| Page Range | 35435-35621 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 35442 - Review and Approval of Projects; Hearings and Enforcement Actions | |
| 82 FR 35621 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Lebanon | |
| 82 FR 35435 - Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 35523 - Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlement for the Computer Circuits Superfund Site, Hauppauge, Suffolk County, New York | |
| 82 FR 35443 - Final Waiver and Extension of the Project Period; National Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood Longitudinal Data Systems | |
| 82 FR 35524 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10397-Citizens Bank of Northern California; Nevada City, California | |
| 82 FR 35581 - Advisory Committee Charter Renewals | |
| 82 FR 35526 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 35546 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: R & D Systems, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 35443 - Safety Zones; Point to LaPointe Swim; LaPointe, WI | |
| 82 FR 35548 - Nominations for the Task Force on Apprenticeship Expansion; Correction | |
| 82 FR 35546 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Isosciences, LLC | |
| 82 FR 35547 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Sigma-Aldrich International GMBH | |
| 82 FR 35539 - Intent To Prepare a Draft National Environmental Policy Act Analysis and Associated Documents for LCRA Transmission Services Corporation's Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan, TX | |
| 82 FR 35542 - Filing of Plats of Survey: California | |
| 82 FR 35546 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooper, Ative Research and Production Act of 1993-Vehicle To Infrastructure Consortium | |
| 82 FR 35537 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Lender Qualifications for Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP) Guide | |
| 82 FR 35538 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Section 8 Renewal Policy Guide | |
| 82 FR 35545 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1029-0091; Requirements for Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations on Indian Lands | |
| 82 FR 35516 - Revised Non-Foreign Overseas per Diem Rates | |
| 82 FR 35524 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 35522 - Notice of Public Hearing and Business Meeting August 16 and September 14, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 35578 - Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R) Notice of Request for Clearance of a New Information Collection: Annual Tank Car Facility Survey | |
| 82 FR 35524 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10395-The First National Bank of Florida Milton, Florida | |
| 82 FR 35523 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10381-LandMark Bank of Florida Sarasota, Florida | |
| 82 FR 35507 - Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part; 2016-2017 | |
| 82 FR 35535 - National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: Meeting | |
| 82 FR 35556 - Information Collection: NRC Form 5, “Occupational Dose Record for a Monitoring Period” | |
| 82 FR 35451 - Ensuring a Safe Environment for Community Residential Care Residents; Correction | |
| 82 FR 35509 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 35555 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Overhead and Gantry Cranes Standard | |
| 82 FR 35549 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Portable Fire Extinguishers Standard | |
| 82 FR 35550 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Rigging Equipment for Material Handling | |
| 82 FR 35552 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Process for Expedited Approval of an Exemption for Prohibited Transaction, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1996-62 | |
| 82 FR 35551 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Anhydrous Ammonia Storage and Handling Standard | |
| 82 FR 35548 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Standard for Construction and General Industry and Electrical Protective Equipment for Construction and General Industry | |
| 82 FR 35553 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Requirements for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Training Institute Education Centers Program and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Outreach Training Program | |
| 82 FR 35554 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Hydrostatic Testing Provision of the Portable Fire Extinguishers Standard | |
| 82 FR 35528 - Information Collection; Federal Acquisition Regulation: Buy American, Trade Agreements, and Duty-Free Entry | |
| 82 FR 35534 - Developing a Framework for Regulatory Use of Real-World Evidence; Public Workshop | |
| 82 FR 35507 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 35457 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Fishing Year 2017; Recreational Management Measures | |
| 82 FR 35526 - Baxter International Inc., Claris Lifesciences Limited, and Arjun Handa; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
| 82 FR 35530 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 35575 - Capital Southwest Corporation | |
| 82 FR 35509 - Review of National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments Designated or Expanded Since April 28, 2007; Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment | |
| 82 FR 35580 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 35578 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Forms W-8BEN, W-8BEN-E, W-8ECI, W-8EXP, and W-8IMY | |
| 82 FR 35579 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 1099-A | |
| 82 FR 35576 - C3 Capital Partners III, L.P.; License No. 07/07-0118; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest | |
| 82 FR 35532 - Cardiac Troponin Assays; Public Workshop; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 35536 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 35536 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 35577 - Annual Meeting of the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards Office of the National Ombudsman | |
| 82 FR 35577 - National Regulatory Fairness Hearing Region III Regulatory Fairness Board | |
| 82 FR 35499 - Television Broadcasting Services; Anchorage, Alaska | |
| 82 FR 35541 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Homeliving Programs and School Closure and Consolidation | |
| 82 FR 35562 - Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Twenty-Eight Substantive Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Twentieth Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan | |
| 82 FR 35571 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Thirty-Ninth Amendment to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis | |
| 82 FR 35581 - Notice of Establishment of the Creating Options for Veterans' Expedited Recovery Commission (COVER Commission) | |
| 82 FR 35573 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 35566 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To Amend the Exchange Opening Process | |
| 82 FR 35557 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend Various Rules in Connection With a System Migration to Nasdaq INET Technology | |
| 82 FR 35563 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Expand the Application of the Family-Issued Securities Charge | |
| 82 FR 35557 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Bitcoin Investment Trust Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 | |
| 82 FR 35536 - Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 35445 - Definitions and Selection Criteria That Apply to Direct Grant Programs | |
| 82 FR 35577 - Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans Interest Rate for Fourth Quarter FY 2017 | |
| 82 FR 35443 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Carquinez Strait, Martinez, CA | |
| 82 FR 35500 - Private Investment Project Procedures | |
| 82 FR 35439 - National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program | |
| 82 FR 35451 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Regional Haze Best Available Retrofit Technology Measure for Verso Luke Paper Mill | |
| 82 FR 35530 - Health Insurance MarketplaceSM | |
| 82 FR 35510 - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Dismantling of the Original East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge | |
| 82 FR 35437 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Texas Towns; Pampa, TX and Seminole, TX | |
| 82 FR 35438 - Amendment of Class E Airspace, Dixon, WY | |
| 82 FR 35468 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Small Electric Motors and Electric Motors | |
| 82 FR 35508 - Export Trade Certificate of Review | |
| 82 FR 35478 - Real Estate Appraisals | |
| 82 FR 35454 - Air Plan Approval; CT; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 Ozone Standard | |
| 82 FR 35493 - Emergency Mergers-Chartering and Field of Membership | |
| 82 FR 35542 - Protocol for Categorical Exclusions Supplementing the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act for Certain National Indian Gaming Commission Actions and Activities | |
| 82 FR 35584 - Recordkeeping Requirements for Qualified Financial Contracts | |
| 82 FR 35500 - Evaluation of Existing Acquisition Regulations; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 35498 - Evaluation of Existing Federal Management and Federal Property Management Regulations; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 35500 - Evaluation of Existing Leasing Acquisition Regulations; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 35498 - Federal Travel Regulation System; Evaluation of Existing Federal Travel Regulation; Extension of Comment Period |
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Perry Lefors Field, Pampa, TX and Gaines County Airport, Seminole, TX. Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDB) and cancellation of NDB approaches makes it necessary to implement new area navigation (RNAV) procedures for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, September 14, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Walter Tweedy (prepared by Ron Laster), Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5802.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace at Perry Lefors Field, Pampa, TX and Gaines County Airport, Seminole, TX to ensure the safety of IFR operations at these airports.
The FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Perry Lefors Field, Pampa, TX. Specifically, the action removed the segment 3 miles each side of the 354° bearing from the Pampa NDB extending from the 7.3-mile radius to 10.1 miles north of the airport, and reduces the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the airport from a 7.3-mile radius to a 6.4-mile radius.
This action also modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Gaines County Airport, Seminole, TX. by removing the segment 2.5 miles each side of the 189° bearing from the Gaines CO NDB extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 7.7 miles south of the airport.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Pampa (NDB), and Gaines County NDB and cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures at these airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airports.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Perry Lefors Field.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of Gaines County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Dixon Airport, Dixon, WY, to support the implementation of new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport for the safety and management of controlled airspace within the national airspace system.
