, San Francisco, CA 94102 which was published in the
The meeting will be held at the National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. The meeting date and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Mental Health.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following 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.
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 materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group Microbiology and Infectious Diseases B Subcommittee MID–B.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel, June 26, 2018, 11:00 a.m. to June 26, 2018, 2:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the
This meeting notice is amended to change the time of the meeting from 11:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276–1243.
The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) is a survey of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population aged 12 years old or older. The data are used to determine the prevalence of use of tobacco products, alcohol, illicit substances, and illicit use of prescription drugs. The results are used by SAMHSA, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), federal government agencies, and other organizations and researchers to establish policy, to direct program activities, and to better allocate resources.
While NSDUH must be updated periodically to reflect changing substance use and mental health issues and to continue producing current data, only the following minor changes are planned for the 2019 NSDUH: (1) Adding a brief series of questions on medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioids and alcohol; and, (2) including other minor wording changes to improve the flow of the interview, to increase respondent comprehension, or to be consistent with text in other questions.
The series of MAT questions seeks to identify medications prescribed by health professionals to help reduce or stop the use of opioids and alcohol. Including these questions in NSDUH will allow SAMHSA to provide the first known national-level estimates on the use of MAT for opioid use disorder and alcohol use disorder.
As with all NSDUH surveys conducted since 1999, including those prior to 2002 when the NSDUH was referred to as the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, the sample size of the survey for 2019 will be sufficient to permit prevalence estimates for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The total annual burden estimate is shown below in Table 1:
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by June 29, 2018 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of final determination.
This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain electric scissor lifts. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded that the country of origin of the electric scissor lifts in question is the United States, for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
The final determination was issued on May 21, 2018. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 C.F.R. 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination within June 29, 2018.
Yuliya A. Gulis, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, at (202) 325–0042.
Notice is hereby given that on May 21, 2018 pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 C.F.R. part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain electric scissor lifts (R Series Scissor Lift models 2632R, 3246R, and 4045R), produced by JLG Industries, Inc., which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination, HQ H294980, was issued under procedures set forth at 19 C.F.R. part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511–18). In the final determination, CBP concluded that the country of origin of the electric scissor lifts is the United States for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177.29), provides that a notice of final determination shall be published in the
This is in response to your correspondence dated March 1, 2018, requesting a final determination, on behalf of your client, JLG Industries, Inc. (“JLG”), concerning the country of origin of certain electric scissor lifts, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 C.F.R. § 177.21
We note that JLG is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 C.F.R. § 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.
JLG is an Oshkosh Corporation Company, headquartered in McConnellsburg, Pennsylvania, and a global leader in the manufacture of electric powered and engine powered aerial work platforms. The electric scissor lifts under consideration are part of the JLG R Series family of Scissor Lift products. The R Series is partially assembled in Tianjin, China and then shipped to the United States for additional manufacturing and testing, and final assembly. Once completed, the product will be introduced in commerce and offered for sale, lease, or rental to the U.S. Government.
CBP has previously issued an advisory country of origin ruling concerning JLG's electric scissor lifts and determined them to be of U.S.-origin. The R Series under review in this case are stated to be new models and 95 percent of the processing is the same, except there is a slight increase in the low-level, unskilled assembly in China and an increase in high-level skilled work on the brain of the product performed in the United States.
The three R Series Scissor Lift models that JLG plans to manufacture are the 2632R, the 3246R, and the 4045R models. While the function of all three models is the same, the models differ in specifications, such as size and platform capacity. A Bill of Material was submitted for Model 4045R. You state that the Bills of Material for the other two R Series Scissor Lift models are substantially the same. As reflected in the detailed Bill of Material, there are 29 separate sub-assemblies/components, in varying quantities, of the R Series Scissor Lift. Approximately 40 percent of the parts are of U.S.-origin and 60
JLG also submitted charts outlining the 25 separate operational sequences, man hours and skill level, for the operations performed in China and the United States in the manufacture of the R Series Scissor Lift. You state that the 15 operations performed in the United States are complex and meaningful, and require medium skill to accomplish, while the 10 operations performed in China are relatively simple hardware assembly and packaging. The following processes are performed in China: assembling the front and rear frame, assembling components (doors, etc.), assembling hydraulic tank and steering hose, building up and installing arm, building up routing and frame covers, installing rails and packaging the partially assembled unit into a cargo container for shipment to the United States. As imported, the Chinese good is stated to be a non-operable platform. You assert that the operations performed in the United States result in a “self-propelled, saleable, scissor lift.” Further, you claim a significant part of the final manufacturing and assembly process of JLG's electric scissor lift occurring in the United States consists of functional testing, quality verification, machine calibration, dimensional and structural inspection, and testing, requiring specialized employee training and skill.
The electric scissor lifts have three control modules that act as the “brain” of the machine. It is stated that these modules are the most critical components in controlling the machine's functions. These modules are: (1) the platform module, (2) the power controller module, and (3) the logic module. With the exception of the shell of the logic module, which is manufactured in Mexico, all three control modules are manufactured in the United States. The other smart components that interface with the modules referenced above, are also manufactured, assembled, and installed in the United States. These components include batteries, a platform control box (allows the user to lift and lower the platform, and drive and steer the machine), and ground control panel (a secondary operator interface that allows the user to lift and lower the platform while not in the work platform). Finally, all software contained in the “brain” is developed and programmed entirely in the United States. The software and module development consumed over 8,000 hours of engineering time. The modules are installed and tested in the United States. Final machine calibration of the electric scissor lifts is also performed subsequent to importation.
What is the country of origin of the electric scissor lifts for purposes of U.S. Government procurement?
CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 C.F.R. § 177.21
Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. § 2518(4)(B):
In rendering final determinations for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of subpart B of Part 177 consistent with the Federal Procurement Regulations.
In determining whether the combining of parts or materials constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue is the extent of the operations performed and whether the parts lose their identity and become an integral part of the new article.
In Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H022169, dated May 2, 2008, a glider (consisting of a frame, finished cab, axels, and wheels) was imported into the United States and assembled with approximately 87 different component parts (including the essential parts: a motor, controller, and charger of Canadian origin; a gear box and axel of U.S. origin; and brakes of Indian origin) into an electric mini-truck. The process consisted of eight assembly work stations involving attachment and installation operations, as well as quality control and testing of the product. CBP held that the imported glider and other foreign components were substantially transformed into an electric mini-truck by the assembly operations that took place in the United States. Our decision was based on finding that the imported glider lost its individual identity and became an integral part of a new article possessing a new name, character, and use. Likewise, in HQ H155115, dated May 24, 2011, CBP found that assembly in the United States of an imported glider, and other imported and U.S.-origin parts constituted a substantial transformation into an article with a new name, character, and use. The assembly process in the United States was complex and time-consuming and involved a significant U.S. contribution in both parts and labor.
Similarly, in HQ H118435, dated October 13, 2010, the assembly of a chassis, plastic body parts, and various miscellaneous pieces of plastic trim from China and U.S.-origin battery packs, motors, electronics, wiring assemblies, seats, and chargers into electric golf and recreational vehicles was considered a substantial transformation. CBP found that a substantial transformation occurred in the United States given the complexity and duration of the U.S. manufacturing process, along with the fact that between 12 and 17 of the 53 to 62 components were U.S. components and critical in making the electric vehicle.
Based on the information provided in your letter and consistent with CBP rulings cited above, we note that while many important components of the R Series Scissor Lift products are of
Based on the facts provided, the finished electric scissor lifts will be considered a product of the United States for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652–0041, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of a revision of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves the submission of ratings and written comments about the quality of training instruction from TSA students who successfully complete TSA instructor-led classroom training. TSA students include TSA personnel, as well as State and local civilian personnel, who attend the Explosives Detection Canine Handler Course, Passenger Screening Canine Handler Course, Bridge Course, Canine Technical Operations Course, or the Office of Security Operations Canine (OSO) Management Course at the Canine Training Center (CTC).
Send your comments by June 29, 2018. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA–11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6011; telephone (571) 227–2062; email
TSA published a
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
TSA is revising the information collection to standardize all Level 1 course evaluations across TSA. A Level 1 evaluation is a measure of the degree to which participants react to a learning activity. In addition, TSA is removing from the form all personally identifiable information (PII) as well as course code and location, as these elements are not necessary to the collection. Finally, TSA is revising the name of the collection from “TSA OTWE Canine Training and Evaluation Branch End of Course Level 1 Evaluation” to “TSA End of Course Level 1 Evaluation—Instructor-Led Classroom Training.”
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day Notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on a new Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. This collection involves the submission of information from former employees who are interested in a Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (LEOSA) Identification (ID) Card, a retired badge and/or a retired credential.
Send your comments by July 30, 2018.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227–2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
Under 18 U.S.C. 926C, which codifies a portion of LEOSA,
TSA subsequently issued TSA Management Directive (MD) 3500.1,
Under TSA MD 2800.11,
If the employee is approved for a retired badge and/or credential, his or her badge and/or credential will be replicated by TSA and marked with the word “RETIRED,” to indicate that the retired employee no longer has the authority to perform specific official functions pursuant to law, statute, regulation or DHS Directive. In the case of a retired LEO, the individual is prohibited from using the TSA retired credential as photographic identification for the purposes of the LEOSA.
Under TSA's current application process for these two programs, qualified applicants may apply for a LEOSA ID Card, a Retired Badge, and/or a Retired Credential, as applicable, either while still employed by TSA (shortly before separating or retiring) or after they have separated or retired (after they become private citizens,
The LEOSA Identification Card Application (TSA Form 2825A) requires collection of identifying information, contact information, official title, separation date, and last known field office. Identifying information, such as the date of birth and social security number (SSN), are necessary to confirm the individual's identity and to process the individual through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. Similarly, for purposes of a retired badge and/or credential, TSA Form 2808,
Based on current data, TSA estimates 32 LEOSA Application Forms 2825A and 30 Retired Badge and Credential Application Forms 2808 will be submitted, for a total of 62 respondents annually. It takes approximately 5 minutes (0.08333 hours) to complete either form, so the total annual hour burden to the public will be 62 multiplied by 0.08333 hours, or 5.17 hours.
TSA will use the information to conduct the qualification review for: (1) retired and separated law enforcement officers requesting LEOSA identification cards, and (2) retiring individuals requesting a retired badge and/or credential.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
This notice establishes Renewal Funding Inflation Factors (RFIFs) to adjust Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 renewal funding for the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program of each public housing agency (PHA), as required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. HUD produces the FY 2018 RFIFs by apportioning the expected percent change in national per unit cost (PUC) for the HCV program, 3.47 percent, to each PHA based on the change in Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for their operating area. HUD's FY 2018 methodology is the same as that which was used in FY 2017. However, HUD is seeking comment on potential RFIF methodology changes related to the use of ad hoc surveys conducted for purposes of reevaluating FMRs and their effect on the calculation of RFIFs.
For technical information regarding the development of the schedules for specific areas or the methods used for calculating the inflation factors, contact: Miguel A. Fontanez, Director, Housing Voucher Financial Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, telephone number 202–402–4212; Peter B. Kahn, Director, Economic and Market Analysis Division, Office of Policy Development and Research, telephone number 202–402–2409, or Adam Bibler, Economist, Economic and Market Analysis Division, Office of Policy Development and Research, telephone number 202–402–6057. Mail for these individuals should be addressed to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410. Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may contact the Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339 (TTY). (Other than the “800” TTY number, the above-listed telephone numbers are not toll free.)
Division L, Title II of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 requires that the HUD Secretary, for the calendar year 2018 funding cycle, provide renewal funding for each PHA based on validated voucher management system (VMS) leasing and cost data for the prior calendar year and by applying an inflation factor as established by the Secretary, published in the
RFIFs are used to adjust the allocation of HCV program funds to PHAs for local changes in rents, utility costs, and tenant incomes. To calculate the RFIFs, HUD first forecasts a national inflation factor, which is the annual change in the national average PUC. HUD then calculates individual area inflation factors, which are based on the annual changes in the two-bedroom FMR for each area. Finally, HUD adjusts the individual area inflation factors to be consistent with the national inflation factor.
HUD's forecast of the national average PUC is based on forecasts of gross rent and tenant income. Each forecast is produced using historical and forecasted macroeconomic data as independent variables, where the forecasts are consistent with the economic assumptions of the Administration's FY 2018 Budget. The forecast of gross rent is itself based on
The inflation factor for an individual geographic area is based on the annualized change in the area's FMR between FY 2017 and FY 2018. These changes in FMRs are then scaled such that the voucher-weighted average of all individual area inflation factors is equal to the national inflation factor,
HUD subsequently applies the calculated individual area inflation factors to eligible renewal funding for each PHA based on VMS leasing and cost data for the prior calendar year.
As explained above, inflation factors based on area FMR changes are produced for all FMR areas and applied to eligible renewal funding for each PHA. The tables showing the RFIFs, available electronically from the HUD data information page, list the inflation factors for each FMR area on a state-by-state basis. The inflation factors use the same OMB metropolitan area definitions, as revised by HUD, that are used for the FY 2018 FMRs. PHAs should refer to the Area Definitions Table on the following web page to make certain that they are referencing the correct inflation factors:
As described above, HUD uses the annual change in an area's FMR in part to produce its inflation factor. HUD allows for the use of PHA-sponsored local rent survey data in calculating FMRs, and the use of this data can produce erratic RFIFs as certain areas switch from FMRs based on American Community Survey (ACS) data to FMRs based on local rent surveys and vice versa. For example, in cases where rents are increasing and an area's FMR was based on the same sponsored local rent survey for two consecutive years, or was previously based on a (higher-rent) local survey that was superseded by more current (lower-rent) ACS data, that area's RFIF will be lower relative to underlying rent growth in the area, leaving PHAs with the choice to either fund additional surveys or accept the lower RFIF. With this notice, HUD seeks comment on this issue, including its equitability to PHAs that have not sponsored local surveys, and on potential method changes to the RFIF calculation. Funds are not available for HUD to carry out extensive local rent surveys. Given this limitation, HUD seeks comment on the following possible ways to calculate the local rent change used in the calculation of RFIFs:
• Maintain the current policy of including the survey-based FMR change in the first calculation of RFIFs following the implementation of the survey and continue using the change in FMRs while the survey is still in effect.
• Stop incorporating local rent surveys in the calculation of the FMR change component of the RFIF calculation.
• As with current policy, include the survey-based FMR change in the first calculation of RFIFs following the implementation of the survey. In subsequent years, while the survey is still being used in the calculation of the published FMRs, use the change in underlying rent data collected via the ACS. By doing this, the rent change component of the RFIF will be based on a local measure of actual year-to-year rent change.
• Instead of having a large increase in the FMR in the first year of using local survey data, with little to no inflation for the next several years, spread the increase over the expected usable life of the survey. HUD would do this by calculating the average annual change between the survey-derived rent and the ACS rent over a two- or three-year period. Surveys conducted in January through June generally are used in two FMR calculations and surveys conducted in July through December are typically used in three FMR calculations. By using the annual average increase as the FMR change component of the RFIF calculation, PHAs in areas submitting local survey data will ultimately have the full increase in their survey-based FMR realized in their inflation factors, but the distortive impacts of implementing the entire change in the first year of the use of the local survey-based rent will also be ameliorated. This would also likely lessen the mismatch between the RFIF and local rent growth rates at the transition back
• Pursue another strategy recommended by commenters.
HUD recognizes that PHAs may need additional renewal funding to support their HCV program when they must increase payment standards commensurate with increases in FMRs due to submission of locally funded survey data. Including the full survey-based FMR change in the RFIF calculation helps to achieve this need;
This notice involves a statutorily required establishment of a rate or cost determination which does not constitute
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 29, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Elizabeth S. Sangine by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary for the USGS to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how to minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authorities for this action are the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before May 12, 2018, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by June 14, 2018.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
A request to move has been received for the following resource:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resources:
Nomination submitted by Federal Preservation Officer:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), are proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 29, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Mr. Ronnie Baca, Bureau of Reclamation, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of Reclamation; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might Reclamation enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might Reclamation minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
It is estimated that there will be a total of 140 out of the 696 contacts that choose not to respond to the survey. These non-respondents account for a total of 1 burden hour per year.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations effective April 11, 2017, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Waterloo Industries Inc., Sedalia, Missouri. Effective September 15, 2017, the Commission established a general schedule for the conduct of the final phase of its investigations on tool chests and cabinets, following a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of the subject merchandise were subsidized by the government of China. Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d (b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on May 24, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4787 (May 2018), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit 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. A minor change is being made to the proposed collection OMB 1140–0101 (Firearms and Explosives Services Division (FESD) Customer Service Survey), to include references to the recently established National Firearms Act Division (NFA Division); which was previously a branch in FESD. All survey questions directly relate to customer experience in FESD, NFA Division and their branches. The proposed collection is being published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 30, 2018.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any additional information, please contact Erica Payne, National Firearms Act Division, either by mail at 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, by email at
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:
—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
—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;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
—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,
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice is hereby given that, on April 25, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CWMD intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On January 31, 2018, CWMD filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), 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. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days (60) until July 30, 2018.
If you have additional comments 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: Maria Swineford, (202) 616–0109, Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 or
This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
Notice of exemption.
This document contains a notice of exemption issued by the Department of Labor (the Department) from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). The exemption affects the ability of certain entities with specified relationships to BNP Paribas to continue to rely upon relief provided by Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84–14.
This exemption is effective for one year from the Conviction Date (Exemption Period).
Mrs. Blessed Chuksorji-Keefe of the Department, telephone (202) 693–8567. (This is not a toll-free number.).
On March 22, 2018, the Department published a notice of proposed exemption in the
The Department is granting this exemption to ensure that Covered Plans
No relief from a violation of any other law is provided by this exemption, including any criminal convictions described in the proposed exemption. Furthermore, the Department cautions that the relief in this exemption will terminate immediately if, among other things, an entity within the BNP Paribas corporate structure is convicted of a crime described in Section I(g) of PTE 84–14 (other than the Convictions) during the Exemption Period. The terms of this exemption are designed to promote adherence to basic fiduciary standards under ERISA and the Code. This exemption also aims to ensure that Covered Plans can terminate relationships in an orderly and cost effective fashion in the event the fiduciary of a Covered Plan determines it is prudent to terminate the relationship with a BNP Affiliated QPAM or BNP Related QPAM. The Department notes that its determination that the requisite findings under ERISA section 408(a) have been met is premised on adherence to all of the conditions of the exemption. Accordingly, affected parties should be aware that the conditions incorporated in this exemption are, taken as a whole, necessary for the Department to grant the relief requested by the Applicant. Absent these or similar conditions, the Department would not have granted this exemption.
The individual exemption was requested by the Applicant pursuant to section 408(a) of ERISA and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011). Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue administrative exemptions under section 4975(c)(2) of the Code to the Secretary of Labor. Accordingly, this exemption is being granted solely by the Department.
The Department cautions that the relief in this exemption will terminate immediately if an entity within the BNP Paribas corporate structure is convicted of a crime described in Section I(g) of PTE 84–14 (other than the Convictions) during the Exemption Period. Although BNP Paribas could apply for a new exemption in that circumstance, the Department would not be obligated to grant the exemption. The terms of this exemption have been specifically designed to permit plans to terminate their relationships in an orderly and cost effective fashion in the event of an additional conviction or a determination that it is otherwise prudent for a plan to terminate its relationship with an entity covered by the exemption.
The Department invited all interested persons to submit written comments and/or requests for a public hearing with respect to the notice of proposed exemption, published in the
Section II(j) of the proposed exemption refers to the Conviction Date of BNP Paribas USA as May 30, 2018. Section III(e) of the proposed exemption defines the term “Conviction Date” as the date that a judgment of Conviction against BNP Paribas USA is entered by the District Court in connection with the 2018 Conviction. Further, Section III(g) of the proposed exemption defines the term “Exemption Period” as the period from May 30, 2018 until the earlier of: (1) May 29, 2019; or (2) the date of final agency action made by the Department in connection with a new exemption application submitted by BNP Paribas for the covered transactions described herein.
The Applicant states that it is possible that May 30, 2018 will not be the Conviction Date. The Applicant requests that Section III(e) read as follows:
In addition, the Applicant requests a corresponding change to the definition of “Exemption Period” in Section III(g), so that Section III(g) read as follows:
The Department concurs with the Applicant's request regarding Section III(e) and has revised the exemption accordingly. In addition, the Department has modified Section III(g) to state that “[t]he term `Exemption Period' means one year from the Conviction Date.
Section II(a) of the proposed exemption states:
Section II(b) of the proposed exemption states:
The Applicant states that the phrase “and any other party engaged on behalf of such QPAMs” could encompass any vendor or any entity hired for even the most ministerial or menial non-asset management jobs. Such a reading would be problematic because the Applicant has not identified this universe or done the diligence required to be certain that it can meet this condition. The Applicant requests that the phrase be deleted from both conditions.
The Department does not agree that the phrase “and any other party” has the overly broad scope suggested by the Applicant. The Department notes that the phrase describes parties who had responsibility for, or exercised authority in connection with, the management of plan assets. Therefore, the Department declines to make the requested change.
However, as clarification, the Department has amended its statement on what it means to “participate in” misconduct to state that:
Section II(h)(1)(vii) of the proposed exemption provides:
The Applicant represents that this condition is unclear and states that the “Department removed the requirement to notify the plan fiduciary in the QPAM exemptions granted at the end of December 2017, and the preamble does not explain whether or why the Department deemed it important to reinstate the requirement here.” The Department notes that the provision at issue was set forth in PTE 2015–06,
See discussion in “Other Comments” section of this grant notice.
Section II(i)(1) of the proposed one-year temporary exemption requires, in relevant part:
The Applicant requests that the “initial audit under this exemption cover the period from October 16, 2018 through the end of the first year after the Conviction Date.”
The Department declines to make the requested revision. The Department has concluded that this exemption is adequately protective of Covered Plans only to the extent that, among other things, each BNP Affiliated QPAM remains subject to an in-depth audit performed by a qualified independent auditor during the entire period of time covered by this exemption. The audit required by PTE 2015–06 covers a period of time that ends on the day before the 2018 BNP Conviction Date, which may be on around May 30, 2018. However, the revision sought by the Applicant raises the possibility that the BNP Affiliated QPAMs would not be subject to an audit until October 16, 2018, which would be an unacceptably long gap between audit periods. In order to ensure that each BNP Affiliated QPAM remains continuously subject to an in-depth audit throughout the entire term of this exemption, the audit required herein covers a period of time that begins on the 2018 BNP Conviction Date.
The Department has revised the term “2014 Convictions” to be the defined term “2015 Convictions” as it appears in Footnote 14, as numbered in the proposed one-year temporary exemption, in Section II(i)(1).
Section II(i)(5) of the proposed one-year temporary exemption states, in relevant part:
The Applicant requests that the phrase “any determination of inadequacy by the auditor regarding the adequacy of the Policies and Training” be revised to read “any determination by the auditor regarding the adequacy of the Policies and Training.” The Department modified Section II(i)(5)(i) as requested by the Applicant.
Additionally, the Department has re-designated the references to “Section I(i)(1)”, “Section I(h)”, “Section I(i)(7)”, “Section I(m)”, and “Section I(i)(3) and (4)” found in Section II(i)(5) as “Section II(i)(1)”, “Section II(h)”, “Section II(i)(7)”, “Section II(m)”, and “Section II(i)(3) and (4).”
Section II(i)(7) of the proposed exemption states, in relevant part:
The Applicant requests that the requirements of Section II(i)(7) be modified to take into account BNP Paribas' business structure by providing
The Department concurs that a senior executive officer with knowledge of the asset management line of business within the BNP Affiliated QPAM should review and certify the Audit Report, and has modified the language of Section II(i)(7), accordingly. The Department also made certain clarifying grammar edits.