Effective 0901 UTC, October 12, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Dixon Airport, Dixon, WY, to support the implementation of new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
On June 2, 2017, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Dixon Airport, Dixon, WY. Controlled airspace is established within a 7-mile radius of Dixon Airport with a segment 8 miles wide (4 miles each side of a 045° bearing from the airport) extending to 15.5 miles northeast of the airport to support new RNAV (GPS) instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. This action ensures the safety and management of aircraft within the national airspace system as we transition from ground-based navigation aids to a satellite-based Global Navigation Satellite System.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Dixon Airport, and within 4 miles each side of a 045° bearing from the airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 15.5 miles northeast of the airport.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Direct final rule.
This direct final rule makes nonsubstantive changes to Agency regulations to correct citations and office titles.
This direct final rule is effective September 29, 2017. Comments due on or before August 30, 2017. If adverse comments are received, NASA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Comments must be identified with RIN 2700-AE00 and may be sent to NASA via the
Lenell Allen, Office of Education, NASA Headquarters, telephone (202) 358-1762.
NASA has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it makes nonsubstantive changes to correct citations and office titles. No opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments are expected. However, if the Agency receives a significant adverse comment, it will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the
The National Aeronautics and Space Act (the Space Act), 51 U.S.C. 20113(a), authorizes the Administrator of NASA to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing the manner of its operations and the exercise of the powers vested in it by law.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final
E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) requires regulations be reviewed for Federalism effects on the institutional interest of states and local governments, and if the effects are sufficiently substantial, preparation of the Federal assessment is required to assist senior policy makers. The amendments will not have any substantial direct effects on state and local governments within the meaning of the E.O. Therefore, no Federalism assessment is required.
This final rule does not contain an information collection requirement that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Colleges and universities.
Accordingly, under the authority of the National Aeronautics and Space Act, as amended, NASA amends part 1259 as follows:
Pub. L. 100-147, 101 Stat. 869-875; Sec. 3, Pub. L. 111-314, 124 Stat. 3382; 51 U.S.C. 40301-40311.
(a) This part 1259 establishes the policies, responsibilities, and procedures relative to the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program established by Title II of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Authorization Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-147, 101 Stat. 869-875, now codified at 51 U.S.C. 40301-40311 as a result of Sec. 3, Pub. L. 111-314, 124 Stat. 3382). This statute authorizes the Administrator of NASA, in order to carry out the purposes of the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Act (the Act), to accept conditional or unconditional gifts and donations; to accept and use funds from other Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities; to make awards with respect to such needs or problems; and to designate Space Grant colleges. It further directs the Administrator to establish a graduate fellowship program to provide educational assistance to qualified individuals in fields related to space and to establish an independent committee known as the Space Grant Review Panel to review and advise the Administrator with respect to Space Grant programs.
(b)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(n)
(a) In compliance with the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Act (51 U.S.C. 40301-40311), it shall be NASA's purpose to:
(1) Increase the understanding, assessment, development, and utilization of space resources by promoting a strong educational base, responsive research and training activities, and broad and prompt dissemination of knowledge and techniques;
(2) Utilize the abilities and talents of the universities of the Nation to support and contribute to the exploration and development of the resources and opportunities afforded by the space environment;
(3) Encourage and support the existence of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary programs of space research to engage in activities of training (including teacher education), research, and public service and to have cooperative programs with industry;
(4) Encourage and support the existence of consortia, composed of university and industry members, to advance the exploration and development of space resources in cases in which national objectives can be better fulfilled than through the programs of single universities;
(5) Encourage and support Federal funding for graduate fellowships in fields related to space;
(6) Support activities in colleges and universities generally for the purpose of creating and operating a network of institutional programs that will enhance achievements resulting from efforts under this Act; and
(7) Encourage cooperation and coordination among Federal agencies and Federal programs concerned with space issues.
(b) It shall be NASA's policy to designate Space Grant colleges, State Space Grant cooperating institutions, and Space Grant regional consortia and award fellowships, grants, contracts, and other transactions competitively in a merit-based review process.
(c) It shall be NASA's policy to designate and make awards without regard to age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, or sex.
(a) * * *
(1) In order to carry out the provisions of the Act, the Administrator is authorized to accept conditional or unconditional gifts or donations of services, money, or property; real, personal, or mixed; tangible or intangible. This authority is delegated to
(b) * * *
(1) To carry out the provisions of the Act, the Administrator is authorized to accept and use funds from other Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities to pay for awards under this program. This authority is delegated to the Director, NASA Space Grant Program.
(a) * * *
(1) Be funded by NASA in an amount not to exceed 66 percent of the total cost of the Space Grant award and/or fellowship program involved; or
(2) Be funded in an amount not to exceed 100 percent of its cost if the project award is funded by another Federal entity.
(b) A special Space Grant program or project award may be funded in an amount not to exceed 100 percent of the total cost of the special project if the Administrator or designee, the Director, NASA Space Grant Program, determines that:
(2) The probable benefit of such program or project outweighs the public interest in such matching requirement; and
(a) The opportunity to apply shall be announced by the Director, NASA Space Grant Program.
(c) The applications will be reviewed by a peer review merit selection panel appointed by the Director, NASA Space Grant Program.
The Act at Public Law 100-147, Section 206(d)(2) and (3), states that:
(b) However, funds may be used to lease any of the items listed in paragraph (a) of this section provided prior written approval is obtained from the Administrator or designee.
National needs awards may be awarded by the Administrator or designee, Director, NASA Space Grant Program, to meet such needs or problems relating to aerospace identified by the Space Grant Review Panel, by NASA officials, or by any person. NASA may fund such awards in an amount not to exceed 100 percent of the total cost of the program or project.
(b) The Director, NASA Space Grant Program shall establish a competitive, merit-based review process to examine unsolicited national needs proposals.
(a) The Administrator may designate Space Grant colleges, Space Grant college consortia, and Space Grant regional consortia in order to establish Federal/university partnerships to promote a strong educational base in the space and aeronautical sciences. These designated colleges and consortia will provide leadership for a network of American colleges and universities, industry, and state and local governments in space-related fields. The Administrator hereby delegates this authority to the Director, NASA Space Grant Program.
(b) Designation of Space Grant colleges, Space Grant college consortia, and Space Grant regional consortia shall be for five years. Designation of Space Grant colleges and consortia may be continued for more than five years based on the results of a merit review at the beginning of the fifth year. A claim arising in the United States should be submitted to the Chief Counsel of the NASA installation whose activities are believed to have given rise to the claimed injury, loss, or death. If the identity of such installation is not known, or if the claim arose in a foreign country, the claim should be submitted to the General Counsel, Headquarters, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546.
(d) Develop and implement programs of public service, interdisciplinary space-related programs, advisory activities, and cooperation with industry, research laboratories, state and local governments, and other colleges and universities, particularly institutions in their state and/or region with significantly large enrollments of minority students who are under-represented in science and technology; and
(e) Provide non-Federal matching funds (exclusive of in-kind contributions) for the Space Grant program equal to those provided by NASA.
(a) Any institution of higher education may be designated a Space Grant college if the Administrator or designee, Director, NASA Space Grant Program, determines that it has a balanced program of research, education, training, and advisory services in fields related to space, as further defined in the program announcement.
(b) Any association or other alliance of two or more persons may be designated a Space Grant regional consortium, if the Administrator or designee, Director, National Space Grant Program, determines that such association or alliance:
(c) The opportunity to apply for designation shall be announced by the Director, NASA Space Grant Program. The application procedures and evaluation guidelines for designation shall be included in the designation announcement.
The same limitations shall apply as stated in § 1259.203.
The Administrator or designee, Director, NASA Space Grant Program, may, for cause, after an opportunity for a hearing before a Federal administrative judge appointed by the Deputy Administrator, suspend or terminate the Space Grant designation of any institution or consortium.
The Space Grant fellowship program will provide educational and training assistance to qualified individuals at the graduate level in fields related to space. Awards will be made to institutions of higher education for fellowships. The student recipients shall be referred to as NASA Space Grant Fellows.
(a) All institutions that receive Space Grant fellowships shall use the awards to increase the pool of graduate students in fields related to space.
(b) The overall fellowship program shall be cognizant of the importance of achieving institutional and geographical diversity.
(a) All applicants for designation as Space Grant colleges and consortia shall apply for Space Grant fellowships.
(c) There shall be a merit review selection for Space Grant fellowship awards.