Section II(i)(8) of the proposed exemption provides that:
The Applicant requests the Audit Report be submitted to the Board of Directors of BNP Paribas USA, Inc., the intermediate holding company (IHC) of BNP Paribas, S.A. The Applicant states that BNP Paribas USA, Inc. as an IHC and a financial holding company is registered with and supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Furthermore, the Applicant represents that BNP Paribas USA, Inc.'s Board of Directors is familiar with the operations of the BNP Affiliated QPAMs and U.S. law. Lastly, the Applicant requests that Section II(i)(8) not reference the risk committee and allow the BNP Paribas USA, Inc.'s Board of Directors to determine which committee should receive the Audit Report.
The Department has developed this exemption to ensure that the highest levels of BNP management are aware of on-going matters concerning BNP Paribas, the BNP Affiliated QPAMs, and compliance with this exemption. In the Department's view, as the parent company, BNP Paribas' Board of Directors is in the best position to ensure that any inadequacy identified by the auditor is appropriately addressed and that changes to corporate policy are effectuated if and where necessary. Requiring that the Audit Report be submitted to the Board of Directors of BNP Paribas provides assurance that the highest levels of management within BNP Paribas stay informed about BNP Paribas' and the BNP Affiliated QPAMs' compliance with the terms of this exemption. Accordingly, the Department declines to change the entity to which the Audit Report is submitted under Section II(i)(8) and in light of the importance of ensuring proper review of the Audit Report, the Department declines to alter this provision to permit BNP Paribas' Board of Directors to decide, in its discretion, which committee receives the Audit Report. To clarify that the entity receiving the Audit Report is the Board of Directors of BNP Paribas, S.A., the parent entity, the term “BNP” in Section II(i)(8) has been revised to be the defined term “BNP Paribas.”
Likewise, in Sections II(h)(1)(vii), II(i)(2), II(i)(5), II(i)(8), and II(i)(12) of this grant notice, the Department has revised the term “BNP” to be the defined term “BNP Paribas” to clarify the original intent of the Department to reference BNP Paribas, S.A.
Section II(j)(2) of the proposed exemption provides:
The Applicant states that BNP Affiliated QPAMs with several lines of businesses may have many contracts with Covered Plans. Accordingly, the Applicant requests that the condition be limited to breaches of an investment management contract between the BNP Affiliated QPAM and the Covered Plan.
The Department declines to make the requested revision to this condition. The purpose of this indemnification provision is to protect Covered Plans with respect to its interactions with the BNP Affiliated QPAMs. The Department believes that limiting the scope of indemnification to investment management contracts unnecessarily narrows the protection of Covered Plans from damages within the control of the BNP Affiliated QPAMs.
Section II(j)(7) of the proposed exemption provides that:
The Applicant states that a bilateral management agreement containing the obligations under Section II(j) should not be mandated. The Applicant states that the BNP Affiliated QPAM would be in violation of this condition if a client refuses to sign the updated agreement, even if the BNP Affiliated QPAM met the substantive requirements of Section II(j). Accordingly, the Applicant requests that the Department modify the condition so that the BNP Affiliated QPAM may satisfy the condition irrespective of whether the Plan or IRA client signs the updated investment management agreement.
The Department has added the following to Section II(j)(7): “Notwithstanding the above, a BNP Affiliated QPAM will not violate the condition solely because a Plan or IRA refuses to sign an updated investment management agreement.” The Department also revised the condition to reflect that May 30, 2018 may not be the Conviction Date.
Section II(j)(4) of the proposed exemption states that:
The Applicant represents that Section II(j)(4) omits the following language: “. . . with respect to any investment in a separately managed account or pooled fund subject to ERISA and managed by such QPAM . . .” The Applicant represents that this language is from recent prior QPAM Section I(g) exemptions that made it clear that the QPAMs were not to restrict a Covered Plan's ability to terminate or withdraw from its asset management relationship, either through a separate account or pooled fund. The language as written in the proposed exemption would apply to non-asset management mandates between the QPAMs and the Covered Plan. Therefore, the Applicant requests the same clarification made in the QPAM exemptions granted at the end of December 2017.
The Department concurs with the Applicant's request and has revised the exemption accordingly.
Section II(k) of the proposed exemption states:
The Applicant represents that Section II(k) provides that “Effective as of the date of the Initial Notice, all prospective Covered Plan clients that enter into a written asset or investment management agreement with a BNP Affiliated QPAM must receive” the notice required under Section II(k). The Applicant states that because “the Initial Notice likely will be provided over a period of time between the Conviction Date and July 29, 2018, the Applicant requests clarification that the notice provision with respect to prospective Covered Plan clients is effective two months after the Conviction Date.”
The Department concurs with the Applicant's request, and has revised Section II(k) to read: “Effective as of the date that is 60 days after the Conviction Date, all Covered Plan clients that enter into a written asset or investment management agreement with a BNP Affiliated QPAM after that date must receive . . .”
Section II(m)(1)(ii) of the proposed exemption provides: With respect to the Compliance Officer, the following conditions must be met . . .
The Applicant requests that the Department clarify, as it did in the technical corrections for the QPAM exemptions granted at the end of December 2017, that each QPAM may designate its own Compliance Officer. In addition, the Applicant requests that the Department delete the word “legal” before compliance officer since many senior compliance officers are not lawyers and are not in the legal department of the QPAM.
The Department accepts the Applicant's requests and has revised the exemption accordingly.
Section II(m)(2)(i) of the proposed exemption provides:
The Applicant states that the term “BNP QPAM” is undefined and, to avoid confusion, should be modified to require “a review of the BNP Affiliated QPAMs' compliance . . . .” In addition, the Applicant notes that this provision requires the Compliance Officer's review to encompass “the most recent Audit Report issued pursuant to this exemption or PTE 2015–06.” Only one audit report is required under this exemption, and, by the terms of the exemption, the Compliance Officer's review must be completed before the audit report is to be completed. Therefore, the Applicant requests that the Compliance Officer not be required to review the audit report under this exemption but only the most recent audit report under PTE 2015–06.
The Department has modified the term “BNP QPAM” to “BNP Affiliated QPAM.” The Department also accepts the Applicant's request regarding the Compliance Officer. The Department concurs agrees that the Compliance Officer's review of the audit report under PTE 2015–06 is sufficient. Accordingly, the Department is revising this exemption to more explicitly state this requirement.
The Department also corrected certain cross-references in Section II(m)(2).
Section II(p) of the proposed exemption provides that:
The Applicant requests that the Department clarify that, in the event Applicant meets this disclosure requirement through Summary Policies, changes to the Policies shall not result in the requirement for a new disclosure unless, as a result of changes to the Policies, the Summary Policies are no longer accurate. The Department agrees with this comment and has modified Section II(p) accordingly.
Section II(q) of the proposed temporary exemption provides that:
The Applicant requests that the Department modify Section II(q) by replacing “a different BNP QPAM” with “a different BNP
Section III(b) of the proposed exemption defines the term “BNP Affiliated QPAM” to mean:
The Applicant requests that the Department modify the definition of “BNP Affiliated QPAM” to mean, “all current and future Affiliated QPAMs, including but not limited to the enumerated entities, and not including the entities expressly excluded.” The Department agrees with this comment and has modified Section III(b) accordingly.
Section III(c) of the proposed temporary exemption defines the term “BNP Related Affiliated QPAM” to mean,
The Applicant requests that the Department clarify that “BNP Related QPAM” means any “current or future” Related QPAM. The Department agrees with this comment and has modified Section III(c), accordingly.
The Applicant notes that paragraph 13 of the proposed exemption's preamble provides that the exemption will terminate if there is another conviction or “if any conditions of PTE 84–14 are not met.” The Applicant seeks clarification that relief under this exemption will remain available for transactions that meet the terms of this exemption and of PTE 84–14, notwithstanding that a prior transaction (intended to be covered by this exemption) failed to meet the terms of this exemption.
The Department concurs with the Applicant's clarification. The relief herein does not extend to a particular transaction to the extent, with respect to such transaction, any condition in this exemption or in PTE 84–14 has not been met.
The Applicant seeks certain clarifications to the proposed exemption that the Department does not view as relevant to its determination of whether to grant this exemption. These requested clarifications may be found as part of the public record for Application No. D–11949, in a letter to the Department, dated March 27, 2018.
After giving full consideration to the record, the Department has decided to grant the exemption, as described above. The complete application file (Application No. D–11949) is available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N–1515, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the notice of proposed exemption published on March 22, 2018 at 83 FR 12596.
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which, among other things, require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) In accordance with section 408(a) of ERISA and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department makes the following determinations: The exemption is administratively feasible, the exemption is in the interests of affected plans and of their participants and beneficiaries, and the exemption is protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of such plans;
(3) The exemption is supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of ERISA, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(4) The availability of this exemption is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application accurately describe all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption.
Accordingly, the following exemption is granted under the authority of section 408(a) of ERISA and section 4975(c)(2)
Certain entities with specified relationships to BNP Paribas (hereinafter, the BNP Affiliated QPAMs and the BNP Related QPAMs, as defined in Sections III(b) and III(c), respectively) will not be precluded from relying on the exemptive relief provided by Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 84–14 (PTE 84–14 or the QPAM Exemption),
(a) The BNP Affiliated QPAMs and the BNP Related QPAMs (including their officers, directors, agents other than BNP Paribas and BNP Paribas USA, Inc. (BNP Paribas USA)), and employees of such QPAMs and any other party engaged on behalf of such QPAMs who had responsibility for, or exercised authority in connection with the management of plan assets did not know of, did not have reason to know of, or participate in: (1) The criminal conduct of BNP Paribas that is the subject of the 2015 Convictions; or (2) the criminal conduct of BNP Paribas USA that is the subject of the 2018 Conviction (hereinafter, collectively, the BNP Convictions). For purposes of this exemption, “participate in” refers not only to active participation in the misconduct underlying the BNP Convictions, but also to knowing approval of that misconduct, or knowledge of such misconduct without taking active steps to prohibit such conduct, such as reporting the conduct to supervisors, including the Board of Directors.”;
(b) The BNP Affiliated QPAMs and the BNP Related QPAMs (including their officers, directors, agents other than BNP Paribas and BNP Paribas USA, and employees of such QPAMs and any other parties engaged on behalf of such QPAMs) did not receive direct compensation, or knowingly receive indirect compensation, in connection with the criminal conduct that is the subject of the BNP Convictions (the BNP Misconduct);
(c) The BNP Affiliated QPAMs will not employ or knowingly engage any of the individuals that participated in the BNP Misconduct;
(d) At all times during the Exemption Period, no BNP Affiliated QPAM will use its authority or influence to direct an “investment fund” (as defined in Section VI(b) of PTE 84–14) that is subject to ERISA or the Code and managed by such BNP Affiliated QPAM with respect to one or more Covered Plans (as defined in Section III(f)) to enter into any transaction with BNP Paribas or BNP Paribas USA or to engage BNP Paribas or BNP Paribas USA to provide any service to such investment fund, for a direct or indirect fee borne by such investment fund, regardless of whether such transaction or service may otherwise be within the scope of relief provided by an administrative or statutory exemption;
(e) Any failure of the BNP Affiliated QPAMs or the BNP Related QPAMs to satisfy Section I(g) of PTE 84–14 arose solely from the BNP Convictions;
(f) A BNP Affiliated QPAM or a BNP Related QPAM did not exercise authority over the assets of any plan subject to Part 4 of Title I of ERISA (an ERISA-covered plan) or section 4975 of the Code (an IRA) in a manner that it knew or should have known would: Further the criminal conduct that is the subject of the BNP Convictions; or cause the BNP Affiliated QPAM, the BNP Related QPAM, or their affiliates to directly or indirectly profit from the criminal conduct that is the subject of the BNP Convictions;
(g) Other than with respect to employee benefit plans maintained or sponsored for its own employees or the employees of an affiliate, BNP Paribas and BNP Paribas USA will not act as fiduciaries within the meaning of section 3(21)(A)(i) or (iii) of ERISA, or section 4975(e)(3)(A) and (C) of the Code, with respect to ERISA-covered plan and IRA assets; provided, however, that BNP Paribas or BNP Paribas USA will not be treated as violating the conditions of this exemption solely because it acted as an investment advice fiduciary within the meaning of section 3(21)(A)(ii) of ERISA or section 4975(e)(3)(B) of the Code;
(h)(1) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM must continue to maintain, adjust (to the extent necessary), implement, and follow written policies and procedures (the Policies). The Policies must require, and must be reasonably designed to ensure that:
(i) The asset management decisions of the BNP Affiliated QPAM are conducted independently of the corporate management and business activities of BNP Paribas and BNP Paribas USA. This condition does not preclude a BNP Affiliated QPAM from receiving publicly available research and other widely available information from a BNP Paribas affiliate;
(ii) The BNP Affiliated QPAM fully complies with ERISA's fiduciary duties, and with ERISA and the Code's prohibited transaction provisions, in each case as applicable with respect to each Covered Plan, and does not knowingly participate in any violation of these duties and provisions with respect to Covered Plans;
(iii) The BNP Affiliated QPAM does not knowingly participate in any other person's violation of ERISA or the Code with respect to Covered Plans;
(iv) Any filings or statements made by the BNP Affiliated QPAM to regulators, including, but not limited to, the Department, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, on behalf of or in relation to Covered Plans, are materially accurate and complete, to the best of such QPAM's knowledge at that time;
(v) To the best of the BNP Affiliated QPAM's knowledge at the time, the BNP Affiliated QPAM does not make material misrepresentations or omit material information in its communications with such regulators with respect to Covered Plans, or make material misrepresentations or omit material information in its communications with Covered Plans;
(vi) The BNP Affiliated QPAM complies with the terms of this exemption;
(2) Any violation of, or failure to comply with an item in subparagraphs ((h)(1)(ii) through (h)(1)(vi), is corrected as soon as reasonably possible upon discovery, or as soon after the QPAM reasonably should have known of the noncompliance (whichever is earlier), and any such violation or compliance failure not so corrected is reported, upon the discovery of such failure to so correct, in writing. Such report shall be made to the head of compliance and the General Counsel (or their functional equivalent) of the relevant BNP Affiliated QPAM that engaged in the violation or failure, and, the independent auditor responsible for reviewing compliance with the Policies, and a fiduciary of any affected Covered Plan where such fiduciary is independent of BNP Paribas.
(3) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM will maintain, adjust (to the extent necessary) and implement a program of training during the Exemption Period, to be conducted during the Exemption Period, for all relevant BNP Affiliated QPAM asset/portfolio management, trading, legal, compliance, and internal audit personnel. The Training must:
(i) At a minimum, cover the Policies, ERISA and Code compliance (including applicable fiduciary duties and the prohibited transaction provisions), ethical conduct, the consequences for not complying with the conditions of this exemption (including any loss of exemptive relief provided herein), and prompt reporting of wrongdoing; and
(ii) Be conducted by a professional who has been prudently selected and who has appropriate technical training and proficiency with ERISA and the Code;
(i)(1) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM submits to an audit conducted by an independent auditor, who has been prudently selected and who has appropriate technical training and proficiency with ERISA and the Code, to evaluate the adequacy of, and each BNP Affiliated QPAM's compliance with, the Policies and Training described herein. The audit requirement must be incorporated in the Policies. The audit must cover the Exemption Period and must be completed no later than six (6) months after the end of the Exemption Period. For time periods ending prior to the Conviction Date and covered by the audit required pursuant to PTE 2015–06,
(2) Within the scope of the audit and to the extent necessary for the auditor, in its sole opinion, to complete its audit and comply with the conditions for relief described herein, and only to the extent such disclosure is not prevented by state or federal statute, or involves communications subject to attorney client privilege, each BNP Affiliated QPAM and, if applicable, BNP Paribas, will grant the auditor unconditional access to its business, including, but not limited to: Its computer systems; business records; transactional data; workplace locations; training materials; and personnel. Such access is limited to information relevant to the auditor's objectives as specified by the terms of this exemption;
(3) The auditor's engagement must specifically require the auditor to determine whether each BNP Affiliated QPAM has developed, implemented, maintained, and followed the Policies in accordance with the conditions of this exemption, and has developed and implemented the Training, as required herein;
(4) The auditor's engagement must specifically require the auditor to test each BNP Affiliated QPAM's operational compliance with the Policies and Training. In this regard, the auditor must test, for each BNP Affiliated QPAM, a sample of such QPAM's transactions involving Covered Plans, sufficient in size and nature to afford the auditor a reasonable basis to determine such QPAM's operational compliance with the Policies and Training;
(5) For the audit, on or before the end of the relevant period described in Section II(i)(1) for completing the audit, the auditor must issue a written report (the Audit Report) to BNP Paribas and the BNP Affiliated QPAM to which the audit applies that describes the procedures performed by the auditor in connection with its examination. The auditor, at its discretion, may issue a single consolidated Audit Report that covers all the BNP Affiliated QPAMs. The Audit Report must include the auditor's specific determinations regarding:
(i) The adequacy of each BNP Affiliated QPAM's Policies and Training; each BNP Affiliated QPAM's compliance with the Policies and Training; the need, if any, to strengthen such Policies and Training; and any instance of the respective BNP Affiliated QPAM's noncompliance with the written Policies and Training described in Section II(h) above. The BNP Affiliated QPAM must promptly address any noncompliance. The BNP Affiliated QPAM must promptly address or prepare a written plan of action to address any determination as to the adequacy of the Policies and Training and the auditor's recommendations (if any) with respect to strengthening the Policies and Training of the respective BNP Affiliated QPAM. Any action taken or the plan of action to be taken by the respective BNP Affiliated QPAM must be included in an addendum to the Audit Report (such addendum must be completed prior to the certification described in Section II(i)(7) below). In the event such a plan of action to address the auditor's recommendation regarding the adequacy of the Policies and Training is not completed by the time of submission of the Audit Report, the following period's Audit Report must state whether the plan was satisfactorily completed. Any determination by the auditor that a BNP Affiliated QPAM has implemented, maintained, and followed sufficient Policies and Training must not be based solely or in substantial part on an absence of evidence indicating noncompliance. In this last regard, any finding that a BNP Affiliated QPAM has complied with the requirements under this subparagraph must be based on evidence that the particular BNP Affiliated QPAM has actually implemented, maintained, and followed the Policies and Training required by this exemption. Furthermore, the auditor must not solely rely on the Exemption Report created by the compliance officer (the Compliance Officer), as described in Section II(m) below, as the basis for the auditor's conclusions in lieu of independent determinations and testing performed by the auditor as required by Section II(i)(3) and (4) above; and
(ii) The adequacy of the Exemption Review described in Section II(m);
(6) The auditor must notify the BNP Affiliated QPAM of any instance of noncompliance identified by the auditor within five (5) business days after such noncompliance is identified by the auditor, regardless of whether the audit has been completed as of that date;
(7) With respect to the Audit Report, the General Counsel, or one of the three most senior executives of the line of business engaged in discretionary asset management activities through the BNP Affiliated QPAM with respect to which the Audit Report applies, must certify in writing, under penalties of perjury, that the officer has reviewed the Audit Report and this exemption; that such BNP Affiliated QPAM has addressed, corrected, and remedied any instance of noncompliance or inadequacy, or has an appropriate written plan to address any inadequacy regarding the Policies and Training identified in the Audit Report. Such certification must also include the signatory's determination, that the Policies and Training in effect at the time of signing are adequate to ensure compliance with the conditions of this exemption and with the applicable provisions of ERISA and the Code. Notwithstanding the above, a BNP Affiliated QPAM will not violate the condition solely because a Plan or IRA refuses to sign an updated investment management agreement;
(8) The Risk Committee of BNP Paribas's Board of Directors is provided a copy of the Audit Report; and a senior executive officer of BNP Paribas must review the Audit Report for each BNP Affiliated QPAM and must certify in writing, under penalty of perjury, that such officer has reviewed the Audit Report;
(9) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM provides its certified Audit Report, by regular mail to: Office of Exemption Determinations (OED), 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20210; or by private carrier to: 122 C Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20001–2109. This delivery must take place no later than 30 days following completion of the Audit Report. The Audit Report will be made part of the public record regarding this exemption. Furthermore, each BNP Affiliated QPAM must make its Audit Report unconditionally available, electronically or otherwise, for examination upon request by any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department, other relevant regulators, and any fiduciary of a Covered Plan;
(10) Any engagement agreement with an auditor to perform the audit required under the terms of this exemption must be submitted to OED no later than two (2) months after the Conviction Date;
(11) The auditor must provide the Department, upon request, for inspection and review, access to all the work papers created and utilized in connection with the audit, provided such access and inspection is otherwise permitted by law; and
(12) BNP Paribas must notify the Department of a change in the independent auditor no later than two (2) months after the engagement of a substitute or subsequent auditor and must provide an explanation for the substitution or change including a description of any material disputes between the terminated auditor and BNP;
(j) As of the Conviction Date and throughout the Exemption Period, with respect to any arrangement, agreement, or contract between a BNP Affiliated QPAM and a Covered Plan, the BNP Affiliated QPAM agrees and warrants to Covered Plans:
(1) To comply with ERISA and the Code, as applicable with respect to such Covered Plan; to refrain from engaging in prohibited transactions that are not otherwise exempt (and to promptly correct any inadvertent prohibited transactions); and to comply with the standards of prudence and loyalty set forth in section 404 of ERISA with respect to each such ERISA-covered plan and IRA to the extent that section is applicable;
(2) To indemnify and hold harmless the Covered Plan for any actual losses resulting directly from: A BNP Affiliated QPAM's violation of ERISA's fiduciary duties, as applicable, and of the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA and the Code, as applicable; a breach of contract by the QPAM; or any claim arising out of the failure of such BNP Affiliated QPAM to qualify for the exemptive relief provided by PTE 84–14 as a result of a violation of Section I(g) of PTE 84–14 other than the BNP Convictions. This condition applies only to actual losses caused by the BNP Affiliated QPAM's violations.
(3) Not to require (or otherwise cause) the Covered Plan to waive, limit, or qualify the liability of the BNP Affiliated QPAM for violating ERISA or the Code or engaging in prohibited transactions;
(4) Not to restrict the ability of such Covered Plan to terminate or withdraw from its arrangement, with the BNP Affiliated QPAM with respect to any investment in a separately managed account or pooled fund subject to ERISA and managed by such QPAM, with the exception of reasonable restrictions, appropriately disclosed in advance, that are specifically designed to ensure equitable treatment of all investors in a pooled fund in the event such withdrawal or termination may have adverse consequences for all other investors. In connection with any such arrangements involving investments in pooled funds subject to ERISA entered into after the initial effective date of this exemption, the adverse consequences must relate to of a lack of liquidity of the underlying assets, valuation issues, or regulatory reasons that prevent the fund from promptly redeeming an ERISA-covered plan's or IRA's investment, and such restrictions must be applicable to all such investors and effective no longer than reasonably necessary to avoid the adverse consequences;
(5) Not to impose any fees, penalties, or charges for such termination or withdrawal with the exception of reasonable fees, appropriately disclosed in advance, that are specifically designed to prevent generally recognized abusive investment practices or specifically designed to ensure equitable treatment of all investors in a pooled fund in the event such withdrawal or termination may have adverse consequences for all other investors, provided that such fees are applied consistently and in like manner to all such investors; and
(6) Not to include exculpatory provisions disclaiming or otherwise limiting liability of the BNP Affiliated QPAM for a violation of such agreement's terms. To the extent consistent with Section 410 of ERISA, however, this provision does not prohibit disclaimers for liability caused by an error, misrepresentation, or misconduct of a plan fiduciary or other party hired by the plan fiduciary who is independent of BNP and its affiliates, or damages arising from acts outside the control of the BNP Affiliated QPAM;
(7) By six months from the Conviction Date, each BNP Affiliated QPAM must provide a notice of its obligations under this Section II(j) to each Covered Plan. For prospective Covered Plans that enter into a written asset or investment management agreement with a BNP Affiliated QPAM on or six months after the Conviction Date, the BNP Affiliated QPAM will agree to its obligations under this Section II(j) in an updated investment management agreement between the BNP Affiliated QPAM and such clients or other written contractual agreement. Notwithstanding the above, a BNP Affiliated QPAM will not violate the condition solely because a Plan or IRA refuses to sign an updated investment management agreement.