(b) Any students supported under this fellowship program shall not be funded for more than four years unless the Director, NASA Space Grant Program, makes an exception in writing.
An independent committee, the Space Grant Review Panel (Panel), which is not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, shall be established to advise the Administrator with respect to Space Grant program and project awards, the Space Grant fellowship program, and the designation and operation of Space Grant colleges and consortia. A majority of the voting members shall be individuals who, by reason of their knowledge, experience, or training, are especially qualified in one or more of the fields related to space. The other voting members shall be individuals who, by reason of their knowledge, experience, or training, are especially qualified in, or representative of, education, extension services, state government, industry, economics, planning, or any other activity related to the purposes of the Space Grant program.
(a) The Panel, to be located at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC, will be composed of ten (10) voting members who are not current NASA employees.
(b) The Panel shall include four representatives from Federal departments, agencies, or entities that have an interest in space programs or science and education, as well as six representatives from non-Federal entities.
(c) The non-Federal representatives shall include two persons who are directly involved with the Space Grant program at a Space Grant college or consortium, one person who is involved with the Space Grant program at a university that is not a designated Space Grant college, a university president or chancellor, one representative from a space-related industry, and the last person to be from whatever field the Administrator determines to be of greatest concern.
(f) The Administrator or designee, Director, NASA Space Grant Program, shall select a Chair and a Vice Chair for the Panel. The Vice Chair shall act as Chair in the absence or incapacity of the Chair.
(g) The Administrator or designee, Director, NASA Space Grant Program, may select NASA officials to serve as ex officio, non-voting members of the Panel.
Any member of the Panel who has a personal or financial interest in an issue for consideration before the Panel shall abstain from all discussion and voting on such issue.
(a) The Panel shall advise the Administrator and designee, Director, NASA Space Grant Program, with respect to:
(c) The Panel may exercise such powers as reasonably necessary in order to carry out the duties enumerated in paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) The Director, NASA Space Grant Program, shall appoint an Executive Secretary who shall perform administrative duties for the Panel.
In rule document 2017-13324, appearing on pages 29387-29397 in the Issue of Thursday, June 29, make the following correction:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge across the Carquinez Strait, mile 7.0 at Martinez, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to conduct emergency repairs. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.
This deviation is effective from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on August 1, 2017.
The docket for this deviation [USCG-2017-0728], is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516; email
Union Pacific Railroad has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge, mile 7.0, over the Carquinez Strait, at Martinez, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 70 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.5. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on August 1, 2017, to allow the bridge owner to conduct emergency repairs. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway, through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners, of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Point to LaPointe Swim in LaPointe, WI from 7 a.m. through 10:30 a.m. on July 29, 2017. This action is necessary to protect participants and spectators during the Point to LaPointe Swim. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or her designated on-scene representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.943(b) will be enforced from 7 a.m. through 10:30 a.m. on July 29, 2017, for the Point to LaPointe Swim safety zone, § 165.943(a)(7).
If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email LT John Mack, Chief of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (218)725-3818, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual Point to LaPointe Swim in 33 CFR 165.943(a)(7) from 7 a.m. through 10:30 a.m. on July 29, 2017, on all waters between Bayfield, WI and Madeline Island, WI within an imaginary line created by the following coordinates: 46°48′50.97″ N., 090°48′44.28″ W., moving southeast to 46°46′44.90″ N., 090°47′33.21″ W., then moving northeast to 46°46′52.51″ N. 090°47′17.14″ W., then moving northwest to 46°49′03.23″ N. 090°48′25.12″ W. and finally running back to the starting point.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port's designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or via telephone at (715) 779-5100. This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.943 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Final waiver and extension of the project period.
The Secretary waives the requirements that generally prohibit project periods exceeding five years and
As of July 31, 2017, the Secretary waives project period requirements and extends the project period.
Meredith Miceli, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5130, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5108. Telephone: (202) 245-6028.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
On February 27, 2017, we published a document in the
(1) Enable the Secretary to provide additional funds to the currently funded Center for an additional 12-month period; and
(2) Invite comments on the proposed extension of project period and waiver.
There are no substantive differences between the proposed waiver and extension and this final waiver and extension.
Eight commenters responded to our invitation to comment in the proposed waiver and extension. Seven of the eight supported the proposed waiver and extension. One expressed concern regarding the proposed extension.
In the proposed waiver and extension, we discuss the background and purposes of the Center and our reasons for proposing the waiver and extension.
For these reasons, the Secretary waives the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250, which prohibit project periods exceeding five years, as well as the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261(a) and (c)(2), which allow the extension of a project period only if the extension does not involve the obligation of additional Federal funds. The waiver allows the Department to issue a one-time FY 2017 continuation award of $6,500,000 to the Center originally funded in FY 2012.
Any activities carried out during the year of this continuation award must be consistent with, or a logical extension of, the scope, goals, and objectives of the grantee's application as approved in the 2012 competition. The requirements for continuation awards are set forth in the document inviting applications published in the
The Administrative Procedure Act requires that a substantive rule must be published at least 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided for good cause (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). All but one of the comments we received supported the proposed waiver and extension, and we have not made any substantive changes to the proposed waiver and extension. Therefore, the Secretary waives the delayed effective date to ensure there is no lapse in the TA services currently provided by the Center.
The Secretary certifies that this final waiver and extension of the project period will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The only entities that will be affected are the current grantee receiving Federal funds and any other potential applicants.
The Secretary certifies that this waiver and final extension will not have a significant economic impact on these entities because the extension of existing project periods imposes minimal compliance costs, and the activities required to support the additional year of funding will not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.
This final waiver and extension of the project period does not contain any information collection requirements.
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Education.
Final rule with request for comments.
The Secretary is issuing this rule in order to better align the regulations with the definition of “evidence-based” in the statutory authority. These changes mean that all competitive grant programs in the Department can continue to use the same provisions for evidence-based grant-making.
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.
•
•
Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202-5900. Telephone: (202) 205-5231 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
As noted above, these regulations are effective on July 31, 2017. However, for grant award competitions announced by the Department in the
These regulations do not establish substantive policy changes, but instead make technical changes to existing regulations. Since these regulations make only technical changes, a comment period is not required. However, we are interested in whether you think we should make any changes in these regulations and thus we are inviting your comments. We will consider these comments in determining whether to make further technical changes to the regulations or engage in additional rulemaking. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section or sections of the regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as the regulations. See
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirements of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these regulations. Please let us know of any additional ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the Department's programs and activities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these regulations by accessing
(1) Add one selection factor under the “Quality of the Project Design” criterion (§ 75.210(c)) to clarify that the Department may assess the extent to which an applicant's proposed project would represent a faithful adaptation of the evidence cited in support of its project. This factor is designed to assess whether projects would in fact implement the evidence cited as support, such that the project is “evidence-based” as described in section 8101(21)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
(2) For clarification, add two selection factors under the “Quality of the Project Evaluation” criterion (§ 75.210(h)) focused on (a) the qualifications of an applicant's evaluator; and (b) the sufficiency of resources to carry out the project evaluation.
We also revise two factors under the “Quality of the Project Design” criterion (§ 75.210(c)) and four factors under the “Quality of the Project Evaluation” criterion (§ 75.210(h)) to align terminology with the revised evidence definitions in 34 CFR part 77. Specifically, the regulations:
(1) Replace references to “evidence of promise” and “strong theory” with “promising evidence” and “demonstrates a rationale,” respectively.
(2) Align terminology with the revised definitions in 34 CFR 77.1(c) to include the term “project component” and clarify that the What Works Clearinghouse standards are described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbook.
We are making these revisions to improve the menu of selection criteria and factors by better aligning them to the evidence-related definitions in 34 CFR part 77. We make these revisions in conjunction with the amendments to the definitions in 34 CFR part 77, which, as discussed elsewhere in this document, we also revise to align with the evidence provisions in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and for clarity. The final regulations do not change the way the Secretary uses the current and new selection criteria and factors. The Secretary will continue to use selection criteria that are consistent with the purpose of the program and permitted under the applicable statutes and regulations.
§ 75.226 What procedures does the Secretary use if the Secretary decides to give special consideration to applications supported by strong evidence of effectiveness, moderate evidence of effectiveness, or evidence of promise?
These technical changes ensure that discretionary grant programs authorized by the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, can establish evidence-based priorities under § 75.226 and allow the Department the option to use one set of uniform evidence standards for all discretionary grant programs across each program's authorizing statute.
(1) Add a definition of “evidence-based” that incorporates the four levels of evidence in section 8101(21)(A) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
(2) Add a definition for “project component” as a single, clarifying term for what may be included in a project. The term clarifies that “policy” may be one component of a project; encompasses “an activity, strategy, or intervention,” to be consistent with the definition of “evidence-based” in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA; and includes “process,” “product,” and “practice,” which were in the evidence definitions in 34 CFR 77.1(c) (
(3) Remove the definitions of “large sample” and “multi-site sample” and instead incorporate them into the new “moderate evidence” and “strong evidence” definitions, to streamline these definitions.
(4) Replace the term “strong theory” with the term “demonstrates a rationale,” as this is the fourth level of evidence in the definition of “evidence-based” in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
(5) Replace the term “evidence of promise” with the term “promising evidence,” to align with the definition of “evidence-based” in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. In the definition of “promising evidence,” we clarify—
• How practice guides and intervention reports prepared by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), in alignment with the WWC standards incorporated in the definition, can provide promising evidence;
• How the Department already reviews single studies to determine whether they qualify under this level of evidence; and
• That certain quasi-experimental studies and experimental studies that do not meet WWC standards can qualify as promising evidence, as the previous “evidence of promise” definition implied.
• That correlational studies with statistical controls for selection bias must be well-designed and well-implemented to qualify as promising
(6) Replace the term “moderate evidence of effectiveness” with the term “moderate evidence,” which is used in the ESEA definition of “evidence-based.” In the definition of “moderate evidence,” we clarify—
• How practice guides and intervention reports prepared by the WWC, in alignment with the WWC standards incorporated in the definition, can provide moderate evidence;
• How the Department already reviews single studies to determine whether they qualify under this level of evidence; and
• Through language regarding “relevant findings,” that there must be a link between the proposed activities, strategies, and interventions and specific statistically significant effects, as required under the definition of “evidence-based” in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
(7) Replace the term “randomized controlled trial” with the term “experimental study,” to align with the definition of “evidence-based,” in section 8101(21) specifically with regard to “strong evidence.” In this new definition of “strong evidence,” we clarify the types of studies that can qualify as experimental studies—including, but not limited to, randomized controlled trials—as provided in the applicable WWC Handbook.
(8) Replace the term “strong evidence of effectiveness” with the term “strong evidence,” which is used in the definition of “evidence-based” in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. In the definition of “strong evidence,” we clarify—
• How practice guides and intervention reports prepared by the WWC, in alignment with the WWC standards incorporated in the definition, can provide promising evidence under the definition of “evidence-based” in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA;
• How the Department already reviews single studies to determine whether they qualify under this level of evidence; and
• Through language regarding “relevant findings,” that there must be a link between the proposed activities, strategies, and interventions and specific statistically significant effects, as required under the definition of “evidence-based” in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
(9) Replace the term “What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards” with the term “What Works Clearinghouse Handbook,” to clarify that the Handbook's procedures—not just standards—are relevant to evidence determinations, consistent with current practice. We also incorporate this Handbook, which provides a detailed description of the standards and procedures of the WWC, by reference. The WWC is an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which was established under the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. The WWC is an important part of IES's strategy to use rigorous and relevant research, evaluation, and statistics to inform decisions in the field of education. The WWC provides critical assessments of scientific evidence on the effectiveness of education programs, policies, products, and practices (referred to as “interventions”) and a range of publications and tools summarizing this evidence. The WWC meets the need for credible, succinct information by reviewing research studies; assessing the quality of the research; summarizing the evidence of the effectiveness of programs, policies, products, and practices on student outcomes and other outcomes related to education; and disseminating its findings broadly. This Handbook is available to interested parties at the Web site address included in the regulation (
(10) Make minor clarifying changes to the definition of “logic model” so it is more easily understood.
(11) Make minor clarifying changes to the definition of “quasi-experimental design study” to align with terminology in the revised § 77.1(c).
(12) Make minor clarifying changes to the definition of “relevant outcome” to align with terminology in the revised § 77.1(c).
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, these regulations make technical changes only and do not establish substantive policy. The regulations are therefore exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). However, the Department is providing a 30-day comment period and invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments. The Department will consider the comments received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments.
The APA also generally requires that regulations be published at least 30 days before their effective date, unless the agency has good cause to implement its regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). Again, because these final regulations are merely technical, there is good cause to make them effective on the day they are published.
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For Fiscal Year 2017, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. The final regulations are not a significant regulatory action. Therefore, the requirements of Executive Order 13771 do not apply.
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these final regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on an analysis of anticipated costs and benefits, the Department believes that these final regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action and have determined that these regulations would not impose additional costs. We believe any additional costs imposed by these final regulations will be negligible, primarily because they reflect technical changes which do not impose additional burden. Moreover, we believe any costs will be significantly outweighed by the potential benefits of making necessary clarifications and ensuring consistency among the Education Department General Administrative Regulations and section 8101(21) of ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
• Are the requirements in the regulations clearly stated?
• Do the regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
• Does the format of the regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
• Would the regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” is preceded by the symbol “§ ” and a numbered heading; for example, § 75.210.)
• Could the description of the regulations in the
• What else could we do to make the regulations easier to understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make these regulations easier to understand, see the instructions in the
The Secretary certifies that these regulations do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not require you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. We display the valid OMB control number assigned to a collection of information in final regulations at the end of the affected section of the regulations.
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Accounting, Copyright, Education, Grant programs—education, Inventions and patents, Private schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Youth organizations.
Education, Grant programs—education, Incorporation by reference.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends parts 75 and 77 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(xxviii) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by promising evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(xxix) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(xxx) The extent to which the proposed project represents a faithful adaptation of the evidence cited in support of the proposed project.
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards without reservations as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(ix) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards with or without reservations as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(x) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce promising evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)) about the project's effectiveness.
(xi) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.
(xii) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, and independence, of the evaluator.
(xiii) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes sufficient resources to conduct the project evaluation effectively.
(a) As used in this section, “strong evidence” is defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c).
(b) As used in this section, “moderate evidence” is defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c).
(c) As used in this section, “promising evidence” is defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c).
(d) If the Secretary determines that special consideration of applications supported by strong, moderate, or promising evidence is appropriate, the Secretary may establish a separate competition under the procedures in 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), or provide competitive preference under the procedures in 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2), for applications supported by—
(1) Evidence that meets the conditions in the definition of “strong evidence”;
(2) Evidence that meets the conditions in the definition of “moderate evidence”; or
(3) Evidence that meets the conditions in the definition of “promising evidence.”
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).
(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable (
(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case (
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—
(A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and
(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (
(i) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, that—
(A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias (
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “strong evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—
(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and
(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance by email at
(b) Institute of Education Sciences, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20202, (202) 245-6940,
(1) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook,
(2) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 2.1, September 2011, IBR approved for § 77.1.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule; correction.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is correcting a final rule that added to its medical regulations new standards that must be met by a Community Residential Care facility seeking approval by VA that was published in the
The correction is effective July 31, 2017.
Dr. Richard Allman, Chief Consultant, Geriatrics and Extended Care Services (10P4G), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-6750. (This is not a toll-free number.)
VA is correcting its final rule that added to its medical regulations new standards that must be met by a Community Residential Care facility seeking approval by VA.
In FR Doc. 17-15519 appearing on page 34408 in the
Approved:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision pertains to a best available retrofit technology (BART) alternative measure for the Verso Luke Paper Mill (the Mill) submitted by the State of Maryland. Maryland requests new emissions limits for sulfur dioxide (SO
This final rule is effective on August 30, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0783. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by email at
Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused by air pollution, principally by fine particulate matter (PM
In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress established a program to protect and improve visibility in the Nation's national parks and wilderness areas.