(k) By 60 days after the Conviction Date, each BNP Affiliated QPAM will provide a notice of the exemption, along with a separate summary describing the facts that led to the Convictions (the Summary), which have been submitted to the Department, and a prominently displayed statement (the Statement) (collectively, Initial Notice) that the BNP Convictions result in a failure to
(l) The BNP Affiliated QPAMs must comply with each condition of PTE 84–14, as amended, with the sole exception of the violations of Section I(g) of PTE 84–14 that are attributable to the BNP Convictions;
(m)(1) By six months from the Conviction Date, BNP Paribas designates a senior compliance officer (the Compliance Officer) who will be responsible for compliance with the Policies and Training requirements described herein. The Compliance Officer must conduct a review for the Exemption Period (the Exemption Review), to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of the implementation of the Policies and Training. With respect to the Compliance Officer, the following conditions must be met:
(i) The Compliance Officer must be a professional who has extensive experience with, and knowledge of, the regulation of financial services and products, including under ERISA and the Code; and
(ii) The Compliance Officer must have a direct reporting line to the highest-ranking corporate officer in charge of compliance for asset management;
(2) With respect to the Exemption Review, the following conditions must be met:
(i) The Exemption Review includes a review of the BNP Affiliated QPAMs' compliance with and effectiveness of the Policies and Training and of the following: Any compliance matter related to the Policies or Training that was identified by, or reported to, the Compliance Officer or others within the compliance and risk control function (or its equivalent) during the previous year; the most recent Audit Report under PTE 2015–06; any material change in the relevant business activities of the BNP Affiliated QPAMs; and any change to ERISA, the Code, or regulations related to fiduciary duties and the prohibited transaction provisions that may be applicable to the activities of the BNP Affiliated QPAMs;
(ii) The Compliance Officer prepares a written report for the Exemption Review (an Exemption Report) that (A) summarizes his or her material activities during the Exemption Period; (B) sets forth any instance of noncompliance discovered during the Exemption Period, and any related corrective action; (C) details any change to the Policies or Training to guard against any similar instance of noncompliance occurring again; and (D) makes recommendations, as necessary, for additional training, procedures, monitoring, or additional and/or changed processes or systems, and management's actions on such recommendations;
(iii) In the Exemption Report, the Compliance Officer must certify in writing that to his or her knowledge: (A) The report is accurate; (B) the Policies and Training are working in a manner which is reasonably designed to ensure that the Policies and Training requirements described herein are met; (C) any known instance of noncompliance during the Exemption Period and any related correction taken to date have been identified in the Exemption Report; and (D) the BNP Affiliated QPAMs have complied with the Policies and Training, and/or corrected (or are correcting) any instances of noncompliance in accordance with Section II(h) above;
(iv) The Exemption Report must be provided to appropriate corporate officers of BNP Paribas and each BNP Affiliated QPAM to which such report relates, and to the head of compliance and the General Counsel (or their functional equivalent) of the relevant BNP Affiliated QPAM; and the report must be made unconditionally available to the independent auditor described in Section II(i) above;
(v) Each Exemption Review, including the Compliance Officer's written Exemption Report, must be completed within three (3) months following the end of the period to which it relates;
(n) Each BNP Affiliated QPAM will maintain records necessary to demonstrate that the conditions of this exemption have been met, for six (6) years following the date of any transaction for which such BNP Affiliated QPAM relies upon the relief in the exemption;
(o) During the Exemption Period, BNP Paribas must: (1) Immediately discloses to the Department any Deferred Prosecution Agreement (a DPA) or Non-Prosecution Agreement (an NPA) with the U.S. Department of Justice, entered into by BNP Paribas or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section VI(d) of PTE 84–14) in connection with conduct described in Section I(g) of PTE 84–14 or section 411 of ERISA; and (2) immediately provide the Department any information requested by the Department, as permitted by law, regarding the agreement and/or conduct and allegations that led to the agreement;
(p) By six months from the Conviction Date, each BNP Affiliated QPAM, in its agreements with, or in other written disclosures provided to Covered Plans, will clearly and prominently inform Covered Plan clients of their right to obtain a copy of the Policies or a description (Summary Policies) which accurately summarizes key components of the BNP Affiliated QPAM's written Policies developed in connection with this exemption. If the Policies are thereafter changed, each Covered Plan client must receive a new disclosure within six (6) months following the end of the calendar year during which the Policies were changed.
(q) A BNP Affiliated QPAM will not fail to meet the terms of this exemption, solely because a different BNP Affiliated QPAM fails to satisfy a condition for relief described in Sections II(c), (d), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (n), or (p); or if the independent auditor described in Section II(i) fails a provision of the exemption other than the requirement described in Section II(i)(11), provided that such failure did not result from any actions or inactions of BNP Paribas or its affiliates.
(a)(1) The term “BNP Paribas” means BNP Paribas, S.A., the parent entity, and its subsidiary, BNP Paribas Securities Corp., but does not include any other subsidiaries or other affiliates.
(2) The term “BNP Paribas USA” means BNP Paribas USA, Inc., and includes its New York branch;
(b) The term “BNP Affiliated QPAM” means all current and future affiliated QPAMs including, but not limited to the following enumerated entities, and not including the entities expressly
(c) The term “BNP Related QPAM” means any current or future “qualified professional asset manager” (as defined in section VI(a) of PTE 84–14) that relies on the relief provided by PTE 84–14, and with respect to which BNP Paribas owns a direct or indirect five percent or more interest, but with respect to which BNP Paribas is not an “affiliate” (as defined in Section VI(d)(1) of PTE 84–14).
(d) The term “BNP Convictions” mean the 2015 Convictions against BNP Paribas and the 2018 Conviction against BNP Paribas USA. More specifically:
(1) The “2015 Convictions” refers to the judgments of conviction against BNP Paribas in: (A) Case number 14–cr–00460 (LGS) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, by conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, codified at Title 50, United States Code, Section 1701
(2) The term “2018 Conviction” refers to the judgment of conviction against BNP Paribas USA for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, which is scheduled to be entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) (case number 1:18–cr–61–JSR, in connection with BNP Paribas USA for certain foreign exchange misconduct (the FX Misconduct).
(e) The term “Conviction Date” means the date that a judgment of conviction against BNP Paribas USA is entered by the District Court in connection with the 2018 Conviction;
(f) The term “Covered Plan” means a plan subject to Part 4 of Title I of ERISA (an “ERISA-covered plan”) or a plan subject to section 4975 of the Code (an “IRA”), in each case, with respect to which a BNP Affiliated QPAM relies on PTE 84–14, or with respect to which a BNP Affiliated QPAM (or any BNP Paribas affiliate) has expressly represented that the manager qualifies as a QPAM or relies on the QPAM class exemption (PTE 84–14). A Covered Plan does not include an ERISA-covered plan or IRA to the extent the BNP Affiliated QPAM has expressly disclaimed reliance on QPAM status or PTE 84–14 in entering into a contract, arrangement, or agreement with the ERISA-covered plan or IRA.
(g) The term “Exemption Period” means one year from the Conviction Date.
(h) The term “Plea Agreement” means the agreement that was entered into on January 19, 2018, as between BNP Paribas USA and the United States Department of Justice, and filed in the District Court, involving the FX Misconduct.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft environmental impact statement; public meetings and request for comment; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a notice that was published in the
The document published at 83 FR 18354 on April 26, 2018, is corrected as of May 30, 2018.
Tamsen Dozier, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–2272, email:
In the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to on [sic] the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) options facility. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
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 Section VI.B (Port Fees) of the BOX Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the SOLA® Access Information Language (“SAIL”) Port Fees on the Exchange. Currently, Market Makers are assessed a monthly fee of $1,000 for all Ports. The Exchange proposes to rename the “Market Maker” Port to “Market Making” Port. The Exchange notes that the monthly $1000 flat fee will remain for all Market Making Ports
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange recently established Port Fees for Participants. BOX Market Makers currently connect to a minimum of sixteen (16) SAIL Ports and pay a flat monthly fee for these connections.
Further, the Exchange proposes to rename the “Other Participants” Port to “Order Entry” Port. The Exchange believes that this change provides clarity with respect to the types of SAIL Ports in use. With this change, all Participants will be charged $500 per month per Port for Ports 1–5 and $150 per month per additional Port. The Exchange believes that this proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as the Order Entry Port fees are assessed to all Participants that use SAIL for order entry on BOX, regardless of account type. Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable and appropriate as other exchanges in the industry assess market making port fees separate from order entry port fees.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Unilateral action by BOX in establishing fees for services provided to its Participants and others using its facilities will not have an impact on competition. As a small Exchange in the already highly competitive environment for options trading, BOX does not have the market power necessary to set prices for services that are unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory in violation of the Exchange Act. BOX's proposed fees, as described herein, are comparable to and generally lower than fees charged by other options exchanges for the same or similar services. Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposed change will not impose a burden on intramarket competition as the proposed fees are applicable to all Participants who connect to BOX.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
3:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 31, 2018.
Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Peirce, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
ICE Clear Europe proposes to make certain amendments to its Clearing Rules (the “Rules”) to comply with certain requirements of the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”)
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe included statements
The purpose of the proposed change is to amend the Rules
Consistent with the GDPR, the amendments reflect that the Clearing House's policies on use of personal data will now primarily be stated in a privacy notice made available to Clearing Members and other market participants, and accordingly certain existing provisions in the Rules relating to personal data will be removed or modified, as discussed herein. Specifically, ICE Clear Europe is amending Rule 106, which sets out certain of its rights and obligations with respect to such personal data. Rule 106(c), which imposes certain requirements on Clearing Members and Sponsored Principals relating to “Personal Data” (as defined in the GDPR)
ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
Moreover, the amendments are consistent with Rule 17Ad–22(e)(1),
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The amendments are being adopted to comply with European Union requirements applicable to Personal Data under the GDPR. Although the amendments could impose certain additional costs on Clearing Members and Sponsored Principals, these result from the requirements imposed by the GDPR, and are generally applicable throughout the European Union. Accordingly, the amendments would apply to all Clearing Members and Sponsored Principals. ICE Clear Europe also does not believe the amendments would adversely affect competition among clearing members, the market for clearing services generally or access to clearing in cleared products by clearing members or other market participants.
Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission,
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission or advance notice 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.
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–ICEEU–2018–007 and should be submitted on or before June 20, 2018.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of meeting of Securities and Exchange Commission Dodd-Frank Investor Advisory Committee.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting in Atlanta, GA. The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, June 14, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. until 2:15 p.m. (ET). Written statements should be received on or before June 14, 2018.
The meeting will be held in the Knowles Conference Center at Georgia State University College of Law, 85 Park Place Northeast, Atlanta, GA 30303. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
Use the Commission's internet submission form (
Send an email message to
Send paper statements to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, 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 1503, 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 comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
Marc Oorloff Sharma, Chief Counsel, Office of the Investor Advocate, at (202) 551–3302, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
The meeting will be open to the public, except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch. Persons needing special accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the contact person listed in the section above entitled
CSX Transportation (CSXT) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F–
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA)
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to CSXT's representative, Louis Gitomer, Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
CSXT has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by June 4, 2018. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423–0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245–0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), CSXT shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by CSXT's filing of a notice of consummation by May 30, 2019, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Notice of meeting.
The TVA Regional Energy Resource Council (RERC) will hold a meeting on Thursday, June 14, 2018, to discuss the focus areas that TVA has identified for preparing the 2019 Integrated Resource Plan.
The RERC was established to advise TVA on its energy resource activities and the priority to be placed among competing objectives and values. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The public meeting will be held on Thursday, June 14, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., EDT.
The meeting will be held at The Chattanoogan Hotel, 1201 Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402, and will be open to the public. Anyone needing special access or accommodations should let the contact below know at least a week in advance.
Barbie Perdue, 865–632–6113,
The meeting agenda includes the following:
The RERC will hear opinions and views of citizens by providing a public comment session starting at 1:00 p.m., EDT, lasting up to one hour, on Thursday, June 14, 2018. Persons wishing to speak are requested to register at the door between 11:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., EDT, on Thursday, June 14, 2018, and will be called on during the public comment period. TVA will set time limits for registered persons to provide oral comments. Handout materials should be limited to one printed page. Written comments are also invited and may be mailed to the Regional Energy Resource Council, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT–9–D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice of hearing and requests to testify and public comments.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is providing notice that petitions submitted in connection with the 2018 GSP Annual Product Review have been accepted for further review. This notice includes the schedule for submission of public comments and the dates of a public hearing conducted by the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) associated with the review of these petitions and products. In addition, USTR is announcing the initiation of a country practice review of Thailand's GSP eligibility based on the statutory market access criterion.
USTR strongly prefers electronic submissions made through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Erland Herfindahl, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for GSP, at (202) 395–2974 or
The GSP program provides for the duty-free importation of designated articles when imported from designated beneficiary developing countries. The
In a notice published in the
The GSP Subcommittee has reviewed the product and CNL waiver petitions submitted in response to these announcements, and has decided to accept for review several petitions seeking to: Add certain products to the list of those eligible for duty-free treatment under GSP; remove products from GSP eligibility for certain GSP beneficiary countries; waive certain CNLs; deny certain De Minimis CNL waivers; and redesignate certain products to GSP eligibility for certain GSP beneficiary countries.
A list of petitions and products accepted for review is posted on the USTR website at
The GSP Subcommittee invites public comments on any petition that has been accepted for the 2018 GSP Annual Product Review. The GSP Subcommittee also will convene a public hearing on these products and petitions. See below for information on how to submit a request to testify at this hearing.
The GSP Subcommittee will hold a public hearing on July 19, 2018, beginning at 10:00 a.m., for products and petitions accepted for the 2018 GSP Annual Product Review. The hearing will be held at 1724 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20508 and will be open to the public. A transcript of the hearing will be made available on
All interested parties wishing to make an oral presentation at the hearing must submit, following the instructions below, the name, address, telephone number, and email address (if available), of the witness(es) representing their organization by midnight, July 3, 2018. Requests to present oral testimony in connection with the public hearing must be accompanied by a written brief or summary statement, in English, which also must be received by midnight, July 3, 2018. Oral testimony before the GSP Subcommittee will be limited to five-minute presentations that summarize or supplement information contained in briefs or statements submitted for the record. Post-hearing briefs or statements will be accepted if they conform with the regulations cited below and are submitted, in English, by midnight, August 8, 2018. Parties not wishing to appear at the public hearing may submit pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs or comments by the aforementioned deadlines.
USTR will lead a review of the eligibility of Thailand for benefits under the GSP program. The GSP Subcommittee invites public comments on a petition from the National Pork Producers Council alleging that Thailand is not meeting the GSP eligibility criterion that requires a GSP beneficiary country to assure the United States that it will provide equitable and reasonable access to its market (19 U.S.C. 2462(c)(4)). Thailand's country practice review will be added to the previously announced GSP country practice reviews of India, Indonesia, and Kazakhstan. As previously announced, the public hearing for these reviews is on June 19, 2018. See below for information on how to submit a request to testify at this hearing.
The GSP Subcommittee will hold a public hearing on June 19, 2018, beginning at 10:00 a.m., to receive information regarding the country practice reviews of India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and Thailand. The hearing will be held in Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20508, and will be open to the public and to the press. A transcript of the hearing will be available on
Requests to present oral testimony must be accompanied by a written brief or summary statement, in English. The GSP Subcommittee will limit oral testimony before the GSP Subcommittee to five-minute presentations that summarize or supplement information contained in briefs or statements submitted for the record. The GSP Subcommittee will accept post-hearing briefs or statements if they conform to the requirements set out below and are submitted in English, by midnight on July 17, 2018. Parties not wishing to appear at the public hearing may submit pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs or comments by these deadlines. In order to be assured of consideration, you must submit all post-hearing briefs or statements by the July 17, 2018 deadline to the appropriate docket via
Submissions in response to this notice (including requests to testify, written comments, and pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs) must be submitted by the applicable deadlines set forth in this notice. All submissions must be in English and submitted electronically via
Each submitter will receive a tracking number upon completion of the submissions procedure at
An interested party requesting that information contained in a submission be treated as business confidential information must certify that the information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such. The submission must be marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page, and the submission should indicate, via brackets, the specific information that is confidential. Additionally, “Business Confidential” must be included in the `Type Comment' field. For any submission containing business confidential information, a non-confidential version must be submitted separately (
Submissions in response to this notice, except for information granted business confidential status, will be available for public viewing at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before June 19, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2018–0133 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jake Troutman, (202) 683–7788, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before June 19, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2018–0227 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Brent Hart (202) 267–4034, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Request to Release Airport Property.
The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of land at the Scholes International Airport under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).
Comments must be received on or before (from 30 days of the posting of this
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. Ben Guttery, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas Airports District Office, ASW–650, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Mike Shahan, Airport Director, at the following address: 2115 Terminal Drive #4, Galveston, Texas 77554.
Mr. Todd Hebert, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports District Office, ASW–650, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177, Telephone: (817) 222–5614, email:
The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the Scholes International Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
City of Galveston requests the release of 26.3 acres of non-aeronautical airport property. The property is located on the west side of the airport, along Travel Air Road. The property to be released will be sold and revenues shall be used to build an airport-owned warehouse on land designated as non-aeronautical. The lease revenue from the warehouse will support maintenance and improvement of the airport. Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the Scholes International Airport, telephone number (409) 797–3593.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for renewal and revision to an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by June 29, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Barbara Hall at (940) 594–5913, or by email at:
The revision to the existing information collection approval would include information from carriers holding a slot at JFK or LGA and by unscheduled operators at LGA as required under FAA Orders establishing limits on operations at those airports.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) invites comments on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this document.
Comments are due on or before July 30, 2018.
As described below, you may send comments on the information collections listed in this document using the “
•
•
•
Please submit separate comments for each specific information collection listed in this document. You must reference the information collection's title, form or recordkeeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
You may view copies of this document, the information collections listed in it and any associated instructions, and all comments received in response to this document within Docket No. TTB–2018–0001 at
Michael Hoover, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; telephone (202) 453–1039, ext. 135; or email
The Department of the Treasury and its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be included or summarized in our request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the relevant information collection. All comments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Please do not include any confidential or inappropriate material in comments.
For each information collection listed below, we invite comments on: (a) Whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the information collection's burden; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the information collection's burden on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide the requested information.
Currently, we are seeking comments on the following information collections (forms, recordkeeping requirements, or questionnaires):
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 public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the tax treatment of salvage and reinsurance.
Written comments should be received on or before July 30, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Roberto Mora-Figueroa, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all 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 if 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.
• 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;
• 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;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICR for OMB approval of the extension of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for June 12, 2018.
Interested members of the public may either attend the meeting in person or dial in to listen to the meeting at (866) 564–9287/Access Code: 62956028.
Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by email to
The CCAC advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals; advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made; and makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended. Members of the public interested in attending the meeting in person will be admitted into the meeting room on a first-come, first-serve basis as space is limited. Conference Room A&B can accommodate up to 50 members of the public at any one time. In addition, all persons entering a United States Mint facility must adhere to building security protocol. This means they must consent to the search of their persons and objects in their possession while on government grounds and when they enter and leave the facility, and are prohibited from bringing into the facility weapons of any type, illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, or contraband.
The United States Mint Police Officer conducting the screening will evaluate whether an item may enter into or exit from a facility based upon federal law, Treasury policy, United States Mint Policy, and local operating procedure; and all prohibited and unauthorized items will be subject to confiscation and disposal.
Betty Birdsong, Acting United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC, 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; or call 202–354–7200.
31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting public comment on several proposed changes to the final Risk Management Program Amendments rule (Amendments rule) issued on January 13, 2017. EPA is proposing to rescind amendments relating to safer technology and alternatives analyses, third-party audits, incident investigations, information availability, and several other minor regulatory changes. EPA is also proposing to modify amendments relating to local emergency coordination and emergency exercises, and to change the compliance dates for these provisions.
Comments. Submit comments and additional materials, identified by docket EPA–HQ–OEM–2015–0725 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
The hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed action. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. Because this hearing is being held at a U.S. government facility, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering Federal facilities. If your driver's license is issued by Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oklahoma or the state of Washington, you must present an additional form of identification to enter the Federal building. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses and military identification cards. In addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations will not be allowed on Federal property for security reasons.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. Verbatim transcripts of the hearing and written statements will be included in the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
James Belke, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (Mail Code 5104A), Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–8023; email address:
Electronic copies of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and related news releases are available on EPA's website at
This rule applies to those facilities (referred to as “stationary sources” under the CAA) that are subject to the chemical accident prevention requirements at 40 CFR part 68. This includes stationary sources holding more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance in a process. Table 1 provides industrial sectors and the associated NAICS codes for entities potentially affected by this action. The Agency's goal is to provide a guide for readers to consider regarding entities that potentially could be affected by this action. However, this action may affect other entities not listed in this table. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person(s) listed in the introductory section of this action under the heading entitled
The purpose of this action is to propose changes to the Risk Management Program Amendments final rule in order to address issues raised in three petitions for reconsideration received by EPA, as well as other issues that EPA believes warrant reconsideration.
On January 13, 2017, the EPA issued a final rule (82 FR 4594) amending 40 CFR part 68, the chemical accident prevention provisions under section 112(r) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). The amendments addressed various aspects of risk management programs, including prevention programs at stationary sources, emergency response preparedness requirements, information availability, and various other changes to streamline, clarify, and otherwise technically correct the underlying rules. Prior to the rule taking effect, EPA received three petitions for reconsideration of the rule under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), two from industry groups
Chemical Safety Advocacy Group (CSAG)'s Petition and Reconsideration and Stay Request of the Final RMP rule (82 FR 4594, January 13, 2017) March 13, 2017, Hunton & Williams, San Francisco, CA, EPA–HQ–OEM–2015–0725–0766 and EPA–HQ–OEM–2015–0725–0765 (supplemental petition).
In a letter dated March 13, 2017, the Administrator responded to the first of the reconsideration petitions received by announcing the convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program Amendments.
EPA proposes to rescind almost all the requirements added to the accident prevention provisions program of Subparts C (for Program 2 processes) and D (for Program 3 processes). These include rescission of all requirements for third-party compliance audits (§§ 68.58, 68.59, 68.79 and 68.80), safer technology and alternatives analysis (§ 68.67(c)(8)) for facilities with Program 3 regulated processes in North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 322 (paper manufacturing), 324 (petroleum and coal products manufacturing), and 325 (chemical manufacturing) and rescinding the words “for each covered process” from the compliance audit provisions in §§ 68.58 and 68.79. EPA also proposes to rescind in § 68.50(a)(2), the requirement for the hazard review to include findings from incident investigations. For incident investigations (§§ 68.60 and 68.81), EPA proposes to rescind: Requirements for conducting root cause analysis for incident investigations; for the incident investigation report to have specified added data elements, a schedule to address recommendations, a 12-month completion deadline, and for § 68.60 only, a five-year record retention (EPA notes that the existing rule's five-year record retention requirement at § 68.200 will still apply); and for investigating any incident resulting in catastrophic releases that also results in the affected process being decommissioned or destroyed. In §§ 68.60 and 68.81, EPA also proposes to rescind clarifying text “(
EPA proposes to rescind employee training requirements (§§ 68.54 and 68.71) that would apply to supervisors responsible for process operations as well as rescind minor wording changes involving description of employees operating a process in § 68.54. EPA proposes to rescind the requirement in § 68.65 for the owner or operator to keep process safety information up-to-date and the requirement in § 68.67(c)(2) for the process hazard analysis to address the findings from all incident investigations required under § 68.81, as well as any other potential failure scenarios. EPA will retain two changes that would revise the term “Material Safety Data Sheets” to “Safety Data Sheets (SDS)” in §§ 68.48 and 68.65.
Alternatively, EPA proposes to rescind all of the above changes to Subparts C and D except for the requirement in § 68.50(a)(2) for the hazard review to include findings from incident investigations, the term “report(s)” in place of the word “summary(ies)” in § 68.60, the requirement in § 68.60 for Program 2 processes to establish an incident investigation team consisting of at least one person knowledgeable in the process involved and other persons with experience to investigate an incident, the requirements in §§ 68.54 and 68.71 for training requirements to apply to supervisors responsible for process operations and minor wording changes involving the description of employees operating a process in § 68.54, and the two changes that would revise the term “Material Safety Data Sheets” to “Safety Data Sheets (SDS)” in §§ 68.48 and 68.65.
EPA proposes to rescind the following definitions in § 68.3:
EPA proposes to modify the local emergency response coordination amendments by deleting the phrase in § 68.93(b), “. . . and any other information that local emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response planning” or alternatively replace it with the phrase “. . . and other information necessary for developing and implementing the local emergency response plan.” EPA would retain the requirement for owners or operators to provide the local emergency planning and response organizations with the stationary source's emergency response plan if one exists, emergency action plan, and updated emergency contact information, as well as the requirement for the owner or operator to request an opportunity to meet with the local emergency planning committee (or equivalent) and/or local fire department as appropriate to review and discuss these materials. EPA also proposes to incorporate appropriate classified information and CBI protections to regulated substance and stationary source information required to be provided under § 68.93.
EPA is proposing to modify the exercise program provisions of § 68.96(b), by removing the minimum frequency requirement for field exercises. EPA proposes to establish more flexible scope and documentation provisions for both field and tabletop exercises by only recommending, and not requiring, items specified for inclusion in exercises and exercise evaluation reports, while still requiring documentation of both types of exercises. EPA would retain the notification exercise requirement of § 68.96(a) and the provision for alternative means of meeting exercise requirements of § 68.96(c).
Alternatively, EPA is considering whether to fully rescind the field and tabletop exercise provisions of § 68.96(b). Under this alternative proposal, EPA would retain the notification exercise provision of § 68.96(a), but revise it and § 68.93(b) to remove any reference to tabletop and field exercises, while also modifying the provision in § 68.96(c) for alternative means of meeting exercise requirements so that it applies only to notification exercises.
EPA proposes to rescind the requirements for providing to the public upon request, chemical hazard information and access to community emergency preparedness information in § 68.210 (b) through (d), as well as rescind the requirement to provide the “other chemical hazard information such as that described in paragraph (b) of this section” at public meetings required under § 68.210 (e). EPA will retain the requirement in § 68.210 (e) for owner/operator of a stationary source to hold a public meeting to provide accident information required under § 68.42 (b) no later than 90 days after any accident subject to reporting under § 68.42. EPA will retain the change to § 68.210 (a) which added 40 CFR part 1400 as a limitation on RMP availability (addresses restrictions on disclosing RMP offsite consequence analysis under CSISSFRRA),
EPA proposes to rescind requirements to report in the risk management plan any information associated with the rescinded provisions of third-party audits, incident investigation, safer technology and alternatives analysis, and information availability to the public. EPA proposed to slightly modify the emergency response contact information required by § 68.180(a)(1) to be provided in a facility's RMP.
EPA proposes to delay the rule's compliance dates in § 68.10 to one year after the effective date of a final rule for the emergency coordination provisions, four years after the effective date of a final rule for emergency exercises, two years after the effective date for the public meeting provision and five years after the effective date of the final rule for those remaining risk management plan provisions added as the result of the Amendments rule or changed by the Reconsideration rule. Under the current proposal, owners and operators would be still be required to have exercise plans and schedules meeting the requirements of § 68.96 in place within four years of the effective date of a final rule, but would have up to one additional year to perform their first notification drill, up to three additional years to conduct their first tabletop exercise and no specified deadline for the first field exercise, other than that established by the owner or operator's exercise schedule in coordination with local response agencies.
The CFR amendatory language that appears at the end of this
The Agency's procedures in this rulemaking are controlled by CAA section 307(d). The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 112(r) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). Each of the portions of the Risk Management Program rule we propose to modify in this document are based on section 112(r) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). EPA's authority for convening a reconsideration proceeding for certain issues is found under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) or 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B). A more detailed explanation of these authorities can be found in Section II.B. of this preamble,
Approximately 12,500 facilities have filed current RMPs with EPA and are potentially affected by the proposed rule changes. These facilities range from petroleum refineries and large chemical manufacturers to water and wastewater treatment systems; chemical and petroleum wholesalers and terminals; food manufacturers, packing plants, and other cold storage facilities with ammonia refrigeration systems; agricultural chemical distributors; midstream gas plants; and a limited number of other sources, including Federal installations, that use RMP-regulated substances. Table 2 presents the number of facilities according to the
Table 3 presents a summary of the annualized cost savings estimated in the regulatory impact analysis.
Most of the annual cost savings under the proposed rule are due to the repeal of the STAA provision (annual savings of $70 million), followed by third-party audits (annual savings of $9.8 million), rule familiarization (annual net savings of $3.7 million), information availability (annual savings of $3.1 million), and root-cause incident investigation (annual savings of $1.8 million).
The RMP Amendments Rule produced a variety of benefits from prevention and mitigation of future RMP and non-RMP accidents at RMP facilities, avoided catastrophes at RMP facilities, and easier access to facility chemical hazard information. The proposed Reconsideration rule would largely retain the revised local emergency coordination and exercise provisions of the 2017 Amendments final rule, which convey mitigation benefits. The proposed rescission of the prevention program requirements (
On January 13, 2017, the EPA issued a final rule amending 40 CFR part 68, the chemical accident prevention provisions under section 112(r) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). The amendments addressed various aspects of risk management programs, including prevention programs at stationary sources, emergency response preparedness requirements, information availability, and various other changes to streamline, clarify, and otherwise technically correct the underlying rules. This rulemaking is known as the “Risk Management Program Amendments” or “RMP Amendments” rule. For further information on the Risk Management Program Amendments, see 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).
On January 26, 2017, the EPA published a final rule delaying the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments from March 14, 2017 to March 21, 2017, see 82 FR 8499. This revision to the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments was part of an EPA final rule implementing a memorandum dated January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” This memorandum directed the heads of agencies to postpone, until 60 days after the date of its issuance, the effective date of rules that were published prior to January 20, 2017, but which had not yet become effective.
In a letter dated February 28, 2017, a group known as the “RMP Coalition,” submitted a petition for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program Amendments (“RMP Coalition Petition”) as provided for in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)).
In a letter dated March 13, 2017, the Administrator announced the convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program Amendments (a copy of this letter is included in the docket for this rule, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OEM–2015–0725).
Congress granted the EPA the authority for rulemaking on the prevention of chemical accidental releases as well as the correction or response to such releases in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of CAA section 112(r)(7). The scope of this authority is discussed in more detail below. The EPA has used its authority under CAA section 112(r)(7) to issue the RMP Rule (61 FR 31668, June 20, 1996), the 2017 RMP Amendments, and this reconsideration document and proposed rulemaking.
When promulgating rules under CAA section 112(r)(7)(A) and (B), the EPA must follow the procedures for rulemaking set out in CAA section 307(d). See CAA sections 112(r)(7)(E)
Section 307(d) has a provision that requires the EPA to convene a reconsideration proceeding when the person makes an objection that meets specific criteria set out in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). The statute provides:
If the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the comment period] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time period specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule, the Administrator shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the rule and provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information been available at the time the rule was proposed.
As noted in the Background section above, when several parties petitioned for reconsideration of the 2017 RMP Amendments, the Administrator found that at least one objection the petitioners raised met the specific criteria for mandatory reconsideration and therefore he convened a proceeding for reconsideration under CAA section
Congress granted EPA authority for accident prevention rules under two provisions in CAA section 112(r)(7). Under subparagraph (A) of CAA section 112(r)(7), EPA may set rules addressing the prevention, detection, and correction of accidental releases of substances listed by EPA by rule (“regulated substances” listed in the tables in 40 CFR 68.130). Such rules may include data collection, training, design, equipment, work practice, and operational requirements. EPA has wide discretion regarding the effective date (“as determined by the Administrator, assuring compliance as expeditiously as practicable”).
Under subparagraph (B) of CAA section 112(r)(7), Congress authorized EPA to develop “reasonable regulations and appropriate guidance” that provide for the prevention and detection of accidental releases and the response to such releases, “to the greatest extent practicable.” Congress required an initial rulemaking under this subparagraph by November 15, 1993. Subparagraph (B) sets out a series of mandatory subjects to address, interagency consultation requirements, and discretionary provisions that allowed EPA to tailor requirements to make them reasonable and practicable. For example, the regulations needed to address “storage, as well as operations” and “emergency response after accidental releases;” EPA was to use the expertise of the Secretaries of Labor and Transportation in promulgating the regulations; and EPA had the discretion (“shall, as appropriate”) to recognize differences in “size, operations, processes . . . and the voluntary actions” of regulated sources to prevent and respond to accidental releases (CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(i)). At a minimum, the regulations had to require stationary sources with more than a “threshold quantity to prepare and implement a risk management plan.” Such plans needed to provide for compliance with rule requirements under CAA section 112(r) and include a hazard assessment with release scenarios and an accident history, a release prevention program, and a response program (CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(ii)). Plans were to be registered with EPA and submitted to various planning entities (CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii)). The rules would apply to sources three years after promulgation or three years after a substance was first listed for regulation under CAA section 112(r). (CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(i)).
In addition to the direction to use the expertise of the Secretaries of Labor and Transportation in subparagraph (B) of CAA section 112(r)(7), the statute required EPA to consult with these secretaries when carrying out the authority of CAA section 112(r)(7) and to “coordinate any requirements under [CAA section 112(r)(7)] with any requirements established for comparable purposes by” OSHA. (CAA section 112(r)(7)(D)). This consultation and coordination language derives from and expands upon provisions on hazard assessments in the bill that eventually passed the Senate as its version of the 1990 CAAA, section 129(e)(4) of S. 1630. The Senate committee report on this language notes that the purpose of the coordination requirement is to ensure that “requirements imposed by both agencies to accomplish the same purpose are not unduly burdensome or duplicative.” Senate Report at 244.
The RMP Amendments and this reconsideration address three aspects of the Risk Management Program: Requirements for prevention programs, emergency response provisions, and information disclosure. The prevention program provisions proposed to be rescinded in this document (auditing, incident investigation, and safer technologies and alternatives analysis) address the “prevention and detection of accidental releases.” The emergency coordination and exercises provisions in this rule modify existing provisions that provide for “response to such releases by the owners or operators of the sources of such releases.” The information disclosure provisions proposed to be rescinded or modified in this document are related to the development of “procedures and measures for emergency response after an accidental release of a regulated substance in order to protect human health and the environment.”
In considering whether it is legally permissible for the Agency to rescind and/or modify provisions of the RMP Amendments rule while continuing to meet EPA's obligations under CAA section 112(r), EPA notes that the CAA did not require EPA to promulgate the RMP Amendments rule. There are four provisions of CAA section 112(r) that require or authorize the Administrator to promulgate regulations. The first two relate to the list of regulated substances and their threshold quantities. CAA section 112(r)(3) required EPA to promulgate a list of at least 100 regulated substances. Section 112(r)(5) required EPA to establish, by rule, a threshold quantity for each listed substance. EPA met these obligations in 1994 with the publication of the list of regulated substances and threshold quantities (59 FR 4493, January 31, 1994). Section 112(r)(7) contains the other two regulatory provisions. Section 112(r)(7)(B) required EPA to publish accidental release prevention, detection, and response requirements and guidance (“. . . the Administrator shall promulgate reasonable regulations and appropriate guidance to provide, to the greatest extent practicable, for the prevention and detection of accidental releases of regulated substances and for response to such releases by the owners or operators of the sources of such releases”). EPA met this obligation in 1996 with the publication of the original RMP rule (61 FR 31668, June 20, 1996), and associated guidance documents published in the late 1990s. The other regulatory promulgation provision of section 112(r)(7)—section 112(r)(7)(A)—is permissive. Subparagraph (A) authorizes EPA to promulgate regulations but does not require it.
Therefore, EPA had met all of its regulatory obligations under section 112(r) prior to promulgating the RMP
EPA's existing RMP regulation was published in two stages. The Agency published the list of regulated substances and TQs in 1994 (59 FR 4478, January 31, 1994) (the “list rule”)
The EPA's risk management program requirements include conducting a worst-case scenario analysis and a review of accident history, coordinating emergency response procedures with local response organizations, conducting a hazard assessment, documenting a management system, implementing a prevention program and an emergency response program, and submitting a risk management plan that addresses all aspects of the risk management program for all covered processes and chemicals. A process at a source is covered under one of three different prevention programs (Program 1, Program 2 or Program 3) based on the threat posed to the community and the environment. Program 1 has minimal requirements and is for processes not classified in industrial sectors
In this section, EPA discusses the proposed changes to the RMP Amendments rule, but explanations of the rationale for most changes are discussed later in Section IV.
In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA added three major provisions to the accident prevention program of Subparts C (for Program 2 processes) and D (for Program 3 processes). These included:
(1) A requirement in § 68.60 and § 68.81 for all facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes to conduct a root cause analysis using a recognized method as part of an incident investigation of a catastrophic release or an incident that could have reasonably resulted in a catastrophic release (
(2) Requirements in § 68.58 and § 68.79 for regulated facilities with Program 2 or Program 3 processes to contract with an independent third-party, or assemble an audit team led by an independent third-party, to perform a compliance audit after the facility has an RMP reportable accident or when an implementing agency requires a third-party audit due to conditions at the stationary source that could lead to an accidental release of a regulated substance, or when a previous third-party audit failed to meet the specified competency or independence criteria. Requirements were established in new § 68.59 and § 68.80 for third-party auditor competency, independence, and responsibilities and for third-party audit reports and audit findings response reports.
(3) A requirement in § 68.67(c)(8) for facilities with Program 3 regulated processes in North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 322 (paper manufacturing), 324
(4) The RMP Amendments rule also made several other minor changes to the Subparts C and D prevention program requirements. These included the following:
• § 68.48 Safety information—changed requirement in subparagraph (a)(1) to maintain Safety Data Sheets (SDS) in lieu of Material Safety Data Sheets.
• § 68.50 Hazard review—added language to existing subparagraph (a)(2) to require hazard reviews to include findings from incident investigations when identifying opportunities for equipment malfunctions or human errors that could cause an accidental release.
• §§ 68.54 and 68.71 Training—changed description of employee(s) “operating a process” to “involved in operating a process” in § 68.54 paragraphs (a) and (b), and changed “operators” to “employees involved in operating a process” in § 68.54 (d). EPA also added paragraph (e) in § 68.54 and paragraph (d) in § 68.71 to make employee training requirements also apply to supervisors responsible for directing process operations (under § 68.54) and supervisors with process operational responsibilities (under § 68.71).
• §§ 68.58 and 68.79 Compliance audits—changes to paragraph (a) for Program 2 and Program 3 provisions added language to clarify that the owner or operator must evaluate compliance with each covered process every three years.
• §§ 68.60 and 68.81 Incident investigation—made the following changes: Revised paragraph (a) in both sections by adding clarifying text “(
• § 68.65 Process safety information—change to paragraph (a) required the owner or operator to keep process safety information up-to-date; change to Note to paragraph (b) revised the term “Material Safety Data Sheets” to “Safety Data Sheets (SDS).”
• § 68.67 Process hazard analysis—change to subparagraph (c)(2) added requirement for PHA to address the findings from all incident investigations required under § 68.81, as well as any other potential failure scenarios.
• § 68.3 Definitions—added definitions for terms
EPA now proposes to rescind all of the above changes, with the exception of the two changes that would revise the term “Material Safety Data Sheets” to “Safety Data Sheets (SDS)” in §§ 68.48 and 68.65. This includes deleting the words “for each covered process” from the compliance audit provisions in § 68.58 and § 68.79, which apply to RMP Program 2 and Program 3, respectively. EPA proposes to rescind the requirements to report the following data elements in the risk management plan: in § 68.170 (i), whether the most recent compliance audit was a third-party audit, pursuant to §§ 68.58 and 68.59; in § 68.175 (k), whether the most recent compliance audit was a third-party audit, pursuant to §§ 68.79 and 68.80; and in § 68.175 (e)(7), inherently safer technology or design measures implemented since the last PHA, if any, and the technology category (substitution, minimization, simplification and/or moderation). In § 68.175(e), EPA proposes to rescind the Amendments rule's deletion of the expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the PHA for program 3 facilities. Adding back this requirement would revert reporting of the PHA information in the risk management plan to what is currently required by the existing in-effect rule. This would also be consistent with the similar § 68.170 (e) requirement for Program 2 facilities to report the expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the hazard review, a requirement that was not deleted in the Amendments rule. EPA also proposes to rescind the requirement in § 68.190 (c), that prior to de-registration, the owner or operator shall meet applicable reporting and incident investigation requirements in accordance with §§ 68.42, 68.60 and/or 68.81.
Alternatively, EPA proposes to rescind all of the above changes, except for the following:
• Requirement in § 68.50(a)(2) for the hazard review to include findings from incident investigations;
• Retain the term “report(s)” in place of the word “summary(ies)” in § 68.60;
• Requirement in § 68.60 for Program 2 processes to establish an incident investigation team consisting of at least one person knowledgeable in the process involved and other persons with experience to investigate an incident;
• Requirements in §§ 68.54 and 68.71 for training requirements to apply to supervisors responsible for process operations and minor wording changes involving the description of employees operating a process in § 68.54; and,
• Retain the two changes that would revise the term “Material Safety Data Sheets” to “Safety Data Sheets (SDS)” in §§ 68.48 and 68.65.
EPA requests public comment on the Agency's proposal to rescind and modify the prevention requirements of the RMP Amendments rule, as well as the alternatives described above.
In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA added several new provisions to § 68.210—Availability of information to the public. These included:
(1) A requirement for the owner or operator to provide, upon request by any member of the public, specified chemical hazard information for all regulated processes, as applicable, including:
• Names of regulated substances held in a process,
• SDSs for all regulated substances located at the facility,
• Accident history information required to be reported under § 68.42,
• Emergency response program information, including whether or not the source responds to releases of regulated substances, name and phone number of local emergency response organizations, and procedures for informing the public and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases,
• A list of scheduled exercises required under § 68.96 (
• Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) contact information;
(2) A requirement for the owner or operator to provide ongoing notification on a company website, social media platforms, or through other publicly accessible means that the above information is available to the public upon request, along with the information elements that may be requested and instructions for how to request the information, as well as information on where members of the public may access information on community preparedness, including shelter-in-place and evacuation procedures;
(3) A requirement for the owner or operator to provide the requested chemical hazard information within 45 days of receiving a request from any member of the public, and;
(4) A requirement to hold a public meeting to provide accident information required under § 68.42 as well as other relevant chemical hazard information, no later than 90 days after any accident subject to reporting under § 68.42.
Additionally, the RMP Amendments rule added provisions to § 68.210 to address classified information and confidential business information (CBI) claims for information required to be provided to the public, and made a minor change to the existing paragraph (a) RMP availability, to add a reference to 40 CFR part 1400 for controlling public access to RMPs.
EPA now proposes for security reasons to rescind the requirements for providing to the public upon request, chemical hazard information and access to community emergency preparedness information in § 68.210 (b) through (d), as well as rescind the requirement to provide the “other chemical hazard information such as that described in paragraph (b) of this section” at public meetings required under § 68.210(e). Alternatively, EPA proposes to rescind all of the information elements in § 68.210 (b) through (d), as well as rescind the requirement to provide the “other chemical hazard information such as that described in paragraph (b) of this section” at public meetings required under § 68.210(e), except for the requirement in § 68.210(b)(5) for the owner or operator to provide a list of scheduled exercises required under § 68.96. EPA will retain the requirement in § 68.210(e) for owner/operator of a stationary source to hold a public meeting to provide accident information required under § 68.42 no later than 90 days after any accident subject to reporting under § 68.42, but clarifying that the information to be provided is the data listed in § 68.42(b). This data would be provided for only the most recent accident, and not for previous accidents covered by the 5-year accident history requirement of § 68.42(a). EPA will retain the change to paragraph (a) “RMP availability” which added availability under 40 CFR part 1400 (addresses restrictions on disclosing RMP offsite consequence analysis under the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (CSISSFRRA).
In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA required owners or operators of “responding” and “non-responding” stationary sources to perform emergency response coordination activities required under new § 68.93. These activities included coordinating response needs at least annually with local emergency planning and response organizations, as well as documenting these coordination activities. The RMP Amendments rule required coordination to include providing to the local emergency planning and response organizations the stationary source's emergency response plan if one exists, emergency action plan, updated emergency contact information, and any other information that local emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response planning. For responding stationary sources, coordination must also include consulting with local emergency response officials to establish appropriate schedules and plans for field and tabletop exercises required under § 68.96(b). Owners or operators of responding and non-responding sources are required to request an opportunity to meet with the local emergency planning committee (or equivalent) and/or local fire department as appropriate to review and discuss these materials.
EPA now proposes to modify the local coordination amendments by deleting the phrase in § 68.93(b), “. . . and any other information that local emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response planning.” Alternatively, EPA proposes to change this phrase to read: “other information necessary for developing and implementing the local emergency response plan.” Under both alternatives, EPA also proposes to incorporate appropriate classified information and CBI protections to regulated substance and stationary source information required to be provided under § 68.93.
EPA is retaining the requirement in § 68.95(a)(1)(i) for responding facilities to update their facility emergency response plans to include appropriate changes based on information obtained from coordination activities, emergency response exercises, incident investigations or other information. In addition, EPA will retain the requirement in § 68.95(4) that emergency response plan notification procedures must inform appropriate Federal and state emergency response agencies, as well as local agencies and the public.
EPA proposes to retain language in § 68.93(b) referring to field and tabletop exercise schedules and plans with a proposal to retain some form of field and tabletop exercise requirement. Alternatively, in conjunction with an alternative proposal to rescind field and tabletop exercise requirements (see “Modify exercise amendments” below), the Agency also proposes to rescind this language.
EPA is proposing no other changes to the local coordination requirements of the RMP Amendments rule. Under either alternative proposed above, the following provisions would remain unchanged: The provisions of paragraph (b) requiring coordination to include providing to the local emergency planning and response organizations the stationary source's emergency response plan if one exists, emergency action plan, and updated emergency contact information, as well as the requirement for the owner or operator to request an opportunity to meet with the local emergency planning committee (or equivalent) and/or local fire department as appropriate to review and discuss these materials. For provisions of the RMP Amendments that we propose to retain, we continue to rely on the rationale and responses we provided when we promulgated the Amendments. See 81 FR 13671–74 (proposed RMP Amendments rule), March 14, 2016, 82 FR 4653–58 (final RMP Amendments rule), January 13, 2017. EPA requests public comment on the Agency's proposal to modify the local coordination requirements of the RMP Amendments rule, as well as the alternatives described above.