The RHR requires each state's regional haze implementation plan to contain emission limitations representing best available retrofit technology (BART) and schedules for compliance with BART for each source subject to BART, unless the state demonstrates that an emissions trading program or other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions. The requirements for alternative measures are established at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
In addition to demonstrating greater reasonable progress towards improving
Maryland's regional haze SIP was submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on February 13, 2012 and approved by EPA in June 2012.
On May 30, 2017 (82 FR 24614), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of the BART alternative measure for the Verso Luke Paper Mill. No comments were received in response to EPA's proposed rulemaking notice. The formal SIP revision (#16-14) was submitted by the State of Maryland on November 28, 2016.
The SIP revision seeks to revise the BART strategy for the Verso Luke Paper Mill, specifically the emission limits for power boiler 25 for SO
MDE's analysis demonstrates that the alternative SO
Thus, with the additional SO
In addition, EPA finds that this SIP revision, which seeks to remove BART SO
EPA has reviewed Maryland's SIP revision seeking an alternative BART measure and emission limits for power boiler 24 (and SO
EPA also finds that this SIP revision meets the requirements of CAA section 110(l) and will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS, reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA requirement. Therefore, EPA is approving Maryland's November 28, 2016 SIP revision submittal as it meets CAA requirements.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 29, 2017. 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 pertaining to alternative BART emission limits for Verso Luke Paper Mill may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Connecticut. These SIP revisions consist of a demonstration that Connecticut meets the requirements to implement reasonably available control technology (RACT) for the two precursors of ground-level ozone, oxides of nitrogen (NO
This rule is effective on August 30, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0611. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1046, fax number (617) 918-0046, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
On April 6, 2017 (82 FR 16772), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Connecticut. The NPR proposed approval of a demonstration that Connecticut meets the RACT requirements for NO
The specific details of Connecticut's RACT certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and its three NO
EPA is approving Connecticut's demonstration that it meets the CAA RACT requirements for NO
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the sections of the State of Connecticut Regulation of Department of Energy and Environmental Protection noted in this final rulemaking. 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);
• 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 September 29, 2017. 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(90) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Section 22a-174-38, subsections (a), (c), (d), (i), (j), (k), and (l) were revised as published in the Connecticut Law Journal, volume 78, no. 17, on October 25, 2016. Subsection (d) is removed from the SIP without replacement. See paragraph (116)(i)(A).
(97) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Section 22a-174-22c, subsection (g)(3) is removed from the SIP without replacement effective December 22, 2016. See paragraph (116)(i)(B).
(116) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection on September 16, 2016, and January 24, 2017.
(i)
(10) Subsection (a).
(B) Regulation of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Concerning NO
(1) Section 22a-174-22e, Control of nitrogen oxides emissions from fuel-burning equipment at major stationary sources of nitrogen oxides, with the exception of, within paragraph (l)(7), the phrase “or under procedures in RCSA section 22a-174-5(d).”;(2) Section 22a-174-22f, High daily NO
(3) Section 22a-174-18,, revised subsection (j)(6);
(4), Section 22a-174-8(b)(2);
(5) Section 22a-174-22c, subsection (g)(3);
(6) Section 22a-174-38, revised subsections (b)(1) through (6).
(h) In its July 18, 2014 submittal to EPA pertaining to reasonably available control technology requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, the State of Connecticut certified to the satisfaction of EPA that no sources are located in the state that are covered by the following Control Technique Guidelines:
(1) Automobile coatings;
(2) Large petroleum dry cleaners;
(3) Fiberglass boat manufacturing;
(4) Equipment leaks from natural gas and gasoline processing plants;
(5) Petroleum refineries;
(6) Control of refinery vacuum producing systems;
(7) Wastewater separators and process unit turnarounds; and
(8) Flatwood paneling coatings.
(q) Approval—Revisions to the Connecticut State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on July 18, 2014. The SIP revision satisfies the requirement to implement reasonably available control technology (RACT) for sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This action sets the recreational management measures for Gulf of Maine cod and haddock for the remainder of the 2017 fishing year. This action prohibits recreational possession of cod, reduces the haddock bag limit, and implements a new closed season for haddock in the fall. The intended effect of this action is to reduce catch of cod and haddock in order to ensure that fishing year 2017 recreational catch limits are not exceeded.
Effective July 27, 2017.
Copies of a supplemental environmental assessment (EA) to Framework Adjustment 55 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan prepared by the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and Northeast Fisheries Science Center; and the Framework 55 EA prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council for this rulemaking are available from: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The Framework 55 EA and supplement are also accessible via the Internet at:
Emily Keiley, Fishery Management Specialist, phone: 978-281-9116; email:
Under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP), sub-annual catch limits (sub-ACL) for the recreational fishery are established for each fishing year for Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod and haddock. The regulations at 50 CFR 648.89(f)(3) authorize the Regional Administrator, in consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), to modify the recreational management measures for the upcoming fishing year to ensure that the recreational fishery achieves, but does not exceed, the recreational fishery sub-ACLs. The proposed rule for this action (82 FR 24086; May 25, 2017) provides details
Because of repeated recreational fishery sub-ACL overages (haddock the last five years and cod three of five years) and the model's prediction that the NEFMC's recommended measures have only a 50-percent probability of keeping haddock catch below the sub-ACL, we considered whether it may be prudent to implement a more conservative fall closure that would likely have a higher probability of constraining haddock catch to the sub-ACLs. There are four primary reasons that the Council's proposed measures would sufficiently constrain catch to the sub-ACL's and were more consistent with the FMPs goals and objectives than the closed area measure we presented: (1) The Council's measures include a new fall closed season, cod prohibition, and a more conservative haddock bag limit; (2) improved information used in the bioeconomic model this year provides greater confidence in its predictions compared to previous years; (3) the interactions between GOM cod and haddock and the status of each of these stocks; and (4) newly available commercial catch data show a strong likelihood that overall GOM haddock catch will be under the total ACL for 2016 and, that the recreational sub-ACL and AM system combined with the overall ACL is effectively constraining catch.
We presented a more conservative closure season for comments to closely consider whether the Council's proposed accountability measures would sufficiently account for management uncertainty, prevent GOM cod and haddock catch overages, and provide an opportunity for the fishery to attain its allowable catch. We have determined that the more conservative measure is not necessary. The measures proposed by the Council are more conservative than the 2016 management measures. The possession of cod is being prohibited, the haddock bag-limit has been reduced, and a new fall closure is being implemented. We expect that these measures will allow the recreational fishery to achieve, but not exceed their sub-ACLs.
We also considered the improved performance of the model. The model projects recreational catch using economic information from an angler choice experiment survey and biological information about the current stock structure for the GOM cod and haddock stocks with historical catchability data from recreational anglers. Recent modifications to the model, including the incorporation of new data, improved its ability to accurately estimate recreational catches, and thus increases our confidence in the management measures based on its output. Specifically, the model now includes data from 2015, when cod possession was prohibited for the first time, and as a result, the model is better able to estimate the impact of prohibiting cod on the number of angler trips and catch of cod and haddock. While we have relied on the model using similar buffers in the past, the model is now improved, providing greater confidence in the outputs.
When evaluating the merit of each fall closure option, we considered the impacts on both haddock and cod. GOM cod is overfished and overfishing is occurring, but GOM haddock is a healthy stock. The more conservative closed area we sought comments on is estimated to have an increased probability of constraining GOM haddock catch to the sub-ACL (70 percent), but is projected to result in slightly increased GOM cod catch. Given the poor status of GOM cod, an option that is projected to increase GOM cod catch is a concern. We determined that the risk associated with increasing GOM cod catch outweighed the potential benefits of a slightly higher probability of limiting GOM haddock catch to the sub-ACL especially given the model improvements.
Last, newly available commercial catch data for 2016 show that overall catch is being effectively constrained. The newly available data shows that that the total commercial catch for GOM haddock was only 66 percent of the commercial ACL. The recreational sub-ACL is only a small portion of the overall ACL. Thus, despite a relatively minor overage in the recreational fishery, total 2016 GOM haddock catch, is expected to be below the overall ACL.
Because the recreational measures currently in place for GOM cod and haddock are not expected to constrain fishing year 2017 catch to the sub-ACLs, we are adjusting management measures for the remainder of the fishing year, as recommended by the NEFMC. Effective July 27, 2017, recreational possession of GOM cod will be prohibited. The minimum size for GOM haddock is unchanged, but the bag limit is reduced from 15 fish to 12 fish, and a fall closed season has been added to the existing spring closure. These measures are summarized in Table 1, along with information on the current measures for comparison.
Recreational catch and effort data are estimated by the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). A peer-reviewed bioeconomic model, developed by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, was used to estimate 2017 recreational GOM cod and haddock mortality under various
The final measures implemented by this action for the 2017 fishing year, as recommended by the NEFMC, are expected to result in a decrease in the number of trips taken by anglers, and decreased catch, in comparison to retaining the current measures, which is projected to allow the recreational fishery to reach, but not exceed, the 2017 recreational sub-ACLs (Table 2).
We have made numerous administrative changes under the authority of section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act that are necessary and consistent with the FMP's goals and objectives. In § 648.89(b), we added an exception to the minimum fish sizes for GOM cod and haddock to allow vessels to transit the GOM Regulated Mesh Area while in possession of cod and haddock caught outside the area, provided those fish meet the minimum sizes specified for fish caught outside the area. Amendment 16 to the FMP included seasonal closures of the GOM recreational fishery for cod and haddock, and also implemented a possession limit exemption to allow vessels to transit the GOM when it was closed while in possession of fish legally caught outside the area. At that time, there was a single minimum size for cod, and a single minimum size for haddock, regardless of where the fish were caught and the transiting provision included in Amendment 16 did not address minimum fish size restrictions.
Subsequently, we changed the minimum sizes for GOM cod and haddock as part of the proactive accountability measures. We adjust the recreational measures for only GOM cod and haddock because these are the only stocks allocated a recreational sub-ACL. This has created a complicated system in which vessels may transit the GOM Regulated Mesh Area with fish legally caught outside the area in excess of the GOM possession limits, but those vessels must comply with the most restrictive minimum size of the two areas, rather than the minimum size applicable to where the fish were caught. The intent of this change is to simplify the existing transiting exemption by allowing any cod and haddock legally caught outside the GOM to be possessed by vessels transiting the GOM to ensure consistent implementation of the existing transiting provision.
In § 648.89(e), we revised the text specifying the requirements for the letters of authorization allowing charter and party boats to fish in the GOM closed areas and the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area to improve readability. In paragraph (e)(3), we also corrected the name of the NMFS office issuing letters of authorization from the “Northeast Regional Office” to the “Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office.”
In § 648.89(f)(2)(ii), we removed text prohibiting the Regional Administrator from adjusting the possession limit for GOM cod while recreational possession of GOM cod was prohibited by the Northeast Multispecies FMP. In 2016, Framework Adjustment 55 removed this prohibition, but the final rule implementing Framework Adjustment 55 inadvertently failed to remove this text. This change is intended to correct the regulations to accurately reflect the NEFMC's intent in Framework Adjustment 55.
We received 67 comments on the proposed 2017 recreational measures. Two comments received were not germane to the proposed measures. We received pertinent comments from the NEFMC, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, the Stellwagen Bank Charter Boat Association, and 63 members of the public.
Although it is not ideal to change the recreational measures after the start of the fishing year this year, it is necessary that the revised measures be implemented before the recreational cod season opens. The recreational cod season is closed under status quo measures until August 1. While late implementation is not ideal, the timing of this action will still effectively prohibit the retention of cod in the recreational fleet.
Because of the challenging timeline of the current recreational process, we are working with the NEFMC to consider possible ways to modify the regulatory process so regulations for the recreational fishery can be finalized sooner. Changes to the recreational process would be incorporated into Framework 57, which is intended to be implemented for the 2018 fishing year. Additionally, any changes to the recreational measures for fishing year 2018 would be based on the 2018 catch limits and an analysis of expected catch in 2018.
Although there are uncertainties in the bioeconomic model, the Northeast Multispecies FMP incorporates both scientific uncertainty and management uncertainty in setting annual catch limits. These uncertainty buffers increase the likelihood of achieving management targets and reduce the risk of overfishing. Among other factors discussed in the preamble, the incorporation of scientific and management uncertainty already built into setting recreational catch limits was a consideration in our determination to adopt the less conservative measures for haddock.
The average weight of haddock caught by recreational anglers in 2016 (1.7 lb; 0.8 kg) was the same as the average weight in 2015, while the average number of haddock caught per angler trip nearly doubled (from 5.5 to 14) between 2015 and 2016. This information does not demonstrate a strong benefit to further reduce the minimum size for haddock at this time.
The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, determined that these measures are necessary for the conservation and management of the Northeast multispecies fishery and that the measures are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause to make this rule effective immediately upon filing with the Office of the Federal Register. This final rule implements reductions from the recreational management measures implemented for fishing year 2016, and that currently remain in place. In fishing year 2016, the GOM cod recreational sub-ACL was exceeded by 92 percent and recreational sub-ACL is unchanged for 2017. GOM cod are overfished and overfishing is occurring, and it is critical that the 2017 recreational management measures, which prohibit the retention of cod, go into effect before the season opens to ensure that the catch limit is not exceeded again. Fishing effort and catch are both strong in summer months. Further delay of the implementation of these measures increases the likelihood of quota overages that could require implementation of even more restrictive measures in a future action. If this rule is not effective on, or before, August 1, then the GOM recreational cod season will open and anglers will be able to retain these fish. A targeted fishery would result in an increase in cod catch not only due to retention of cod, but due to discards of cod which are higher during an open season than when anglers are intentionally avoiding cod altogether to focus on other species. Thus, delaying implementation of these measures would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring that GOM cod catch limits are not exceeded.
The Northeast Multispecies fishing year begins on May 1 of each year and continues through April 30 of the following calendar year. The collection and processing of recreational data creates a very compressed period for consideration of options, the public NEFMC process, and the rulemaking process prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act. We consulted with the NEFMC in January 2017. On January 25, 2017, the NEFMC voted to recommend to us the suite of recreational measures we are implementing. In addition to this collaborative consultation process prescribed for the proactive AM, we must fully evaluate and analyze the measures under consideration. This involves not only the bioeconomic model output presented in January, but also includes an environmental analysis consistent with the NEPA requirements, and a systematic review of compliance with other applicable laws. In order to evaluate the impact of the 2016 recreational catch overages, and the proposed management alternatives, we needed to consider them in the context of total catch and catch limits. Final data on commercial catch of GOM cod and haddock, and the portion of the catch limit that was utilized, was not available until July 5, 2017.
For the reasons outlined, NMFS finds that there is good cause to waive the otherwise applicable requirement to provide a 30-day delay in implementation.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared for this action. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA and NMFS responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. The FRFA includes sections of the preamble (
Our responses to all of the comments received on the proposed rule, including those that raised significant issues with the proposed action, or commented on the economic analyses summarized in the IRFA, can be found in the Comments and Responses section of this rule. In the proposed rule we solicited comments on two options. The majority of comments supported implementing the measures that the NEFMC recommended, including the fall haddock closure from September 17 through October 31. Most of these comments expressed disappointment that the recommended measures were not implemented in time for the May 1 start to the fishing year and raised concerns that the delay would cause further overages and result in additional restrictions on the recreational fishery in 2018. There was one comment on the IRFA. The NEFMC pointed out that the bioeconomic model cannot estimate recreational effort at a time scale of less than a month. Given this restriction it is not clear that the model can accurately capture the impacts of a closure that discourages recreational fishing during the Labor Day weekend, the last 3-day weekend of the summer and an
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small commercial finfishing or shellfishing business as a firm with annual receipts (gross revenue) of up to $11.0 million. A small for-hire recreational fishing business is defined as a firm with receipts of up to $7.5 million. Having different size standards for different types of fishing activities creates difficulties in categorizing businesses that participate in multiple fishing related activities. For purposes of this assessment business entities have been classified into the SBA-defined categories based on which activity produced the highest percentage of average annual gross revenues from 2013-2015, the most recent 3-year period for which data are available. This classification is now possible because vessel ownership data have been added to Northeast permit database. The ownership data identify all individuals who own fishing vessels. Using this information, vessels can be grouped together according to common owners. The resulting groupings were treated as a fishing business for purposes of this analysis. Revenues summed across all vessels in a group and the activities that generate those revenues form the basis for determining whether the entity is a large or small business.