In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA added a new section entitled § 68.96 Emergency response exercises. This section contained several new provisions, including:
•
○ Owners or operators of responding stationary sources are allowed to perform the notification exercise as part of the tabletop and field exercises required in new § 68.96(b).
○ The owner/operator must maintain a written record of each notification exercise conducted over the last five years.
•
○ Exercises must involve facility emergency response personnel and, as appropriate, emergency response contractors.
○ The emergency response exercise program must include field and tabletop exercises involving the simulated accidental release of a regulated substance.
○ Under the RMP Amendments rule, the owner or operator is required to consult with local emergency response officials to establish an appropriate frequency for exercises, but at a minimum, the owner or operator must hold a tabletop exercise at least once every three years, and a field exercise at least once every ten years.
○ Field exercises must include tests of procedures to notify the public and the appropriate Federal, state, and local emergency response agencies about an accidental release; tests of procedures and measures for emergency response actions including evacuations and medical treatment; tests of communications systems; mobilization of facility emergency response personnel, including contractors, as appropriate; coordination with local emergency responders; emergency response equipment deployment; and any other action identified in the emergency response program, as appropriate.
○ Tabletop exercises must include discussions of procedures to notify the public and the appropriate Federal, state, and local emergency response agencies; procedures and measures for emergency response including evacuations and medical treatment; identification of facility emergency response personnel and/or contractors and their responsibilities; coordination with local emergency responders; procedures for emergency response equipment deployment; and any other action identified in the emergency response plan, as appropriate.
• For both field and tabletop exercises, the RMP Amendments rule requires the owner or operator to prepare an evaluation report within 90 days of each exercise. The report must include a description of the exercise scenario, names and organizations of each participant, an evaluation of the exercise results including lessons learned, recommendations for improvement or revisions to the emergency response exercise program and emergency response program, and a schedule to promptly address and resolve recommendations.
• The RMP Amendments rule also contains a provision for alternative means of meeting exercise requirements, which allows the owner or operator to satisfy the requirement to conduct notification, field and/or tabletop exercises through exercises conducted to meet other Federal, state or local exercise requirements, or by responding to an actual accidental release.
EPA is now proposing to modify the exercise program provisions of § 68.96(b), as requested by state and local response officials, by removing the minimum frequency requirement for field exercises and establishing more flexible scope and documentation provisions for both field and tabletop exercises. Under this proposal, EPA would retain the final RMP Amendments rule requirement for the owner or operator to attempt to consult with local response officials to establish appropriate frequencies and plans for field and tabletop exercises. The minimum frequency for tabletop exercises would remain at three years. However, there would be no minimum frequency specified for field exercises in order to reduce burden on regulated facilities and local responders as explained in rationale section IV. D. 5. Costs of Field and Tabletop Exercises. Documentation of both types of exercises would still be required, but the items specified for inclusion in exercises and exercise evaluation
This proposal would not alter the notification exercise requirement of § 68.96(a) or the provision for alternative means of meeting exercise requirements of § 68.96(c). EPA proposes to correct an error in § 68.96(b)(2)(i) related to the frequency of tabletop exercises by proposing to replace the phrase “shall conduct a field exercise every three years” with “shall conduct a tabletop exercise every three years.” For provisions of the RMP Amendments that we propose to retain, we continue to rely on the rationale and responses we provided when we promulgated the Amendments. See 81 FR 13674–76 (proposed RMP Amendments rule), March 16, 2016 and 82 FR 4659–67 (final RMP Amendments rule), January 13, 2017. In summary, EPA found that exercising an emergency response plan is critical to ensure that response personnel understand their roles, that local emergency responders are familiar with the hazards at the facility, and that the emergency response plan is appropriate and up-to-date. Exercises also ensure that personnel are properly trained and lessons learned from exercises can be used to identify future training needs. Poor emergency response procedures during some recent accidents have highlighted the need for facilities to conduct periodic emergency response exercises. Other EPA and federal agency programs and some state and local regulations require emergency response exercises.
Alternatively, EPA is considering whether to fully rescind the field and tabletop exercise provisions of § 68.96(b). Under this alternative proposal, EPA would retain the notification exercise provision of § 68.96(a), but revise it and § 68.93(b) to remove any reference to tabletop and field exercises, while also modifying the provision in § 68.96(c) for alternative means of meeting exercise requirements so that it applies only to notification exercises.
EPA is also considering another alternative—to remove the minimum frequency requirement for field exercises, but retain all remaining provisions of the RMP Amendments rule regarding field and tabletop exercises, including the RMP Amendments rule requirements for exercise scope and documentation.
EPA requests public comment on the Agency's proposal to modify the exercise requirements of the RMP Amendments rule, as well as the alternatives described above.
EPA proposes to modify the emergency response contact information required to be provided in a facility's RMP. In § 68.180(a)(1) of the Amendments rule, EPA required the owner or operator to provide the name, organizational affiliation, phone number, and email address of local emergency planning and response organizations with which the stationary source last coordinated emergency response efforts. EPA now proposes to modify this requirement to read: “Name, phone number, and email address of local emergency planning and response organizations. . . .”
In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA required compliance with the new provisions as follows:
• Required compliance with emergency response coordination activities by March 14, 2018;
• Required compliance with the emergency response program requirements of § 68.95 within three years of when the owner or operator initially determines that the stationary source is subject to those requirements;
• Required compliance with other major provisions (
• Required the owner or operator to correct or resubmit their RMP to reflect new and revised data elements promulgated in the RMP Amendments rule by March 14, 2022.
EPA did not specify compliance dates for the other minor changes to the Subpart C and D prevention program requirements. Therefore, under the RMP Amendments rule, compliance with these provisions was required on the effective date of the RMP Amendments rule. EPA now proposes to extend compliance dates as follows:
• For emergency response coordination activities, EPA proposes to require compliance by one year after the effective date of a final rule.
• For emergency response exercises, EPA proposes to require owners and operators to have exercise plans and schedules meeting the requirements of § 68.96 in place by four years after the effective date of a final rule. EPA also proposes to require owners and operators to have completed their first notification drill by five years after the effective date of a final rule, and to have completed their first tabletop exercise by 7 years after the effective date of a final rule. Under this proposal, there would be no specific compliance date specified for field exercises, because field exercises would be conducted according to a schedule developed by the owner or operator in consultation with local emergency responders.
• For corrections or resubmissions of RMPs to reflect reporting on new and revised data elements (public meeting information and emergency response program and exercises), EPA proposes to require compliance by five years after the effective date of a final rule.
• For third-party audits, STAA, root cause analyses and other new provisions of the RMP Amendments rule for incident investigations and chemical hazard information availability and notice of availability of information, as well as other minor changes to the Subpart C and D prevention program requirements (except for the two changes that would revise the term “Material Safety Data Sheets” to “Safety Data Sheets (SDS)” in §§ 68.48 and 68.65), EPA is proposing to rescind these provisions. However, if a final rule does not rescind these provisions, EPA proposes to require compliance with any of these provisions that are not rescinded, by four years after the effective date of a final rule.
• For the public meeting requirement in § 68.210(b), EPA proposes to require compliance by two years after the effective date of a final rule.
• EPA is retaining the requirement to comply with the emergency response program requirements of § 68.95 within three years of when the owner or operator initially determines that the stationary source is subject to those requirements.
For provisions of the RMP Amendments that we propose to retain, we continue to rely on the rationale and responses we provided when we promulgated the Amendments. See 81 FR 13686–91 proposed RMP Amendments rule), March 14, 2016 and 82 FR 4675–80 (final RMP Amendments rule), January 13, 2017. In summary, EPA found that one year was sufficient to arrange and document coordination activities, three years was needed to comply with emergency response program requirements, four years was necessary to comply with exercise provisions, and five years was necessary to update risk management plans.
Three years to develop an emergency response program is necessary for facility owners and operators to understand the requirements, arrange for emergency response resources and train personnel to respond to an accidental release. Compliance with emergency coordination requirements could require up to one year because some facilities who have not been regularly coordinating will need time to get familiar with the new requirements, while having some flexibility in scheduling and preparing for coordination meetings with local emergency response organizations whose resources and time for coordination may be limited. A shorter timeframe may be difficult to comply with, especially for RMP sources whose local emergency organization has many RMP sources in their jurisdiction who are trying to schedule coordination meetings with local responders at the same time.
For the emergency exercises, EPA is proposing a four year compliance time for developing exercise plans and schedules, an additional year for conducting the first notification exercise, and an additional three years for conducting the first tabletop exercise, because EPA believes that additional time is necessary for sources to understand the new requirements for notification, field and tabletop exercises, train facility personnel on how to plan and conduct these exercises, coordinate with local responders to plan and schedule exercises, and carry out the exercises. Additional time will also provide owners and operators with flexibility to plan, schedule, and conduct exercises in a manner which is least burdensome for facilities and local response agencies. Also, EPA plans to publish guidance for emergency response exercises and once these materials are complete, owners and operators will need time to familiarize themselves with the materials and use them to plan and develop their exercises. If local emergency response organizations are to be able to participate in the field and tabletop exercises, sufficient time is needed to accommodate any time or resource limitations local responders might have not only for participating in exercises, but for helping to plan them.
For the public meeting requirement in § 68.210(b), EPA proposes to require compliance by two years after the effective date of a final rule. The RMP Amendments rule allows four years for compliance for the public meeting which was consistent with the compliance date for other information to be required to the public by § 68.210. However, EPA is proposing to remove the requirement to provide to the public the chemical hazard information in § 68.210 (b), the notice of availability of information in § 68.210(c) and the timeframe for providing information 68.210(d) as well proposing to remove the requirement to provide the chemical hazard information in § 68.210 (b) at the public meeting. The stationary source would be required to provide the chemical accident data elements specified in § 68.42, data which should already be familiar to the source because this information is currently required to be reported in their risk management plan. Thus, two years should be enough time for facilities to be prepared to provide the required information at a public meeting after an RMP reportable accident. EPA seeks comment on whether a sooner compliance date is more appropriate.
With regard to the five-year compliance date for updating RMPs with newly-required information, EPA is proposing this time frame because EPA will need time to revise its RMP submission guidance for any provisions finalized and also to revise its risk management plan submission system, RMP*eSubmit, to include additional data elements. Sources will not be able to update risk management plans until the revised RMP*eSubmit system is ready. Also, once the software is ready, some additional time is needed to allow sources to update their risk management plans while preventing potential problems with thousands of sources submitting updated risk management plans on the same day.
EPA proposes to correct CFR section numbers that are cross referenced in certain sections of the rule because these were changes necessitated by addition and redesignation of paragraphs pertaining to provisions in the Amendments rule but were overlooked at the time. Table 4 contains a list of these corrections.
In both the RMP Coalition Petition and the CSAG Petition, the petitioners seek reconsideration of the RMP Amendments based on what they view as either EPA's failure to coordinate with OSHA and DOT as required by paragraph (D) of CAA section 112(r)(7) or at least inadequate coordination. For example, CSAG's petition comments:
Stakeholders have repeatedly asked EPA why it is pursuing this effort in isolation when Congress directed it to coordinate any requirements under Clean Air Act Section 112(r) with certain industry standards, and with those issued for comparable purposes by OSHA and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). This directive to coordinate was repeated in E.O. 13650 (footnotes omitted).
Both EPA's 40 CFR part 68 RMP regulation and OSHA's 29 CFR 1910.119
The 1996 Risk Management Program rule and the related notice and supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (60 FR 13526, March 13, 1995) not only mention and reflect consultations with both DOT and DOL–OSHA, but also show close coordination between the PSM standard and the EPA program. In the proposed Risk Management Program rule, EPA proposed that all sources subject to EPA's rules comply with a prevention program based on the PSM standard. See 58 FR 54190, 54195–96 (October 20, 1993). The preamble to the proposed rulemaking contained an explanation of the differences between PSM standard and the Risk Management Program and a section-by-section comparison.
Measures taken by sources to comply with the OSHA PSM standard for any process that meets OSHA's PSM standard are sufficient to comply with the prevention program requirements of all three Programs.
Other provisions of the 1996 rule as well as subsequent amendments to the Risk Management Program reflect coordination with DOT. EPA has relied on DOT definitions for key terms and allowed compliance with the hazardous material regulations to satisfy requirements of EPA's program. See 61 FR 31668, June 20, 1996 at 31700, 63 FR 640, January 6, 1998, and 64 FR 28696, May 26, 1999 at 28698. The coordination with other agencies in the Risk Management Program helped to minimize burden and avoided requiring unduly duplicative and distinct compliance programs addressing the same matters. In short, whenever possible, compliance with one agency's program was compliance with all.
EPA adopted a somewhat inconsistent approach to the consultation and coordination requirement in developing the Risk Management Program Amendments of 2017. After the West Fertilizer fire and explosion on April 17, 2013, EPA and OSHA, (along with DHS) as members of the Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Groups established by Executive Order 13650, continued to consult with each other on their overlapping programs as they considered changes to existing chemical safety and security regulations. EPA and OSHA discussed options for changes to the RMP regulations and the OSHA PSM standard, respectively, in the May 2014 document entitled “Executive Order 13650 Report to the President—Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security—A Shared Commitment.”
Several commenters were critical about EPA's approach to coordination with OSHA and other agencies during the development of the RMP Amendments. Many advanced theories of OSHA “primacy” in the area of process safety and that EPA had impermissibly regulated workplace safety in violation of the statute. See Amendments RTC at 15–16,
Under Clean Air Act section 112(r)(7)(D), although Congress has conveyed to EPA discretion regarding how it should coordinate with OSHA, Congress's intent is clear that EPA coordinate its program with the other agencies' where possible. Accordingly, although at times divergence between the RMP rule and the PSM standard may make sense given the agencies' different missions, both agencies generally have tried to minimize confusion and burden on the regulated community by minimizing divergence. The RMP Amendments constitute a divergence from that longstanding practice: Although EPA has regularly communicated and coordinated with OSHA on its prevention program and process safety efforts so far, EPA proceeded to promulgate the RMP Amendments before understanding OSHA's path forward in this area and before understanding whether any divergence is reasonable for EPA.
After further consideration, EPA believes it did not give sufficient weight to the value of coordination with OSHA and focused too much on its legal authority to proceed independently. EPA now proposes to determine that a more sensible approach would be to have a better understanding of what OSHA will be doing in this area before revising the RMP accident prevention program. Thus, EPA proposes to rescind the RMP accident prevention amendments pending further action by OSHA. This approach would allow the two programs' process safety requirements to remain aligned as much as possible so that the regulated community may have a better understanding of what to do to comply while reducing unnecessary complexity and cost. Having consistency between required safe practices and common understanding of requirements should help industry to comply with the PSM standard and RMP rule and improve the effectiveness of accident prevention efforts.
This approach would better fulfill the Congressional purpose of coordination between the two agencies while maximizing consistency and ease of implementation of regulatory requirements. It is also responsive to concerns from stakeholders about our approach to coordination under the Amendments rule. We intend to allow for a better understanding of OSHA's plan for changes to the PSM standard before proposing any future changes to our rule.
While EPA has amended the Risk Management Program several times after 1996 without corresponding OSHA amendments to its PSM standard, these changes did not involve the prevention program provisions, thus precluding any need for coordination with OSHA. The Risk Management Program Amendments of 2017 were the first time we had issued post-1996 amendments that were significant due to costs and deemed major for purposes of the Congressional Review Act. Under these circumstances, we think that our approach to the 1996 RMP rule, where we attempted to either maintain consistent language with the PSM standard or carefully justify our departure, is a better approach. Our record shows the 2017 Amendments have significant costs and are discretionary. Given the flexibility in CAA section 112(r)(7), EPA may thus make a policy choice to conduct EPA's rulemaking proceedings to improve the RMP program after we have a better understanding of OSHA's timing of comment opportunities, content of amendments, and implementation schedules. EPA proposes to place greater weight than it did in promulgating the Amendments on the policy importance of coordinating with OSHA and not adopting significant changes to the risk prevention aspects of the RMP rule that diverge from OSHA's requirements until we have a better understanding of OSHA's path forward.
The reasonableness of this approach to coordination can be seen in both EPA's and OSHA's experiences conducting outreach to small entities as both agencies prepared to develop amendments to the RMP rule and the PSM standard. For EPA, we must “take into consideration the concerns of small business in promulgating regulations under [CAA section 112(r)].” CAA section 112(r)(7)(C). During the fall/winter of 2015, EPA convened an Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel to obtain advice and recommendations from Small Entity Representatives (SERs) that were potentially subject to the proposed RMP amendments. The SBAR panel report on the proposed RMP amendments under consideration contains the small entity comments and recommendations to the EPA Administrator from the three panel members (EPA, Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, and the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs).
During the summer of 2016, OSHA initiated a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel in order to get feedback on several potential revisions to OSHA's Process Safety Management Program (PSM) standard. Some potential revisions tracked EPA's RMP Amendments, which were in the proposed rule stage, while others were not included in the Amendments. OSHA also considered a number of minor modifications which largely codify existing OSHA interpretations of the PSM standard. OSHA completed their SBAR Panel Final Report in August 2016.
OSHA may or may not adopt amendments discussed in the SBAR Panel Report. EPA believes it would be prudent to understand OSHA's path forward in this area before owners and operators are required to implement changes under the RMP rule in order to decide whether any divergence from OSHA's PSM standard is reasonable for EPA. One example of potential divergence between the OSHA PSM standard and the RMP rule would be in the requirement for third-party audits. The August 2016 OSHA SBAR panel report did not fully support third-party audits. Instead the SBAR panel recommended further review of the need and benefits of third-party audits; the sufficient availability, adequate process knowledge and degree of independence needed of third-party auditors; and whether facilities should decide the best type of audit appropriate for their process.
EPA believes that we should not retain and put into effect changes to the prevention aspects of the Risk Management Program until we have a better understanding of OSHA's plans for the PSM standard changes so that we may move forward in a more coordinated fashion with regulatory changes that improve process safety performance and reduce accidents without causing undue burden and regulatory conflicts. Therefore, EPA is
As an alternative to rescinding the Amendments rule changes to the Program 2 and Program 3 prevention program provisions as proposed above, EPA is considering rescinding all of the above changes except for the requirement in § 68.50(a)(2) for the hazard review to include findings from incident investigations, the term “report(s)” in place of the word “summary(ies)” in § 68.60, the requirement in § 68.60 for Program 2 processes to establish an incident investigation team consisting of at least one person knowledgeable in the process involved and other persons with experience to investigate an incident, the requirements in §§ 68.54 and 68.71 for training requirements to apply to supervisors responsible for process operations and minor wording changes involving the description of employees operating a process in § 68.54, and the two changes that would revise the term “Material Safety Data Sheets” to “Safety Data Sheets (SDS)” in §§ 68.48 and 68.65.
The reason that EPA is considering this alternative is that these changes would not affect the consistency of the Program 3 prevention program requirements with the OSHA PSM standard. With the exception of the amendment to the training requirements (and the SDS provisions, which are minor terminology changes), these provisions would affect only the Program 2 prevention requirements. Also, retaining these changes would not make these Program 2 provisions more rigorous than their Program 3 counterparts, thus maintaining the rule's current model where Program 2 requirements are generally more streamlined than the comparable Program 3 requirements. Regarding the change to the Program 3 training requirement, as EPA noted in the proposed Amendments rule, EPA has traditionally interpreted the training provisions of §§ 68.54 and 68.71 to apply to any worker that is involved in operating a process, including supervisors. This is consistent with the OSHA definition of employee set forth at 29 CFR 1910.2(d) (see 81 FR 13686, Monday, March 14, 2016). Therefore, retaining this change may make the RMP Program 3 training provision even more consistent with the comparable provision of the PSM standard.
EPA requests comments on its proposal to rescind the changes made in the Program 2 and Program 3 prevention program provisions of the final RMP Amendments rule, including the alternative described above. Should investigation of Program 2 processes be required to have a team (of at least two people) with expertise in the process and investigation methods in order to thoroughly investigate and analyze the causes of incidents, even if the requirement to specifically conduct a root causes analysis is rescinded? Should Program 2 process investigations at least require investigation be performed by someone with expertise in the process?
EPA discussed the need for enhanced RMP local coordination provisions in the proposed Amendments rule. See 81 FR 13671, March 14, 2016. In summary, although there is substantial overlap between EPCRA requirements and RMP local coordination requirements, EPA found that some facilities who had indicated they do not have an RMP emergency response plan had not properly coordinated response actions with local authorities. State and local officials echoed these same concerns. In the final rule, EPA finalized enhanced local coordination provisions to address these concerns, while clarifying source's obligations for coordination, including specific information that must be communicated to local responders during annual coordination activities. In addition, EPA finalized the requirements to conduct field and tabletop exercises and stipulations for scope, frequency and documentation of exercises. Facilities must consult with local emergency response officials to establish appropriate schedules and plans for these exercises. EPA proposes to retain these requirements while addressing security concerns raised by petitioners. In all three petitions requesting reconsideration of the RMP Amendments rule, petitioners objected to the rule language in § 68.93(b) requiring local emergency response coordination to include providing to the local emergency planning and response organizations “. . . any other information that local emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response planning.” All Petitioners noted that the language was new to the final rule (
Petitioners have correctly noted that EPA incorporated the language at issue in order to address concerns, including security concerns, raised by various commenters over EPA's proposed RMP Amendments rule (81 FR 13638, March 14, 2016), which among other things proposed to add new § 68.205 to require owners and operators of all RMP-regulated facilities to provide certain information to Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) or local emergency response officials upon request. In response to these concerns, EPA, without acknowledging any inconsistency with the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standard or other regulatory structure, did not finalize § 68.205 of the proposed rulemaking in the final Amendments rule. Instead we required that the owner or operator to provide “any other information that local emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local emergency
In effect, petitioners are saying not only that EPA's final rule solution to the security concerns created by proposed § 68.205 did not fix the problem—it actually made it worse. After further review, EPA acknowledges that the petitioners' concerns have merit. Section 68.205 from the proposed RMP Amendments rule listed specific items of information that the owner or operator must provide to the LEPC or local emergency response officials upon request, but it did not include an open-ended provision for “any other information that local emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response planning.” By including such a provision in the final RMP Amendments rule, EPA may have inadvertently opened the door to local emergency officials requesting and receiving security-sensitive information even beyond the specific items included in § 68.205 of the proposed RMP Amendments about which petitioners and others had raised concerns.
Petitioners have also correctly noted that by locating the final rule's local responder information availability provision in § 68.93, EPA removed any protections for CBI. Items requested under the proposed amendment to § 68.205 (but not included in final Amendments rule) would have benefited from the inclusion in that section of paragraphs (d)
EPA disagrees with the Petitioners' assertion that the protection for classified information in § 68.210(f) would not apply to all provisions of the RMP rule, including disclosures under § 68.93(b). This provision, which is simply a recodification of former § 68.210(b), has always applied to all provisions under the RMP rule since it was adopted in 1996. Nevertheless, EPA proposes removal of the new broad information disclosure provision in § 68.93(b) as proposed to avoid any unnecessary disputes between LEPCs and holders of classified information over the scope of § 68.210(f) (to be redesignated § 68.210(b)).