This rule includes closed seasons in addition to possession limits and size limits. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that for-hire businesses are directly affected by all three types of recreational fishing restrictions. According to the FMP, it is unlawful for the owner or operator of a charter or party boat issued a valid multispecies permit, when the boat is carrying passengers for hire, to:
• Possess cod or haddock in excess of the possession limits;
• Fish with gear in violation of the regulations; and/or
• Fail to comply with the applicable restrictions if transiting the GOM Regulated Mesh Area with cod or haddock on board that was caught outside the GOM Regulated Mesh Area.
As the for-hire owner and operator can be prosecuted under the law for violations of the proposed regulations, for-hire business entities are considered directly affected in this analysis. Anglers are not considered “entities” under the RFA and thus economic impacts on anglers are not discussed here.
For-hire fishing businesses are required to obtain a Federal charter/party multispecies fishing permit in order to carry passengers to catch GOM cod or haddock. Thus, the affected businesses entities of concern are businesses that hold Federal multispecies for-hire fishing permits. While all business entities that hold for-hire permits could be affected by changes in recreational fishing restrictions, not all business that hold for-hire permits actively participate in a given year. Those who actively participate,
Using vessel ownership information developed from Northeast Federal permit data and Northeast vessel trip report data, it was determined that the 208 actively participating for-hire vessels are owned by 191 unique fishing business entities. The vast majority of the 208 fishing businesses were solely engaged in for-hire fishing, but some also earned revenue from shellfish and/or finfish fishing. The highest percentage of annual gross revenues for all but 18 of the fishing businesses was from for-hire fishing. In other words, the revenue from for-hire fishing was greater than the revenue from shellfishing and the revenue from finfish fishing for all but 18 of the business entities.
According to the SBA size standards, small for-hire businesses are defined as firms with annual receipts of up to $7.5 million, and small commercial finfishing or shellfishing business as firms with annual receipts (gross revenue) of up to $11.0 million. Average annual gross revenue estimates calculated from the most recent three years (2013-2015) indicate that none of the 191 for-hire business entities had annual receipts of more than $5.2 million from all of their fishing activities (for-hire, shellfish, and finfish). Therefore, all of the affected for-hire business entities are considered “small” by the SBA size standards and thus this action will not disproportionately affect small versus large for-hire business entities.
There are no reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
The action is authorized by the regulations implementing the Northeast Multispecies FMP. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
A total of seven combinations of recreational measures were presented to the Recreational Advisory Panel, the Groundfish Oversight Committee, and the NEFMC. This included the status quo and an option (presented as Option 1) that prohibited cod possession while retaining the current haddock measures that would not have restrained catch to the quotas, and thus, would not have accomplished the objective. The proposed options that would accomplish the objectives were the NEFMC recommended option (presented as Option 2) and the additional NMFS option (presented as Option 3), which are discussed in detail in the preamble of the proposed rule. The remaining three options (Options 4, 5, and 6 in Table 3) that would accomplish the objective were discussed by all three groups. These remaining options were rejected either because implementation was viewed as confusing to the public (
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (see
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 648 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2)
(ii)
(c)
(B)
(ii)
(B)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(7)
(B)
(ii)
(B)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(e)
(ii) A vessel fishing under charter/party regulations may not fish in the GOM Cod Spawning Protection Area specified at § 648.81(n)(1) during the time period specified in that paragraph, unless the vessel complies with the requirements specified at § 648.81(n)(2)(iii).
(2)
(3)
(i) The letter of authorization must be carried on board the vessel during the period of participation;
(ii) Fish species managed by the NEFMC or MAFMC that are harvested or possessed by the vessel, are not sold or intended for trade, barter or sale, regardless of where the fish are caught;
(iii) The vessel has no gear other than rod and reel or handline gear on board; and
(iv) For the GOM charter/party closed area exemption only, the vessel may not fish on a sector trip, under a NE multispecies DAS, or under the provisions of the NE multispecies Small Vessel Category or Handgear A or Handgear B permit categories, as specified at § 648.82, during the period of participation.
(f)
(2)
(3)
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 small electric motors, and whether new test procedures are needed for motors beyond those subject to the existing Federal test procedures. To inform interested parties and to facilitate this process, DOE has gathered data, identifying 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 applicability of the test procedure to additional motor categories (by topology, horsepower, non-standard construction,
Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before August 30, 2017.
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 III of this document.
The docket Web page can be found at
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:
Mary Greene, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1817. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by email:
Electric motors are included in the list of “covered equipment” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). Additionally, EPCA directed DOE, subject to a determination of feasibility and justification, to establish energy conservation standards and test procedure for small electric motors. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)) DOE's test procedures for small electric motors are prescribed at subpart X of 10 CFR part 431. DOE's test procedures for electric motors are prescribed at appendix B to subpart B of part 431. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish and amend test procedures for small electric motors, as well as provide relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or “the Act”),
Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) establishing Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Provisions of the Act include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316). EPCA includes specific authority to establish test procedures and standards for electric motors and small electric motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b), 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5) and 42 U.S.C. 6317(b))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 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. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA generally requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of a covered equipment during a representative average use cycle or period of use and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
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. 6314(b))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures 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. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) If amended test procedures are appropriate, DOE must publish a final rule to incorporate the amendments. If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to inform a potential test procedure rulemaking to satisfy the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA, which required that DOE publish, by July 07, 2016, either a final rule amending the test procedures for small electric motors, or a determination that amended test procedures are not required. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
DOE's current test procedure for small electric motors is located at 10 CFR 431.444. DOE prescribed test procedures for small electric motors on July 7, 2009. 74 FR 32059.
On June 24, 2016, DOE published a separate notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the certification, compliance, labeling, and enforcement of energy conservation standards for electric motors and small electric motors. 81 FR 41378 (June 2016 CCE NOPR). In the June 2016 CCE NOPR, DOE proposed to bring certification, compliance, and enforcement (CCE) regulations for electric motors and small electric motors under the general regulatory scheme of DOE's existing certification, compliance, and enforcement regulations for other covered products and equipment.
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues on which it seeks input to aid in considering whether or not new or amended test procedures for small electric motors. Specifically, DOE is requesting comment on any opportunities to streamline and simplify testing requirements for small electric motors.
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. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Pursuant to that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its regulations applicable to small electric motors consistent with the requirements of EPCA. DOE also requests comment on the benefits and burdens of adopting any industry/voluntary consensus-based or other appropriate test procedure, without modification.
1. DOE is considering revising the test procedures for small electric motors and establishing new test procedures for electric motors beyond those currently subject to existing test procedures.
DOE regulations define “electric motor” as a machine that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power. 10 CFR 431.12. EPCA defines the term “small electric motor” as a NEMA general-purpose alternating current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Standards Publication MG 1-1987 (MG 1 1987). (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(G))
Subpart X of 10 CFR part 431 includes test procedures for the three topologies of small electric motors: Capacitor-start induction-run (CSIR), capacitor-start capacitor-run (CSCR), and certain polyphase motors. In any potential rulemaking, DOE will consider amendments to the test procedures for a “small electric motor” as defined at 10 CFR 431.442. Were DOE to determine that a motor did not meet the EPCA definition of “small electric motor” and, therefore, is not subject to test procedures in subpart X of 10 CFR part 431, DOE may determine that such a motor would still be considered for test procedures as an “electric motor.”
DOE may consider setting test procedures for motors that are considered “small” by customers and the electric motor industry, but are not currently subject to the small electric motor test procedures. These motors may have similarities to motors that are currently regulated as small electric motors (such as horsepower) and may be used in similar applications. However despite these similarities, DOE is still determining whether these motors would be regulated as small electric motor or as electric motors under DOE regulations.
Regardless of the category under which they are regulated, if test procedures are adopted for these motors, DOE would define those categories (and exemptions) using technical and physical characteristics of those motors. DOE expects that this approach would describe the applicability of test procedures to particular motors without reference to statements of marketing or design intent.
In order to identify whether test procedures should be considered for additional motors, DOE is first reviewing which motors are and are not already subject to regulations. Motors of enclosed construction, non-continuous duty, and not meeting certain torque requirements are not addressed by the regulations in subpart B or subpart X of 10 CFR part 431. DOE may consider setting test procedures for some of these motors. Table II-2 lists the motor topologies that may be considered for test procedures.