EPA's proposed deletion of the phrase in § 68.93(b), “. . . any other information that local emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response planning” would solve the problem with the open-ended disclosure provision. This is EPA's preferred option, as the Agency believes that the remaining language in § 68.93 will still ensure that local responders obtain the information they need while avoiding potential security concerns associated with the deleted provision. Even with this change, § 68.93 still requires the owner and operator to provide local responders with the names and quantities of regulated substances at the stationary source, the risks presented by covered processes, and the resources and capabilities at the stationary source to respond to an accidental release of a regulated substance, as well as the stationary source's emergency response plan if one exists; emergency action plan; and updated emergency contact information. Responding stationary sources would still be required to consult with local emergency response officials to establish appropriate schedules and plans for field and tabletop exercises required under § 68.96(b), and all stationary source owners or operators would still be required to request an opportunity to meet with the LEPC (or equivalent) and/or local fire department as appropriate to review and discuss the information.
EPA's alternative proposal—to replace the phrase “. . . any other information that local emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response planning” with the phrase, “other information necessary for developing and implementing the local emergency response plan,” opts to use language virtually identical to that used in Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 303(d)(3), [42 U.S.C. 11003(d)(3)]. That provision of EPCRA states: “Upon request from the emergency planning committee, the owner or operator of the facility shall promptly provide information to such committee necessary for developing and implementing the emergency plan.” This language also appears in § 68.95(c) of the version of the RMP rule currently in effect, which applies to facilities with Program 2 and Program 3 processes whose employees respond to accidental releases of regulated substances. Therefore, as a result of either the EPCRA section 303(d)(3) provision or the provision in § 68.95(c), most RMP facilities have long been subject to this requirement, and applying it to the relatively few RMP facilities that are not already subject to it under EPCRA section 303(d)(3) or § 68.95(c) should not create any security vulnerabilities.
Under both alternatives, EPA's proposal to incorporate CBI and classified information protections to regulated substance and stationary source information provided under § 68.93 is intended to address petitioners' concerns regarding these issues. Incorporating a CBI provision in this section of the rule will emphasize the facility owner or operator's right to protect CBI. EPA notes that the RMP rule already authorizes the owner or operator of an RMP-regulated facility to assert CBI claims for information submitted in the RMP required under subpart G that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 2.301, with some limitations (
EPA requests public comments on its proposed changes to the emergency response coordination activities section of the RMP Amendments final rule. Does deleting the phrase in § 68.93(b) “. . . any other information that local emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response planning” resolve petitioners' security concerns without denying important emergency
Would EPA's alternate proposal, which replaces this language with, “other information necessary for developing and implementing the local emergency response plan” better resolve the issue by limiting additional information to that necessary for developing the local response plan?
If stakeholders believe the alternative language also presents new security concerns, how is it that this language has not caused such concerns in relation to its presence in EPCRA section 303(d)(3) or in § 68.95(c) of the currently in-effect RMP rule? Does EPA's proposal to incorporate the classified information provision of § 68.210(f) into § 68.93 limit the potential for disputes between holders of classified information and LEPCs over the scope of the general protection against disclosure of classified information in section 68.210? Does EPA's proposal to incorporate the CBI provisions of § 68.210(g) into § 68.93 appropriately address petitioners' concerns that these issues were not addressed in the emergency response coordination provisions of the final RMP Amendments rule?
Notwithstanding EPA efforts to address security concerns raised in public comments on the RMP Amendments, petitioners remain concerned about the potential for the information made available under § 68.210 of the RMP Amendments rule to be used by criminals or terrorists to target facilities for attack. Petitioner CSAG stated, “By providing unfettered access to information by local response organizations without safeguards, and by requiring disclosure of extensive facility information to the public upon request, EPA has done nothing to protect sensitive facility information.”
The States Petition enumerates the States' specific concerns with public information availability provisions, including that there is no screening process for requesters or limitations on the use or distribution of information, and that the provisions potentially conflict with other anti-terrorism laws, and others.
Linking its objection to the BATF finding that the West Fertilizer incident was due to criminal conduct, Petitioner RMP Coalition suggests:
For example, EPA might have focused its proposal on enhanced security measures for facilities, strict scrutiny of the type of information that should be disclosed to LEPCs or the public, protections for that information, prohibitions against using any sensitive information from these facilities to cause harm to the public or the environment, or screening measures for third parties with access to the facility and its sensitive information.
In the proposed RMP Amendments rule, under § 68.210 EPA proposed to require the owner or operator to distribute to the public in an easily accessible manner, such as on a company website, the following information:
• Names of regulated substances held in a process;
• SDSs for all regulated substances at the facility;
• The facility's five-year accident history required under § 68.42;
• Emergency response program information concerning the source's compliance with § 68.10(b)(3) or the emergency response provisions of subpart E, including:
○ Whether the source is a responding stationary source or a non-responding stationary source;
○ Name and phone number of local emergency response organizations with which the source last coordinated emergency response efforts, pursuant to § 68.180; and
○ For sources subject to § 68.95, procedures for informing the public and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases.
• Information on emergency response exercises required under § 68.96, including schedules for upcoming exercises, reports for completed exercises as described in § 68.96(b)(3), and any other related information; and
• LEPC contact information, including LEPC name, phone number, and website address as available.
In the final Amendments rule, EPA made only one change to this list—EPA revised the exercise information element to require the owner or operator to provide a list of scheduled exercises required under § 68.96, rather than the additional exercise information that was proposed. In so doing, EPA noted that, “The information required to be disclosed by this rule largely draws on information otherwise in the public domain and simplified the public's access to it.” EPA further stated, “Other statutes and regulatory programs, or other provisions of the risk management program, require the stationary source to assemble the information that the rule would make available upon request (
Noting that many commenters on the proposed RMP Amendments rule had objected to the proposed public information availability provisions because, they argued, those provisions had the potential to create a security risk, EPA's primary method of addressing commenters' concerns was to require facility owners and operators to notify the public that certain information is available upon request, and only provide the information after receiving such a request. EPA indicated that this would “allow community members an opportunity to request chemical hazard information from a facility, so they can take measures to protect themselves in the event of an accidental release, while allowing facility owners and operators to identify who is requesting the information.” (82 FR 4668, January 13, 2017).
Petitioners' comments summarized above indicate that EPA in the final amendments may not have struck the appropriate balance between various relevant policy concerns, including information availability, community right to know, minimizing facility burden, and minimizing information security risks. EPA agrees with petitioners that requiring unlimited disclosure of the chemical hazard information elements required under the RMP Amendments may create additional policy concerns, particularly with regard to the potential security risks created by disclosing such information.
A related concern not specifically raised by petitioners, but which EPA is now considering, is whether the synthesis of the required information disclosure elements could create an additional security risk for facilities. EPA had not previously considered that the combination of mandatory disclosure elements as required under the Amendments is generally not already available to the public from any single source. EPA believes that the synthesis of the required chemical hazard and facility information may present a more comprehensive picture of the vulnerabilities of a facility than would be apparent from any individual element, and that therefore requiring it to be made more easily available to the public from a single source (
EPA's proposal to rescind the public information availability provisions would address this concern, as well as petitioners' and other commenters concerns about the lack of any appeals or vetting process for members of the public requesting facility information. Information on most of the required disclosure elements would still be available via other means, such as through an LEPC, by visiting a Federal RMP reading room, or making a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA requests require a name and U.S. state or territory address to receive information.
EPA requests comments on its proposal to rescind the public information availability requirements of the final RMP Amendments rule. As an alternative to rescinding all of the public information elements, EPA request comments on rescinding all except the information on exercise schedules. If EPA maintains a field exercise requirement in the final rule, information on upcoming facility exercises would be the only item of information required to be disclosed in § 68.210(b) that is not already available from another source, and EPA maintains that providing the local community with this information could avoid unnecessary public concerns or panic during facility exercises.
Another element of publicly available information is the RMP information about local emergency response organizations. In § 68.180(a)(1) of the Amendments rule, EPA required the owner or operator to provide the name, organizational affiliation, phone number, and email address of local emergency planning and response organizations with which the stationary source last coordinated emergency response efforts. EPA now proposes to modify this requirement to read: “Name, phone number, and email address of local emergency planning and response organizations . . . .” This change would clarify that the Agency is only requiring organization-level information about local emergency planning and response organizations, and that facilities are not required to provide information about individual local emergency responders in order to reduce the amount of personally identifiable information available in facility RMPs. This could help avoid criminals or terrorists targeting individual emergency responders through identifying them using the publicly available portions of facility's RMPs.
The public meeting requirement in § 68.210(e) requires the owner/operator of a stationary source to “hold a public meeting to provide accident information required under § 68.42 as well as other relevant chemical hazard information, such as that described in paragraph (b) of this section, no later than 90 days after any accident subject to reporting under § 68.42.” The requirement to provide “other relevant chemical hazard information” could be interpreted to be an overly broad requirement for information, similar to the requirement to provide “any other information that local emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response planning” to LEPCs, which EPA is now proposing to rescind. “Information, such as that described in paragraph (b) of this section” is referring to the same chemical hazard information that is required to be provided upon request to the public. As discussed in section IV.B.2. of this preamble “Information Availability”, all three of the petitioners had security concerns with providing this type of information with no screening process for requesters or limitations on the use or distribution of information. Based on the reasoning provided in sections IV.B.1 and 2 of this preamble, EPA proposes to rescind the requirement to provide at the public meeting “other relevant chemical hazard information, such as that described in paragraph (b) of this section.”
CSAG's petition
The requirement to hold a public meeting within 90 days after any reportable accident is overly broad. It is not necessary for facilities to hold a public meeting every time that a release occurs. EPA provided no evidence that public meetings were requested or needed and not held under pre-existing rules. Often a release does not warrant a public meeting and the expense should not be imposed automatically. See CSAG Proposed Rule Comments, at pg. 17.
A public meeting is not required under the 2017 Amendments every time that a release occurs, but only after an accident occurs that is subject to reporting under § 68.42. Those are accidents that resulted in deaths, injuries, or significant property damage on site, or known offsite deaths, injuries, evacuations, sheltering in place, property damage, or environmental damage. EPA believes that having a public meeting so that community members may learn more about the causes of an accident that resulted in such impacts, and the facility's plans to address those causes is warranted. A public meeting also gives members of the community an opportunity to ask questions directly of the facility about issues that concern them. Therefore, EPA proposes to retain the public meeting requirement in § 68.210(e), modified to require that the owner or operator provide only accident information required under § 68.42(b) no later than 90 days after any reportable accident. However, EPA requests public comment on whether the Agency should further limit the public meeting requirement to apply
Additionally, EPA requests public comment on the required time frame for public meetings. In the proposed Amendments rule, EPA had proposed that post-accident public meetings be required within 30 days. Several commenters claimed that this time frame was too short, and would cause owners and operators to divert resources away from post-accident investigations.
In establishing the requirement for the owner or operator to provide accident information required under § 68.42 at public meetings, we have not previously specified whether it requires the owner or operator to provide at the meeting, accident information for only the accident triggering the public meeting, or, if the facility has multiple accidents in its five-year accident history, for all such accidents. EPA did not intend that the public meeting cover providing information for all reportable accidents over the last five years. EPA proposes to amend the public meeting provision to require the information listed in § 68.42(b) for only the most recent accident, and not for previous accidents covered by the 5-year accident history requirement of § 68.42(a). This proposed modification should provide clarity for the regulated community regarding the public meeting requirements. Nevertheless, EPA requests comments on this issue—should the public meeting provision require providing information on all accidents in a facility's five-year accident history?
Because EPA proposes to rescind the requirements in § 68.210(b) for the owner or operator to provide chemical hazard information to the public upon request and to provide “other relevant chemical hazard information” at public meetings after a reportable accident, EPA proposes to delete the provision for CBI in § 68.210(g), as unnecessary. The proposed revised public meeting provision would only require the owner or operator to provide data specified in the source's five-year accident history (§ 68.42), which is not allowed to be claimed as CBI under § 68.151(b)(3). The owner or operator may provide additional information during public meetings, but is not required to do so.
Petitioner RMP Coalition asserted that it was impracticable for commenters to address in their comments the significance of the May 11, 2016 determination by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF) that the fire and explosion at the West Fertilizer facility was caused by an intentional, criminal act. Petitioner further stated:
As the primary driver behind the Executive Order that inspired this rule, and the focus of EPA's introduction to the Proposed Rule, the circumstances surrounding the West, Texas, incident highlight the risks central to the Final Rule. Knowing that the incident was intentional would could [
In responding to this petition, EPA Administrator Pruitt agreed that the timing of the BATF finding was a valid basis for reconsideration of the RMP Amendments rule:
Among the objections raised in the petition that meet the requirements for a petition for reconsideration under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), we believe the timing of the BATF finding on the West, Texas incident, which was announced just before the close of the public comment period, made it impracticable for many commenters to meaningfully address the significance of this finding in their comments on this multi-faceted rule. Prior to this finding, many parties had assumed that the cause of the incident was accidental. Additionally, the prominence of the incident in the policy decisions underlying the rule makes the BATF finding regarding the cause of the incident of central relevance to the Risk Management Program Amendments.
EPA agrees that the West, Texas, incident was prominent in the issuance of Executive Order 13650 and the consideration for the final RMP Amendments rule. In the Executive Order 13650 Report for the President, the Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group, of which EPA serves as one of three tri-chairs, stated:
The West, Texas, disaster in which a fire involving ammonium nitrate at a fertilizer facility resulted in an explosion that killed 15 people, injured many others, and caused widespread damage, revealed a variety of issues related to chemical hazard awareness, regulatory coverage, and emergency response. The Working Group has outlined a suite of actions to address these issues, such as:
• Strengthening State and local capabilities
• Expanding tools to assist emergency responders
• Enhancing awareness and increasing information sharing with communities around chemical facilities
• Increasing awareness of chemical facility safety and security regulatory responsibilities
• Pursuing rulemaking options for changes to EPA, OSHA, and DHS standards to improve safety and security, including potential changes specific to ammonium nitrate.
The “changes to EPA . . . standards” ultimately became the RMP Amendments final rule, where EPA
The purpose of this action is to improve safety at facilities that use and distribute hazardous chemicals. In response to catastrophic chemical facility incidents in the United States, including the explosion that occurred at the West Fertilizer facility in West, Texas, on April 17, 2013 that killed 15 people (on May 11, 2016, ATF ruled that the fire was intentionally set.) President Obama issued Executive Order 13650, “Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security,” on August 1, 2013.
As indicated above, the final RMP Amendments rule acknowledged the BATF finding concerning the cause of the West Fertilizer incident. 82 FR at 4594, January 13, 2017. Notwithstanding this finding, EPA maintained that the incident still highlighted the need for better coordination between facility staff and local emergency responders. EPA also highlighted in the RMP Amendments Rule other incidents that further supported the need for better coordination between facility staff and local emergency responders (
The BATF finding was contrary to the widespread belief among the public and regulated community during development of the proposed RMP rule that the West incident was the result of an accident. Considering the timing of BATF's announcement, and that few commenters made reference to the finding in their comments on the proposed RMP Amendments rule, EPA is requesting further public comment on the significance of the BATF finding to the final RMP Amendments rule, and this proposal. When we solicited comment during the rulemaking to delay the effective date of the RMP Amendments to February 19, 2019, several commenters criticized the methodology used by BATF in support of its finding regarding the cause of the West Explosion. See 82 FR 27140, June 14, 2017. These commenters claimed the BATF used a process of elimination called “negative corpus” to develop its conclusion rather than a more sound investigative methodology.
All three petitioners objected to the costs and burdens associated with the new provisions of the RMP Amendments rule, and claimed that EPA's economic analysis did not accurately assess the costs of new provisions and violated procedural requirements by not quantifying potential benefits or linking specific rule provisions to quantified benefits. Most of these objections were variations of the comments previously provided on issues raised in the proposed RMP Amendments rule.
In developing the 1996 RMP rule, the Agency addressed the reasonableness of its regulations in part by taking account of the costs and implementation burdens. See 61 FR 31668, 31717 (June 20, 1996). For example, EPA shifted from an initially proposed approach of requiring all source prevention programs to be based on the PSM standard to requiring PSM standard-based prevention programs only for sources already subject to the PSM standard or in high-accident sectors; EPA allowed other sources subject to the risk management program to use more streamlined prevention requirements. Additionally, EPA developed tools and parameters to simplify offsite consequence analyses for release scenarios. The Agency also centralized risk management plan submissions, standardizing the format and establishing an electronically accessible database, in order to relieve multiple agencies of data management burdens and to simplify compliance for small businesses. While not explicitly adopting a requirement that costs exceed benefits in the 1996 rule, EPA helped justify the various modifications between the RMP proposal of 1993 and the final rule of 1996 by noting large cost reductions relative to prior proposed approaches without significant loss of benefits. See,
In developing the RMP Amendments, EPA also considered costs and burdens in deciding not to propose certain options and to modify or not go forward with various provisions in the final rule. For example, EPA chose not to propose requiring all Program 2 and 3 facilities to implement an emergency response program; See 81 FR 13674 (March 14, 2016), or perform emergency exercises.
While at the time we promulgated the final Amendments rule we believed the costs of the rule were reasonable in relation to its benefits, we are reexamining the reasonableness of the Amendments in light of three newly promulgated Executive Orders that require Agencies to place greater emphasis on reducing regulatory costs and burdens. These Executive Orders, and their relationship to this proposal, are discussed below. The agency acknowledges that the continual decrease in accidental releases under the existing RMP rule is evidence that the existing rule is working and that additional costs may not justify the additional requirements. EPA is uncertain about whether the additional requirements (
In the final Delay Rule published June 14, 2017,
Executive Order 13771,
Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” of February 24, 2017, calls for agency Regulatory Reform Task Forces to identify regulations that, among other things, impose costs that exceed benefits, evaluate these regulations and make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law.
Executive Order 13783,” Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth” of March 28, 2017, directs executive departments and agencies to immediately review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources and appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law.
In addition to the justifications discussed previously (
STAA is by far the costliest provision of the RMP Amendments rule. EPA estimated that this provision would cost $70 million on an annualized basis. This represents over 53% of the total estimated costs of the rule ($131.8 million annualized at a 7% discount rate). EPA estimated that third-party audits would cost approximately $9.8 million on an annualized basis, and that incident investigation root-cause analysis would cost approximately $1.8 million on an annualized basis.
Petitioners for reconsideration raised objections to the costs and other burdens of these provisions. For example, CSAG complained of “ill-defined and potentially expansive triggers for third party auditing,” as well as reports from such audits and “restrictive qualifications” for auditors as imposing significant burdens beyond what we quantified. The RMP Coalition noted the potential need for sources to duplicate Process Hazard Analysis (PHAs) during the phase-in of STAA under the requirement to complete a PHA with STAA by 4 years after the promulgation of the Amendments.
In the RMP Amendments, EPA had judged the costs of STAA to be reasonable based on two assumptions, one explicit and one implicit. First, we explicitly assumed that, whatever the cost of a new safer technology alternative, a company would incur such costs only if it were net beneficial to the company. Amendments RTC at 70. We then implicitly assumed that an unknown but sufficient fraction of the three affected industries would in fact implement changes as a result of having
Both the third-party auditing and the root cause incident investigation provisions trigger after one incident—either a reportable accident for third-party auditing or a catastrophic release for a root-cause investigation. Data analysis provided by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to support the RMP Coalition Petition demonstrates that accidents, and especially patterns of multiple accidents, are concentrated in very few facilities. Of the approximately 1500 reportable accidents in EPA's RMP database from the years 2004 to 2013, only 8% of the 12,500 facilities subject to the RMP rule reported any accidental releases, while the less than 2% of facilities that reported multiple releases in that time frame were responsible for nearly half (48%) of reportable accidents from all types of facilities. Within NAICS code 325, the chemical manufacturing industry, of the 1465 facilities subject to the RMP rule, 99 facilities with multiple reportable accidents were responsible for approximately 70% of all reportable accidents in the sector and more than one-third of all reportable accidents.
Several commenters during the rulemaking asked that EPA emphasize enforcement rather than amend the RMP rule. The data (as analyzed by ACC in its petition) tend to support the reasonableness of an enforcement-led approach to strengthening accident prevention that focuses on problematic facilities rather than broader regulatory mandates. Under the RMP rule as it existed before the RMP Amendments, EPA has required third-party audits in resolving enforcement actions not only after reported releases but also when inspections have indicated potentially weak prevention programs. By requiring third-party audits after every reportable accident rather than using an enforcement-led approach, the RMP Amendments potentially burden more of the regulated community than is appropriate in light of new policy direction that we put more emphasis on regulatory burden reduction and improved net benefits. An enforcement-led approach allows the agency additional discretion to make a determination of the utility of a third-party audit or a root-cause analysis. While EPA believes an enforcement-led approach is preferable to a uniform regulatory standard for third party audits and root cause analyses, the Agency requests public comment on whether a third-party audit or root-cause analysis should be required under certain well-defined regulatory criteria. For third party audits, such criteria might include requiring audits following multiple RMP-reportable accidents, or multiple regulatory violations of a particular gravity. For root-cause analyses, EPA could consider requiring such analyses following incidents exceeding specified severity levels. Although it is not our intent at this time to adopt such provisions, we invite parties to suggest appropriate regulatory criteria for third party audits and root-cause analyses.
For third party audits, while EPA cited a number of studies relating to the usefulness of such audits in various contexts,
Likewise, by burdening whole sectors rather than facilities that have multiple accidents, the RMP Amendments missed an opportunity to better target the burdens of STAA to the specific facilities that are responsible for nearly half of the accidents associated with regulated substances at stationary sources subject to the RMP rule. EPA has also used an enforcement-led approach in some past CAA section 112(r) enforcement cases where facility owners or operators have entered into
Given the small numbers of problematic facilities, the reasonableness of an enforcement-led approach to the prevention programs under the RMP rule in lieu of the RMP Amendments leads us to believe that the prevention program provisions in the RMP Amendments place an unnecessary and undue burden on regulated entities. In lieu of broadly imposing STAA in particular on broad sectors, an enforcement-led approach can retain much benefit of the RMP Amendments at a fraction of the cost. Such an approach would contain a compliance assistance element as well. Targeted compliance assistance could provide the benefit of independent assistance to sources that have had multiple releases with more flexibility than the third-party audit provisions of the RMP Amendments. Such a program would be consistent with a measure included in the President's proposed budget that would authorize a fee-based program allowing owners and operators to request EPA to conduct a walk-through of their facilities to assist in compliance. Another non-regulatory option to promote IST and ISD would be to encourage technology transfer, either through EPA-led forums or through non-governmental entities like industry associations or academic institutions. By not establishing any means for sharing IST and ISD beyond the facility, the RMP Amendments did little to promote technology-transfer. An approach that emphasizes voluntary technology-transfer would be consistent with the statutory provision to “recognize . . . the voluntary actions of [facilities] to prevent . . . and respond to [accidental] releases.” CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(i). Emphasizing burden reduction while retaining benefits is consistent with the approach we took when we adopted the RMP rule in 1996.
It is also possible that the existing rule's prevention program measures already encompass many of the benefits of the Amendments rule prevention provisions—some facilities may already be considering safer technologies in conjunction with their process hazard analysis, using root cause analysis for incident investigations, and/or hiring independent third parties to conduct audits. Considering the low and declining accident rate
Additionally, the STAA costs are concentrated on three industry sectors—petroleum and coal products manufacturing, chemical manufacturing, and paper manufacturing—which include a significant number of facilities that produce domestic energy resources. Therefore, this provision in particular appears to be a good candidate for rescission to achieve the policies reflected in E.O. 13783.
For providing the public the means to access the available chemical hazard information in § 68.210(b), as well as information on community preparedness, in the RMP Amendments rule EPA required the regulated facility to provide ongoing notification on a company website, social media platforms, or through other publicly accessible means for instructions on how to request the information (
One chemical hazard information item required to be provided under § 68.210(b) that is not available in a facility's RMP is the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for a regulated substance. However, SDSs are already widely available to the public by means of a basic internet search using the chemical name. Some chemical manufacturers provide access to SDSs for their specific products on the company's website. Hazardous chemical SDSs that are required to be submitted to State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs) and LEPCs under Section 311 of EPCRA (42 U.S.C. 11044) are available to the public upon request from the SERC or LEPC, except the identity of any chemical name meeting the criteria for trade secret protection provided by Section 322 of EPCRA (42 U.S.C. 11042) may not be disclosed.
In addition to chemical hazard information, § 68.210(b) requires the facility to provide emergency response program information (including whether the stationary source is a responding stationary source or a non-responding stationary source, the name and phone number of local emergency response organizations with which the owner or operator last coordinated emergency response efforts, and for stationary sources subject to § 68.95, procedures for informing the public and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases), LEPC contact information (including LEPC name, phone number, and web address as available), and a list of scheduled exercises required under § 68.96. Most of this information is also already available in the facility's RMP. The only required item of emergency response program information that is not available in the facility's RMP is the facility's procedure for informing the public and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases. However, this information can be obtained by contacting the appropriate local response agencies. A member of the public living near a facility can identify their LEPC either by reviewing the facility's RMP, or by contacting their SERC. EPA maintains contact information for each SERC on its website.
Therefore, once a member of the public obtains a facility's RMP, the need to make a request to that facility for the elements contained in the RMP would be eliminated, and most other elements are available using the internet or by contacting local response agencies. In promulgating the Amendments, EPA
As indicated above, if EPA maintains a field exercise requirement in the final rule, information on upcoming facility exercises would be the only item of information required to be disclosed in § 68.210(b) that is not already available from another source. EPA nevertheless is proposing not to require disclosure of exercise schedules. As stated previously, there is no easy way to restrict that information to only members of the local public, and wider distribution of this information could carry security risks. Nevertheless, the Agency requests public comment on whether information on upcoming exercises should still be required to be provided to members of the public upon request.
After STAA, field and tabletop exercises were estimated to be the next costliest provision of the RMP Amendments rule, at $24.7 million per year. While the majority of these costs were projected to fall on regulated facilities, EPA also projected that a significant share of costs would fall on local emergency responders participating in field and tabletop exercises.
The agency is not certain that it properly assessed the actual demands of these provisions or the increased burden on LEPCs in the final rule. EPA agrees that these provisions, and particularly the emergency exercise provisions, would place substantial burdens on regulated facilities and local responders. Local responders with multiple facilities in their area are particularly impacted by the minimum exercise frequency requirement. EPA's proposal herein would retain the emergency response coordination provisions (with proposed modifications) and emergency notification drill provisions, and modify the field and tabletop exercise provisions by removing the minimum exercise frequency requirements for field exercises and modifying exercise scope and documentation requirements to provide more flexibility to regulated facilities. As alternatives to modifying the frequency, scope, and documentation requirements, EPA has considered either fully rescinding the emergency field and tabletop exercise provisions or modifying them by removing the minimum exercise frequency requirement for field exercises but retaining the existing requirements for scope and documentation of field and tabletop exercises. EPA believes that any of these alternatives would reduce the regulatory burden on both facilities and local responders.
EPA's proposed revisions to § 68.96(b)(1)(ii) and § 68.96(b)(2)(ii)—the scope provisions for field and tabletop exercises, respectively—would provide the owner or operator with discretion to decide on an appropriate scope for exercises. In the RMP Amendments rule, EPA stated that field exercises shall include: Tests of procedures to notify the public and the appropriate Federal, state, and local emergency response agencies about an accidental release; tests of procedures and measures for emergency response actions including evacuations and medical treatment; tests of communications systems; mobilization of facility emergency response personnel, including contractors, as appropriate; coordination with local emergency responders; emergency response equipment deployment; and any other action identified in the emergency response program, as appropriate. For tabletop exercises, EPA stated that exercises shall include discussions of: Procedures to notify the public and the appropriate Federal, state, and local emergency response agencies; procedures and measures for emergency response including evacuations and medical treatment; identification of facility emergency response personnel and/or contractors and their responsibilities; coordination with local emergency responders; procedures for emergency response equipment deployment; and any other action identified in the emergency response plan, as appropriate. EPA is proposing to replace “shall” with “should” in both provisions. While EPA believes that these scope provisions are likely to be suitable guidelines for most facilities, the Agency believes that converting them to discretionary provisions (
EPA's proposed revisions to § 68.96(b)(3)
EPA requests public comment on the cost and burden reductions associated with the proposed rule. Would eliminating the STAA, third-party audit, incident investigation, and information availability provisions and modifying or rescinding the field and tabletop exercise provisions contribute toward the goals of Executive Orders 13771, 13777, and 13783 and address petitioners' and other commenters' concerns about excessive regulatory costs and unjustified burdens? Are there any data from chemical accident or toxic use reduction programs that demonstrates a substantially lower accident rate at existing facilities that already had successful accident prevention programs in place and then conducted Inherently Safer Technology or Design (IST/ISD) reviews or otherwise conducted chemical substitution to lower chemical hazards? EPA's proposal to modify the emergency exercise provisions would retain the RMP Amendments rule requirement for regulated facilities to coordinate with local emergency responders to develop emergency exercise schedules, but would remove the minimum frequency requirement for field exercises, and allow facility owners to work with local responders to establish appropriate frequencies and plans for exercises. Would these changes help to address petitioners' and commenters' concerns about the excessive costs of the exercise provisions? Should EPA make other changes to these provisions, or fully rescind the field and tabletop exercise provisions in order to further reduce costs? If EPA were to fully rescind the exercise provisions, would the remaining requirements of the RMP Amendments rule for annual notification drills (§ 68.96(a)), enhanced emergency response coordination (§ 68.93—with proposed modifications), and enhanced emergency response program updates (§ 68.95(a)(4)) be sufficient to address the emergency response planning and coordination gaps highlighted by the West Fertilizer incident and other incidents noted by EPA in the proposed RMP Amendments rule, while reducing undue burdens on facilities and local emergency responders as much as reasonably possible? Are there additional modifications or rescissions that EPA should make in order to further reduce costs, without significantly impacting public health and environmental protection?
Petitioner CSAG recommended that EPA delay the compliance dates for the same period by which the effective date of the rule was extended.
Except for the new proposed compliance date for public meetings, these proposed compliance dates would toll the compliance dates established under the final Amendments rule, using the same one-year compliance interval for the emergency coordination provision, four-year compliance interval for the exercise provisions, and five-year compliance interval for new or modified risk management plan reporting provisions, that were used under the final Amendments rule, but establishing the new compliance dates relative to the future effective date of a final rule resulting from this proposal. In so doing, EPA is relying on the same rationale it used in establishing compliance dates under the final Amendments rule.
EPA is proposing a different compliance date for public meetings than that established under the final Amendments rule because with the proposed rescission of the other information availability requirements of the final Amendments rule, EPA believes that sources would not require four years to prepare to conduct post-accident public meetings. See Section III.F—
EPA is also proposing one modification to the compliance date for emergency exercises. Under the final amendments rule, EPA required that owners and operators comply with the emergency exercise provisions by four years after the effective date of the final rule. As EPA explained in the final rule, this meant that the owner or operator must have completed a notification exercise, consulted with local emergency response officials to establish a schedule for conducting tabletop and field exercises, and completed at least one field or tabletop exercise by the compliance date. Under the current proposal, owners and operators would be still be required to have exercise programs and schedules meeting the requirements of § 68.96 in place within four years of the effective date of a final rule. However, the owner or operator would not be required to have completed a notification and field or tabletop exercise by that date. Based on the schedule established by the owner or operator in coordination with local response agencies, the owner or operator would have up to one additional year to perform their first notification drill, and up to three additional years to conduct their first tabletop exercise. There would be no specified deadline date for the first field exercise, other than that established in the owner or operator's exercise schedule.
EPA is proposing this change to avoid overburdening facilities and local responders in meeting exercise
In addition to recommending that EPA toll the rule's compliance dates, Petitioner CSAG indicated particular concern with the four-year compliance date for STAA:
CSAG is concerned with the four-year compliance deadline provided in the rule for the STAA requirements. Such analysis is highly complex, and—given that the STAA would have to be part of the PHA for a covered process within four years—facilities will have to begin working immediately on incorporating this analysis without a commonly accepted methodology. In the RMP Rule preamble, EPA notes future “guidance” that will be developed for complying with RMP PHA and STAA requirements before sources must comply with the STAA provision and its plans to make draft guidance available for public comment.
If EPA finalizes its proposal to rescind the STAA provisions, CSAG's concern with the compliance date for STAA would be rendered moot. However, in the event that EPA does not rescind the STAA provisions, the Agency requests public comment on whether the compliance date for STAA should be further extended. For example, should EPA extend the STAA compliance date to 5 years or some longer interval, so that all facilities subject to it would have the opportunity to incorporate the STAA into their PHA during their regular PHA revalidation cycle? Alternatively, should EPA require STAA in PHAs performed after a certain date, such as 3 or 4 years after promulgation of a final rule?
In addition to the issues discussed previously, petitioners raised several other issues that EPA would like to address.
The RMP Coalition indicated that EPA added numerous documents to the rulemaking docket after the close of the comment period, that EPA used several of these to support core provisions of the final rule, and that members of the public were not able to submit comments on these documents.
EPA added 129 documents to the rulemaking docket after the end of the public comment period. Many of these documents (59 total) were documents that would normally be added after the comment period, such as final interagency review documents, final rule support documents (RIA, technical background document, EPA response to comments), documentation of tribal consultation, EPA responses to requests to extend the comment period, and documentation of post-proposal meetings or presentations of the proposed rulemaking that occurred after the end of the comment period. Also included were copies of laws, statutes, Federal or state regulations,
To the extent EPA may have relied on these documents to support the third-party audit and STAA provisions of the final RMP Amendments rule without providing the public with full opportunity for review and comment, this point will become moot if the Agency rescinds those provisions, as we have proposed herein. Nevertheless, the documents are now available for public review in the rulemaking docket. A list of these 129 rule support documents is also available in the rulemaking docket.
The RMP Coalition stated that in the final RMP Amendments rule, EPA added a new trigger [criterion] for third-party audits
Though EPA claims that it only “modifie[d] the criterion,” the Final Rule provision transformed a predictable trigger (non-compliance with specific regulations) into an unpredictable one that relies entirely on the implementing agency's discretion to determine which conditions
In the Proposed Rulemaking, EPA proposed changes to §§ 68.58 and 68.79 to require third-party compliance audits for both Program 2 and Program 3 processes, under certain conditions.
After considering public comments received on the proposed conditions that would require a third-party audit, in the final Amendments Rule, EPA revised the applicability criteria for third-party audits required by implementing agencies from non-compliance to conditions that could lead to an accidental release of a regulated substance. EPA believed that having the implementing agency evaluate whether conditions exist at a stationary source that could lead to an accidental release better addressed the types of situations where a third-party audit would be most effective, and would minimize the potential for inconsistent or arbitrary decisions made by implementing agencies. This revised criterion responded to commenters' requests was not intended to be a new condition, but a narrowing of the applicability of these requirements. The criterion in the Final Rule focused on conditions with the potential to lead to accidental releases, rather than authorizing implementing agencies to require third-party audits under a potentially wide range of circumstances, including minor non-compliance. However, insofar as it is a change, the petitioner correctly notes that the public did not have a chance to comment on the new language.
EPA is proposing to rescind the third-party audit requirements; however, if these requirements are not rescinded, EPA requests comment on the revised applicability criteria for third-party audits required by implementing agencies from non-compliance to conditions that could lead to an accidental release of a regulated substance.
Petitioners CSAG and the States argued that the coordination and emergency response provisions of the final rule constitute unfunded mandates and impose unjustified burdens on state and local emergency responders.
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. EPA prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This RIA is available in the docket and is summarized here (Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OEM–2015–0725).
This action addresses and responds to a number of issues related to the final RMP Amendments Rule, including those raised by petitioners, as well as other issues that EPA believes warrant reconsideration.
As discussed above in section I of this preamble, prior to the rule taking effect, EPA received three petitions for reconsideration of the rule under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), two from industry groups and one from a group of states. Under that provision, the Administrator is to commence a reconsideration proceeding if, in the Administrator's judgement, the petitioner raises an objection to a rule that was impracticable to raise during the comment period or if the grounds for the objection arose after the comment period but within the period for judicial review. In either case, the Administrator must also conclude that the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
In a letter dated March 13, 2017, the Administrator responded to the first of the reconsideration petitions received by announcing the convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program Amendments.
As described in section IV. A. of this preamble,
All three petitions requesting reconsideration of the RMP Amendments rule raised security concerns regarding provisions of the final Amendments rule, as discussed above in section IV. B. of this preamble,
As discussed in section IV.C. of this preamble,
All three petitioners objected to the costs and burdens associated with the new provisions of the RMP Amendments rule, and claimed that EPA's economic analysis did not accurately assess the costs of new provisions and violated procedural requirements by not properly quantifying potential benefits. Petitioners submitted extensive commentary on these issues (complete copies of each petition are available in the docket for this rulemaking). A discussion of this issue is included above in section IV.D. of this preamble,
This action also considers and addresses several other issues raised by petitioners. One petitioner noted that EPA added numerous documents to the rulemaking docket after the close of the comment period, that EPA used several of these to support core provisions of the final rule, and that members of the public were not able to submit comments on these documents.
The RIA analyzed the proposed rescissions and changes to the requirements of the RMP Amendments rule, including one alternative option for emergency tabletop and field exercises. The proposed rulemaking would retain the requirement for tabletop and field exercises, but remove the minimum frequency requirement for field exercises and establish more flexible scope and documentation provisions for both field and tabletop exercises. Although these changes are intended to reduce the burden of and offer more flexibility to owners and local response agencies in meeting the exercise requirements, the RIA took the conservative approach of assuming that the cost of the provision as estimated under the Amendments final rule would not change. EPA is considering two alternatives to the proposed exercise provisions. One alternative would be similar to the proposed option—this alternative would remove the minimum frequency requirement for field exercises, but unlike the proposed option, the alternative would retain all remaining provisions of the RMP Amendments rule regarding field and tabletop exercises, including the RMP Amendments rule requirements for exercise scope and documentation. Like the proposed option, EPA assumes that the cost of the exercise provisions as estimated under the Amendments final rule would not change under this alternative. Another, lower-cost alternative to EPA's proposal would be to fully rescind the field and tabletop exercise provisions. This alternative would result in an additional annual cost savings of approximately $24.7 million (2015 dollars).
EPA is also considering an alternative to the proposed modification to the emergency coordination provisions of the Amendments rule. EPA's proposed modification to the local emergency response coordination amendments would delete the phrase in § 68.93(b), “. . . and any other information that local emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response planning.” As an alternative to this proposal, EPA is considering replace this phrase with the phrase “other information necessary for developing and implementing the local emergency response plan.” However, EPA does not believe either its proposed option or the alternative phrasing would significantly affect the cost of complying with the emergency coordination provisions of the Amendments rule.
Lastly, EPA is considering an alternative to rescinding the availability of all chemical hazard information to the public under the final Amendments rule. Under this alternative, EPA would rescind all elements required to be disclosed under § 68.210(b) of the final Amendments rule except the information on exercise schedules. If EPA were to adopt this alternative, the annual net cost savings under the proposed rule would decline by up to $3.1 million.
Approximately 12,500 facilities have filed current RMPs with EPA and are potentially affected by the proposed rule changes. These facilities range from petroleum refineries and large chemical manufacturers to water and wastewater treatment systems; chemical and petroleum wholesalers and terminals; food manufacturers, packing plants, and other cold storage facilities with ammonia refrigeration systems; agricultural chemical distributors; midstream gas plants; and a limited number of other sources that use RMP-regulated substances.
Table 5 presents the number of facilities according to the latest RMP reporting as of February 2015 by industrial sector and chemical use.
Table 6 presents a summary of the annualized cost savings estimated in the regulatory impact analysis.
Most of the annual cost savings under the proposed rulemaking are due to the repeal of the STAA provision (annual savings of $70 million), followed by third party audits (annual savings of $9.8 million), rule familiarization (annual net savings of $3.7 million), rule familiarization (annual net savings of $3.7 million), information availability (annual savings of $3.1 million), and root cause incident investigation (annual savings of $1.8 million). See the RIA for additional information on costs and cost savings.
The RMP Amendments Rule produced a variety of benefits from prevention and mitigation of future RMP and non-RMP accidents at RMP facilities, avoided catastrophes at RMP facilities, and easier access to facility chemical hazard information. The proposed Reconsideration rule would largely retain the revised local emergency coordination and exercise provisions of the 2017 Amendments final rule, which convey mitigation benefits. The proposed rescission of the prevention program requirements (
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2537.03. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
The ICR that covers the risk management program rule, promulgated on June 20, 1996; including previous amendments, codified as 40 CFR part 68, is ICR number 1656.15, OMB Control No. 2050–0144. This ICR (2537.03) addresses the following information requirements that were promulgated in the final RMP Amendments rule and not proposed to be rescinded by the proposed revision to the rule:
1. Hold a public meeting within 90 days of an accident subject to reporting under § 68.42 (
2. Meet and coordinate with local responders annually to exchange emergency planning information and coordinate exercise schedules. Responding facilities' updates of their facility emergency response plans will include appropriate changes based on information obtained from coordination activities, emergency response exercises, incident investigations or other information. Emergency response plans will have procedures for informing appropriate Federal and state emergency response agencies, as well as local agencies and the public (informing local agencies and the public is already required under the original rule).
3. Conduct an annual notification drill with emergency responders to verify emergency contact information.
4. Responding facilities conduct and document emergency response exercises including:
a. Field exercises according to a schedule established by the facility in consultation with local responders, and;
b. A tabletop exercise at least every three years.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule.
The RMP Amendments final rule considered a broad range of costs on small entities based on facility type. As estimated in the 2017 Amendments RIA, the provisions in that final rule had quantifiable impacts on small entities. This proposed rule largely repeals, or retains with slight modification, the provisions incurring costs on small entities. As a result, EPA expects the proposed rule to impose negative costs for all facilities, including small entities. The only new costs imposed on small entities would be rule familiarization with the proposed rule, but even that cost would be offset by savings associated with eliminating the larger costs associated with becoming familiar with the RMP Amendments final rule. The impact of this proposed rule on small entities is discussed further in the RIA, which is available in the rulemaking docket.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have Federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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.
This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. EPA will be consulting with tribal officials as it develops this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. Consultation will include conversations with interested
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the RIA for this proposed rule, available in the docket.
This proposed action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This proposed action is not anticipated to have notable impacts on emissions, costs or energy supply decisions for the affected electric utility industry.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action may have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in chapter 8 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), a copy of which has been placed in the public docket for this action.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 68, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7412(r), 7601(a)(1), 7661–7661f.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) By [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], the owner or operator of a stationary source shall comply with the emergency response coordination activities in § 68.93.
(d) By [DATE 4 YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], the owner or operator shall have developed plans for conducting emergency response exercises in accordance with provisions of § 68.96.
(e) After [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] the owner or operator of a stationary source shall comply with the public meeting requirement in § 68.210(b) for any accident meeting the five-year accident history requirements of § 68.42 that occurs after [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
(f) By [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], the owner or operator shall comply with § 68.160 (b)(21) of the risk management plan provisions of subpart G of this part promulgated on [PUBLICATION DATE OF FINAL RULE] and with § 68.180 of the risk management plan provisions of subpart G of this part promulgated on January 13, 2017.
(a) * * *
(2) Opportunities for equipment malfunctions or human errors that could cause an accidental release;
(a) The owner or operator shall ensure that each employee presently operating a process, and each employee newly assigned to a covered process have been trained or tested competent in the operating procedures provided in § 68.52 that pertain to their duties. * * *
(b)
(d) The owner or operator shall ensure that operators are trained in any updated or new procedures prior to startup of a process after a major change.
(a) The owner or operator shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of this subpart at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under this subpart are adequate and are being followed.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) The owner or operator shall investigate each incident which resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release.
(c) A summary shall be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation which includes at a minimum:
(1) Date of incident;
(3) A description of the incident;
(4) The factors that contributed to the incident; and,
(5) Any recommendations resulting from the investigation.
(f) Investigation summaries shall be retained for five years.
(a) In accordance with the schedule set forth in § 68.67, the owner or operator shall complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis required by the rule. * * *
(b) * * *
Safety Data Sheets (SDS) meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200(g) may be used to comply with this requirement to the extent they contain the information required by paragraph (b) of this section.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) The identification of any previous incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences;
(a) The owner or operator shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of this subpart at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed under this subpart are adequate and are being followed.
(a) The owner or operator shall investigate each incident which resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release.
(d) A report shall be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation which includes at a minimum:
(1) Date of incident;
(2) Date investigation began;
(3) A description of the incident;
(4) The factors that contributed to the incident; and,
(5) Any recommendations resulting from the investigation.
(b) Coordination shall include providing to the local emergency planning and response organizations: The stationary source's emergency response plan if one exists; emergency action plan; and updated emergency contact information. For responding stationary sources, coordination shall also include consulting with local emergency response officials to establish appropriate schedules and plans for field and tabletop exercises required under § 68.96(b). The owner or operator shall request an opportunity to meet with the local emergency planning committee (or equivalent) and/or local fire department as appropriate to review and discuss those materials.
(d)
(e)
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(ii)
(2) * * *
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(b) * * *
(21) Whether a public meeting has been held following an RMP reportable accident, pursuant to § 68.210(b).
(i) The date of the most recent compliance audit, the expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the compliance audit.
The revisions read as follows:
(e) The date of completion of the most recent PHA or update and the technique used.
(1) The expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the PHA;
* * *
(5) Monitoring and detection systems in use; and
(6) Changes since the last PHA.
(k) The date of the most recent compliance audit and the expected date of completion of any changes resulting from the compliance audit.
(a) * * *
(1) Name, phone number and email address of local emergency planning and response organizations with which the stationary source last coordinated emergency response efforts, pursuant to § 68.10(g)(3) or § 68.93.
(c) If a stationary source is no longer subject to this part, the owner or operator shall submit a de-registration to EPA within six months indicating that the stationary source is no longer covered.
The revision reads as follows:
(b)
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) A compliance schedule for meeting the requirements of this part by the date provided in § 68.10(a) through (f).
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to remove a provision that provided guidelines to offerors when proposing an alternative line item structure in response to a solicitation.
Effective May 30, 2018.
Ms. Carrie Moore, telephone 571–372–6093.
DoD is amending the DFARS to remove DFARS provision 252.204–7011, Alternative Line Item Structure, the associated prescription at DFARS 204.7109(b), and a cross-reference at DFARS 212.301(f)(ii)(C). DFARS provision 252.204–7011 advises offerors that they may propose an alternative to the contract line item structure included in the solicitation. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the resulting contract structure is economically and administratively advantageous to both the Government and the contractor. This provision is prescribed for use in all solicitations that use Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items or for the initial provisioning of spares.
However, this DFARS provision is duplicative of the information provided in FAR provision 52.204–22, Alternative Line Item Proposal, which is included in all solicitations. When the DFARS provision was implemented, no standardized guidance on line item structure existed for the Government or contractors. A final rule was published in the
The removal of this DFARS provision supports a recommendation from the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force. On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. In accordance with E.O. 13777, DoD established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review and validate DoD regulations, including the DFARS. A public notice of the establishment of the DFARS Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, for the purpose of reviewing DFARS provisions and clauses, was published in the
This rule only removes obsolete DFARS provision 252.204–7011, Alternate A, System for Award Management. Therefore, the rule does not impose any new requirements on contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold and for commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf items.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This rule is not an E.O. 13771, Reducing and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
The statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is the Office of Federal Procurement Policy statute (codified at title 41 of the United States Code). Specifically, 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because DoD is not issuing a new regulation; rather, this rule merely removes an obsolete requirement from the DFARS.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see section III. of this preamble), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 204, 212, and 252 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
Use the clause at 252.204–7006, Billing Instructions, in solicitations and contracts if Section G includes—
(a) Any of the standard payment instructions at PGI 204.7108)(d)(1) through (6); or
(b) Other payment instructions, in accordance with PGI 204.7108(d)(12), that require contractor identification of the contract line item(s) on the payment request.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to remove a provision that is no longer necessary and duplicative of an existing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause.
Effective May 30, 2018.
Ms. Carrie Moore, telephone 571–372–6093.
DoD is amending the DFARS to remove the DFARS provision 252.222–7007, Representation Regarding Combating Trafficking in Persons, the associated provision prescription at DFARS 222.1771, and cross references to the provision at DFARS 204.1202 and 212.301. The DFARS provision notified offerors that, by submitting their offer to the Government, they certify that they will not engage in trafficking in persons in performance of the contract, will have policies in place to protect the rights of its employees, and have notified employees and subcontractors of their responsibility to report trafficking in persons violations and their protection from reprisal for reporting any such violation.
However, the United States Government has laws that prohibit trafficking in persons at 22 U.S.C. chapter 78 and Executive Order 13627, Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in Persons in Federal Contracts. In addition, FAR clause, 52.222–50, Combating Trafficking in Persons, provides comprehensive guidance to contractors to ensure their compliance with the Government's laws and policies on trafficking in persons when performing under a Federal contract. Specifically, the FAR clause prohibits contractors from engaging in trafficking in persons during the performance of the contract, requires contractors to notify its employees and subcontractors of the Government's policy on trafficking in persons, and requires the contractor to have a compliance plan in place to ensure agreement with Federal law and policy. The purpose of the DFARS provision was to simply affirm that the contractor will comply with Federal trafficking in persons laws and policies. The provision contained no guidance or policy unique to DoD. As such, this DFARS provision is unnecessary and can be removed.
The removal of this DFARS text supports a recommendation from the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force. On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. In accordance with E.O. 13777, DoD established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review and validate DoD regulations, including the DFARS. A public notice of the establishment of the DFARS Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, for the purpose of reviewing DFARS provisions and clauses, was published in the
This rule does not add any new provisions or clauses or impact existing provisions or clauses. The rule merely removes DFARS provision 252.222–7007, Representation Regarding Combating Trafficking in Persons that is redundant to FAR clause, 52.222–50, Combating Trafficking in Persons.
The statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is the Office of Federal Procurement Policy statute (codified at title 41 of the United States Code). Specifically, 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because DoD is not issuing a new regulation; rather, this rule merely removes an obsolete provision from the DFARS.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review; and E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 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
This rule is not an E.O. 13771, Reducting and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this rule is not significant under EO 12866.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see section III. of this preamble), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 204, 212, 222, and 252 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to delegate to the head of the contracting activity the decision authorities provided to the head of the agency by sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 that provide new special emergency procurement authorities. This final rule also makes conforming changes to nonstatutory emergency acquisition flexibilities relating to item-unique identification, receipt of only one offer, and limitations on time-and-materials contracts.
Effective May 30, 2018.
Ms. Amy Williams, telephone 571–372–6106.
Sections 816 and 164 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 (Pub. L. 115–91) add new special emergency procurement authorities to include acquisitions, as determined by the head of the agency, that facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber attack; facilitate the provision of international disaster assistance; or support response to an emergency or major disaster. These sections 816 and 1641 are being implemented in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) under FAR Case 2018–009.
Prior to this final rule, DFARS 218.271 delegated to the head of the contracting activity the determination authority for application of the previously existing special emergency procurement authorities (support of a contingency operation or to facilitate defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack). In addition, the DFARS has provided nonstatutory emergency acquisition flexibilities relating to item-unique identification, receipt of only one offer, and limitations on time-and-materials contracts in circumstances similar to, but somewhat more expansive than those covered by the statutory special emergency procurement authorities.
This final rule delegates authority to the head of the contracting activity at DFARS 218.271 (redesignated 218.270) whatever special procurement authorities are specified in the FAR. This final rule also makes conforming changes to nonstatutory emergency acquisition flexibilities relating to item-unique identification (DFARS 211.274–2(b)(1)), receipt of only one offer (DFARS 215.371–4(a)(2)), and limitations on time-and-materials contracts (DFARS 216.601(d)(i)(A)(
However, this final rule does not provide an exception at DFARS 211.274–2(b)(1) to the requirement for item unique identification, for acquisitions that facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber attack, because one of the reasons for use of item-unique identification is to ensure item-level traceability throughout the lifecycle to enhance cyber security (DFARS 211.274–1(e)). Therefore, in
In addition, the coverage at DFARS 218.270 of the increased simplified acquisition threshold when a humanitarian or peacekeeping operation is declared has been removed from DFARS, because it is now covered in the FAR in the definition of “simplified acquisition threshold” in FAR 2.101 and at DFARS 218.204.
This rule does not add any new solicitation provisions or contract clauses. It does add exceptions to the required use of the clause at DFARS 252.211–7003, Item Unique Identification and Valuation. The clause is not required when acquiring items to be used to support a humanitarian or peacekeeping operation or to facilitate the provision of international disaster assistance or to support response to an emergency or major disaster. This clause already applies to the acquisition of commercial items, but this rule will reduce the required usage of the clause.
The statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is the Office of Federal Procurement Policy statute (codified at title 41 of the United States Code). Specifically, 41 U.S.C 1707(a)(1) requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because the rule primarily affects the internal operating procedures of the Government. Specifically, this rule:
• Delegates the special emergency procurement authorities to the head of the contracting activity at DFARS 218.270.
• Makes conforming changes to the exception to the only one offer policy (DFARS 215.371–5) and the exception to the required approval of the determination and findings for time-and-materials or labor-hour contracts (DFARS 216.601(d)(i)(A)(3)) when the acquisition is to facilitate defense against or recovery from a cyber attack, to facilitate the provision of international disaster assistance, or to support response to an emergency or major disaster; and the corresponding references in DFARS part 218 and 225.
• Adds an exception to the policy at DFARS 211.274–2(b)(1) for providing DoD item unique identification when the acquisition is in support of a humanitarian or peacekeeping operation, facilitates the provision of international disaster assistance, or supports response to an emergency or major
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This rule is not an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because the rule relates to agency organization, management, or personnel.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see section VI. of this preamble), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The rule will result in a de minimis reduction of burden hours through slight reduction in use of DFARS clause 252.211–7003. When contractors utilize Wide Area Workflow in accordance with DFARS 252.232–7003 and Appendix F, the item unique identification information required by DFARS 252.211–7003 is automatically transmitted to the IUID Registry. The burden imposed by DFARS 252.211–7003 is approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB clearance 0704–0248, Appendix F, Inspection and Receiving, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 211, 215, 216, 218, and 225 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(b) * * *
(1) The items, as determined by the head of the contracting activity, are to be used to support a contingency or humanitarian or peacekeeping operation; to facilitate defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack; to facilitate the provision of international disaster assistance; or to support response to an emergency or major disaster; or
(a) * * *
(2) Acquisitions, as determined by the head of the contracting activity, in support of contingency or humanitarian or peacekeeping operations; to facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack; to facilitate the provision of international disaster
(d) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(
(
(
(
(7)
(8)
For acquisitions that, as determined by the head of the contracting activity, are to facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack; to facilitate provision of international disaster assistance; or to support response to an emergency or major disaster, the following requirements do not apply:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The following requirements do not apply to acquisitions that, as determined by the head of the contracting activity, are in support of humanitarian or peacekeeping operations:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The term “head of the agency” is replaced with “head of the contracting activity,” as defined in FAR 2.101, in the following locations:
(a) FAR 2.101: definition of “simplified acquisition threshold.”
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 that established a sunset date for restrictions on acquisition of chemical weapons antidote contained in automatic injectors, or the components of such injectors.
Effective October 1, 2018.
Ms. Amy Williams, telephone 571–372–6106.
This final rule implements section 813(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, which amends 10 U.S.C. 2534(c) to establish a sunset date of October 1, 2018, for 10 U.S.C. 2534(a)(2) and (b)(2), the limitation on procurement of chemical weapons antidote contained in automatic injectors (and components for such injectors).
This rule deletes DFARS 225.7005 in its entirety to remove the obsolete text regarding restrictions on certain chemical weapons antidote.
This rule does not add any new burdens or impact applicability of clauses and provisions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, or to acquisition of commercial items.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This final rule is not an E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
The statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation is the Office of Federal Procurement Policy statute (codified at title 41 of the United States Code). Specifically, title 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure, or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because it just removes obsolete text from the DFARS, which affects only the internal operating procedures of the Government.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see section V. of this preamble), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 225 is amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 chapter 1.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to clarify the agency that conducts the background check procedures that are required for contractors who perform work on U.S.-flag vessels under DoD contracts for ocean transportation services.
Effective May 30, 2018.
Ms. Carrie Moore, telephone 571–372–6093.
DoD is amending the DFARS to modify the clause at DFARS 252.247–7027, Riding Gang Member Requirements. This DFARS clause is included in solicitations and contracts for the acquisition of commercial items, which are for the charter of, or contract for carriage of cargo by, a U.S.-flag vessel documented under 46 U.S.C., chapter 121.
DFARS clause, 252.247–7027, Riding Gang Member Requirements, ensures that riding gang members are qualified to serve on board the vessel and that both riding gang members and DoD-exempted individuals onboard will not pose a security risk based on criminal or other records. Paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) of the clause requires the contractor to immediately remove any exempted individual from the vessel that is deemed unsuitable by Military Sealift Command (MSC) Force Protection. This requirement imposes duties on MSC that exceed the scope of their personnel screening agreement. MSC has authorization to screen persons who have access to MSC chartered vessels, but they do not screen persons who have access to non-MSC chartered or contracted vessels. This paragraph is modified to state that the Government agency conducting the background
The modification of this DFARS clause supports a recommendation from the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force. On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. In accordance with E.O. 13777, DoD established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review and validate DoD regulations, including the DFARS. A public notice of the establishment of the DFARS Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, for the purpose of reviewing DFARS provisions and clauses, was published in the
This rule does not add any new provisions or clauses. The rule only revises DFARS clause 252.247–7027, Riding Gang Member Requirements, to state that the Government agency conducting the background check is the authority responsible for deeming the individual unsuitable, in lieu of the Military Sealift Command force protection personnel. This clause is already prescribed for use in commercial item acquisitions, and for use below the SAT.
The statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is the Office of Federal Procurement Policy statute (codified at title 41 of the United States Code). Specifically, 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because DoD is not issuing a new regulation; rather, this rule simply updates the name of a Government agency to reflect current Government procedures.
E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review; and E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action as defined under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b). This rule is not a major rule as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
This rule is not an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because the rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see section III. of this preamble), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 252 is amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to remove a clause that is duplicative of an existing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause that requires a contractor to give Government personnel the right of first refusal for employment openings in certain situations.
Effective May 30, 2018.
Ms. Carrie Moore, telephone 571–372–6093.
DoD is amending the DFARS to remove DFARS clause 252.222–7001, Right of First Refusal of Employment-Closure of Military Installations, the associated clause prescription at DFARS 222.7102, the policy guidance at DFARS 222.7101, and a cross-reference at DFARS 237.7401 to subpart 222.71. In the event of a closure of a military installation, the DoD 4165.66–M, Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual, advises that Government employees at closing installations have the right of first refusal for certain jobs with contractors hired to prepare the installation for closure or to maintain it after closure. Generally, these jobs are in areas of environmental restoration, utilities modification, roads and grounds work, security, and fire protection.
The DFARS clause and associated guidance restates the information from DoD 4165.66–M. The clause also advises that Government personnel seeking preference in such situations must provide evidence of their eligibility to the contractor. The DFARS clause prescription requires the clause be included in all solicitations and contracts arising from the closure of the military installation where the contract will be performed.
FAR clause 52.207–3, Right of First Refusal of Employment, is required in solicitations and contracts that will result in a conversion of work currently being performed by the Government to work being performed under contract. Like the DFARS clause, the FAR clause advises contractors that Government personnel who have been or will be adversely affected by award of the contract have the right of first refusal for jobs created under the contract for which they are qualified. The FAR clause also requires the Government to provide the contractor with a list of Government personnel who have been or will be adversely affected by the contract award and requires the contractor to report to the Government the names of any listed individuals who are hired after contract performance begins.
The DFARS clause is no longer necessary, because the FAR clause applies to the situations in which the DFARS clause is prescribed for use and covers the information contained in the DFARS clause. As such, this DFARS clause is now redundant and can be removed.
The removal of this DFARS text supports a recommendation from the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force. On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. In accordance with E.O. 13777, DoD established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review and validate DoD regulations, including the DFARS. A public notice of the establishment of the DFARS Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, for the purpose of reviewing DFARS provisions and clauses, was published in the
This rule only removes obsolete DFARS provision 252.222–7001, Right of First Refusal of Employment-Closure of Military Installations. Therefore, the rule does not impose any new requirements on contracts at or below the SAT and for commercial items, including COTS items.
E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review; and E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action as defined under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b). This rule is not a major rule as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
This final rule is not an E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
The statute that applies to the publication of the FAR is the Office of Federal Procurement Policy statute (codified at title 41 of the United States Code). Specifically, 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because DoD is not issuing a new regulation; rather, this rule merely removes an obsolete clause from the DFARS.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see section V. of this preamble), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, parts 222, 237, and 252 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to remove a provision that is duplicative of an existing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision that requires a vendor to enter Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code information into a Governmentwide database prior to award of any contract or agreement.
Effective May 30, 2018.
Ms. Carrie Moore, telephone 571–372–6093.
DoD is amending the DFARS to remove the DFARS provision 252.204–7004, Alternate A, System for Award Management (SAM), and the associated provision prescription at DFARS 204.1105. The DFARS provision provided definitions that are to be substituted for the definitions in paragraph (a) of the FAR provision 52.204–7, System for Award Management. The FAR provision is prescribed for use in most solicitations. The purpose of the FAR provision is to inform offerors of the requirement to be registered in SAM in order to be eligible for an award. The DFARS provision was created for use in DoD solicitations, to ensure, in part, that offerors responding to DoD solicitations understood that they needed to enter a CAGE code in SAM in order to be considered registered in the system. However, the DFARS provision is no longer necessary, because the definition of “Registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database” in paragraph (a) of the FAR provision has been updated to include a CAGE code as part of the information required from an offeror in order to be considered registered in SAM. As such, this DFARS alternate provision is redundant and can be removed.
The removal of this DFARS text supports a recommendation from the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force. On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. In accordance with E.O. 13777, DoD established a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review and validate DoD regulations, including the DFARS. A public notice of the establishment of the DFARS Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, for the purpose of reviewing DFARS provisions and clauses, was published in the
This rule merely removes obsolete DFARS provision 252.204–7004, Alternate A, System for Award Management. Therefore, the rule does not impose any new requirements on contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold and for commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf items.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This rule is not an E.O. 13771, Reducing and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
The statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is the Office of Federal Procurement Policy statute (codified at title 41 of the United States Code). Specifically, 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because DoD is not issuing a new regulation; rather, this rule merely removes an obsolete requirement from the DFARS.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see section III. of this preamble), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 204 and 252 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 that increase the micro-purchase thresholds for certain Department of Defense acquisitions.
Effective May 30, 2018.
Ms. Carrie Moore, telephone 571–372–6093.
DoD is amending the DFARS to implement sections 217(a) and 821 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114–328). Section 821 increases the micro-purchase threshold for the Department of Defense procurements to $5,000. Section 217(a) further increases the micro-purchase threshold to $10,000 for purposes of DoD basic research programs and for the activities of the DoD science and technology reinvention laboratories. Accordingly, DFARS section 202.101, Definitions, is amended to add a new micro-purchase threshold definition as it relates to DoD procurements, to be used in lieu of the definition in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). To align with the addition of the new DoD micro-purchase definition, a cross-reference to the definition at FAR 2.101 is revised in DFARS clause 252.232–7009, Mandatory Payments by Governmentwide Commercial Purchase Card.
This rule amends DFARS 202.101 to add an alternate definition for “micro-purchase threshold” in lieu of the definition of “micro-purchase threshold” at FAR 2.101. This rule simply clarifies the application of the micro-purchase threshold as it relates to DoD procurements, and does not apply additional requirements to contracts at or below the SAT or for the acquisition of commercial items, including COTS items.
The statute that applies to the publication of the FAR is the Office of Federal Procurement Policy statute (codified at title 41 of the United States Code). Specifically, 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because it clarifies the application of the micro-purchase threshold as it relates to DoD procurements, and does not have significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy. These requirements affect only the internal operating procedures of the Government.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This rule is not an E.O. 13771, Reducing and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) (see section III. of this preamble), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 202 and 252 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(1) For DoD acquisition of supplies or services for basic research programs and for activities of the DoD science and technology reinvention laboratories (
(2) For acquisitions of construction subject to 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV, Wage Rate Requirements (Construction), $2,000;
(3) For acquisitions of services subject to 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, Service Contract Labor Standards, $2,500; and
(4) For acquisitions of supplies or services that, as determined by the head of the contracting activity, are to be used to support a contingency operation; or to facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack; to support a request from the Secretary of State or the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to facilitate provision of international disaster assistance pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2292
(i) $20,000 in the case of any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, inside the United States; and
(ii) $30,000 in the case of any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, outside the United States.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018 to permit expedited closeout of certain contracts entered into on a date that is at least 17 fiscal years before the current fiscal year.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before July 30, 2018, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2018–D012, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Carrie Moore, telephone 571–372–6093.
This rule proposes to revise the DFARS to implement section 836 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114–328), as modified by section 824 of the NDAA for FY 2018, which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to close out certain contracts or groups of contracts through modification of such contracts without completing a reconciliation audit or other corrective action. The authority provided by sections 824 and 836 applies to contracts entered into on a date that is at least 17 fiscal years before the current fiscal year, that have no further supplies or services due, and for which a determination has been made that the contract records are not otherwise reconcilable, because—
• The contract or related payment records have been destroyed or lost; or
• Although contracts records are available, the time or effort required to establish the exact amount owed to the U.S. Government or amount owed to the contractor is disproportionate to the amount at issue.
To accomplish closeout of such contracts, sections 824 and 836 further authorize the following:
• A contract or groups of contracts covered by these sections to be closed out through a negotiated settlement with the contractor.
• The remaining contract balances to be offset with balances within the contract or on other contracts regardless of the year or type of appropriation obligated to fund each contract or contract line item, and regardless of whether the appropriation has closed.
When using this authority, the closeout procedures require the contracting officer to issue a modification of the affected contract, which must be signed by both the contractor and the Government. When closing out a group of contracts, the contracting officer must issue a modification for at least one of the affected contracts that reflects the negotiated settlement for the group of contracts and this modification must be signed by both the contractor and the Government. The remaining contracts in the group may be modified without obtaining the contractor's signature.
This rule proposes to amend DFARS 204.802 to incorporate the expedited closeout authority and procedures provided by section 824 and 836 for contracts entered into on a date that is at least 17 fiscal years before the current fiscal year, that have no further supplies or services due under the contract, and where the appropriate determination has been made by an individual at least one level above the contracting officer.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This rule is not an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, regulatory action, because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Department of Defense is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement section 836 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114–328), as modified by section 824 of the NDAA for FY 2018, to permit expedited closeout of certain contracts entered into on a date that is at least 17 fiscal years before the current fiscal year.
The objective of this proposed rule is to implement section 836 of the NDAA for FY 2017, as modified by section 824 of the NDAA for FY 2018.
Using estimates from Department and Agency subject matter experts, approximately 11,300 contracts subject to this rule need to be closed out by the Government. Of these contracts, the Government estimates that 50 percent, or 5,650, of the awards were made to small businesses.
This proposed rule does not include any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small businesses.
This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
There are no known significant alternative approaches to the proposed rule that would meet the requirements of the applicable statute.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities. DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2018–D012), in correspondence.
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 204 is proposed to be amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
The addition reads as follows:
(3)(i) In accordance with section 836 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114–328) and section 824 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Pub. L. 115–91), contracting officers may close out contracts or groups of contracts through issuance of one or more modifications to such contracts without completing a reconciliation audit or other corrective action in accordance with FAR 4.804–5(a)(3) through (15), as appropriate, if each contract—
(A) Was entered into on a date that is at least 17 fiscal years before the current fiscal year;
(B) Has no further supplies or services due under the terms of the contract; and
(C) Has been determined by an individual, at least one level above the contracting officer, to be not otherwise reconcilable, because—
(
(
(ii) Any contract or group of contracts meeting the requirements of paragraph (3)(i) of this section may be closed out through a negotiated settlement with the contractor. Except as provided in paragraph (3)(ii)(B), the contract closeout process shall include a bilateral modification of the affected contract, including those contracts that are closed out in accordance with a negotiated settlement.
(A) For a contract or groups of contracts, the contracting officer shall prepare a negotiation settlement memorandum that describes how the requirements of paragraph (3)(i) have been met.
(B) For a group of contracts, a bilateral modification of at least one contract shall be made to reflect the negotiated settlement for a group of contracts, and unilateral modifications may be made, as appropriate, to other contracts in the group to reflect the negotiated settlement.
(iii) For contract closeout actions under paragraph (3) of this section, remaining contract balances—
(A) May be offset with balances in other contract line items within the same contract, regardless of the year or type of appropriation obligated to fund each contract line item and regardless of whether the appropriation obligated to fund such contract line item has closed; and
(B) May be offset with balances on other contracts, regardless of the year or type of appropriations obligated to fund each contract and regardless of whether such appropriations have closed.
(b) Consistent with the policy set forth in section 1 of this memorandum, the Secretary of Transportation shall consider the following:
(c) In carrying out the review required by subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of Transportation shall coordinate with the members of the National Space Council.
(d) The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall coordinate to examine all existing U.S. Government requirements, standards, and policies associated with commercial space flight launch and re-entry operations from Federal launch ranges and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to minimize those requirements, except those necessary to protect public safety and national security, that would conflict with the efforts of the Secretary of Transportation in implementing the Secretary's responsibilities under this section.
(b) In carrying out the review required by subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of Commerce shall coordinate with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and, as appropriate, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
(c) Within 120 days of the date of the completion of the review required by subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, shall transmit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a legislative proposal to encourage expansion of the licensing of commercial remote sensing activities. That proposal shall be consistent with the policy set forth in section 1 of this memorandum.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of Commerce shall transmit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a legislative proposal to create within the Department of Commerce an entity with primary responsibility for administering the Department's regulation of commercial space flight activities.
(b) Within 120 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and in coordination with the members of the National Space Council, shall provide to the President, through the Executive Secretary of the National Space Council, a report on improving the global competitiveness of the United States space sector through radio frequency spectrum policies, regulation, and United States activities at the International Telecommunication Union and other multilateral forums.
(a) initiate a review of export licensing regulations affecting commercial space flight activity;
(b) develop recommendations to revise such regulations consistent with the policy set forth in section 1 of this memorandum and with applicable law; and
(c) submit such recommendations to the President, through the Vice President, no later than 180 days from the date of this memorandum.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by
(d) The Secretary of Transportation is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the