Section 431.25 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 431 subjects certain 2-digit NEMA frame (56-frame) polyphase motors of enclosed construction and certain 3-digit polyphase motors to energy conservation standards. The electric motors regulated at 10 CFR 431.25 currently exclude two groups of motors: (1) Those with less than one horsepower and (2) polyphase motors of a 2-digit frame size (other than certain NEMA 56-frame size enclosed motors) with a horsepower greater than or equal to one. DOE may consider establishing test procedures for some of these motors with the intent is to primarily focus on motors considered small by customers and industry.
Only motors with a power rating of greater than or equal to 0.25 horsepower and less than or equal to 3 horsepower are subject to the regulations in subpart X to 10 CFR part 431. Should DOE consider a potential test procedure rulemaking, DOE does not expect at this time that it would propose revisions to the test procedures for polyphase enclosed motors greater than or equal to one horsepower in the NEMA 56-frame size because some of these motors are currently regulated in § 431.25 of subpart B to 10 CFR part 431.
If DOE determines to propose test procedures for categories of motors not currently subject to test procedures, DOE will reconsider a lower horsepower limit. Upon reviewing manufacturer catalogs, DOE found that the lowest horsepower with multiple manufacturers offering a wide range of motors was 0.125 hp. DOE will consider a minimum horsepower limit in any potential rulemaking.
Similarly, DOE would consider an upper horsepower limit in any rulemaking. The 3 hp upper limit for single-phase motors is based on a 2006 determination that DOE intends to review. 71 FR 38799 (July 10, 2006). DOE has since found that single-phase, 2-digit NEMA frame size motors that exceed 3 hp are available, along with single-phase motors inclusive of all frame sizes with up to 15 hp. DOE also found that polyphase 2-digit NEMA frame size motors, excluding those currently regulated at 10 CFR 431.25, exist up to 5 hp.
Based on the existing definitions discussed above, Table II-1 lists the motor categories, by horsepower and frame size, that may be considered for test procedures in any rulemaking. Frame size is not used as a limiting factor except in the case of polyphase motors for purposes of preventing overlap with the electric motors regulations listed at 10 CFR 431.25. The final list of motors subject to test procedures may be more limited than Table II-1 based on properties other than horsepower and frame size, as discussed later in this section.
A variety of motor topologies exist within the range described in Table II-1, including topologies (
Table II-4 lists various mechanical, electrical, and other design characteristics of motors such as the ability to operate submerged in a liquid (
The existing regulations for electric motors apply to a subset of electric motors characterized by nine design elements listed at 10 CFR 431.25(g), with the exceptions listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l). DOE could consider establishing a similar list of characteristics to delimit the categories of motors included in any potential small electric motor rulemakings, such as:
(1) Horsepower;
(2) Number of speeds (single, multiple, continuously variable);
(3) Motor topology;
(4) Duty rating;
(5) Enclosure construction;
(6) 60 hertz (Hz) sinusoidal power for alternating current (AC) motors;
(7) Input waveform (either AC or direct current (DC));
(8) Phase count (single-phase, polyphase);
(9) Frame size; and
(10) Other criteria presented in Table II-4.
Motors can have different speed capabilities, including single, multi, or (continuously) variable speeds. Variable and multi-speed motors can be tested with existing industry standards (see Table II-6) at a variety of operating points, but no single metric currently exists to quantify the performance of the variable or multi-speed motor. Variable or multi-speed capability provides the ability to save energy by more closely matching motor output to a varying load. DOE is considering whether to consider all speed capabilities in setting any potential new test procedures.
Motors can also have different topologies as listed in Table II-2. DOE has found test procedures that apply to all of these topologies for both induction and non-induction motors (see section II.C.1). Non-induction motors (such as permanent magnet motors) are often marketed as more efficient substitutes for induction motors, but currently have a lower market share. DOE is considering whether all motor topologies would be analyzed for potential new test procedures.
Motors can be described by their duty type, using either NEMA or IEC nomenclature. Duty type describes the operating profile the motor is designed to handle. For example, a continuous duty motor can operate for long periods of time at a steady load between required shut-down periods while intermittent-duty motors accumulate fewer annual operating hours Similar to the electric motors regulations described in subpart B of 10 CFR part 431, DOE is considering analyzing only continuous duty type motors for potential test procedures. DOE will consider whether any IEC duty types other than IEC duty type S1 correspond to a continuous duty type. For example, IEC duty types S9 and S10 can include an S1 reference rating, and may also be operated continuously.
Motors can be described by their enclosure construction—
An “air-over” motor is a unique variety of enclosure construction relating to a cooling method in which the motor is cooled by an airstream provided by a device or system separate from the motor. At the time of the December 2013 electric motors test procedure final rule, DOE lacked the necessary data to develop a test procedure for air-over motors. 78 FR 75973-75975 (December 13, 2013). As discussed in section II.C.1, DOE is investigating the potential to establish a test procedure for air-over motors.
A revised definition of air-over motor based on the physical features of a given motor may be needed to support potential test procedure. As part of the December 2013 electric motors test procedure final rule, DOE defined the term “air-over electric motor” as an electric motor rated to operate in and be cooled by the airstream of a fan or blower that is not supplied with the motor and whose primary purpose is providing airflow to an application other than the motor driving it. 78 FR 75973-75975. In other words, air-over electric motors do not have a factory-attached fan and require a separate means of forcing air over the frame of the motor. However, DOE notes that the absence of a fan is not a differentiating feature as some motors categories, such as totally-enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) motors, do not have internal fans or blowers. In terms of physical construction, DOE did not find any differences between air-over motors and non-air-over motors. For example, there is little difference between a totally-enclosed fan-cooled motor (TEFC) and a totally-enclosed air-over motor (TEAO). Based on these observations, DOE understands that what differentiates air-over motors from non-air-over motors is that they require the application of external cooling by a free flow of air to prevent overheating during continuous operation. In a TEAO, without the application of free flowing air, the internal motor winding temperatures would exceed the maximum permissible temperature. The risk of overheating can be verified by observing whether the motor's temperature rises during a rated load temperature test instead of stabilizing. During a rated load temperature test the motor is loaded at the rated full load using a dynamometer until it is thermally stable. The current industry standards incorporated by reference in the existing DOE small electric motors test procedure each contain a portion describing a rated load temperature test. Thermal stability is defined as the condition where the motor temperature does not change by more than 1 ° Cover 30 minutes or 15 minutes depending on the motor category (See section 5.8.4.4 of IEEE
AC motors are designed to operate at a particular frequency. In the United States, AC power is delivered at 60 Hz. For this reason, DOE is considering whether to continue to limit the scope of a potential test procedure to only AC motors that are designed to operate at 60 Hz. DOE notes that this approach includes motors designed to operate at 60 Hz that are also capable of operating at other frequencies (
Motors can be designed to operate at an input waveform of AC or DC. DOE has found test procedures that apply to both AC and DC motors. DC motors must be fed a DC waveform, but some DC motors are advertised as substitutes for AC motors because a rectifier can be placed between the AC power source and the DC motor to convert the AC power to DC. In many cases, the rectifier may be integrated with the motor, creating a drop-in replacement for AC motors (
Motors also are constructed with a particular frame size. Frame size most commonly refers to a height measurement between the centerline of the shaft and the bottom of the feet, but can also describe a motor's axial length. NEMA frame sizes are described in 2-, 3-, and 4-digit naming conventions. DOE has established regulations for small electric motors built in two-digit frame number series according to NEMA MG 1-1987 (
In a potential future rulemaking, any exemption from test procedures would likely be based on specific physical or design criteria that can be identified at the point of manufacture (
• Air-over electric motors;
• Component sets of an electric motor;
• Liquid-cooled electric motors;
• Submersible electric motors; and
• Inverter-only electric motors.
DOE adopted definitions for “air-over electric motors,” “component sets,” “liquid-cooled electric motors,” “submersible electric motors,” and “inverter-only electric motors” at 10 CFR 431.12. If DOE undertakes a test procedure rulemaking, it will evaluate the merits of adopting similar definitions and exemptions for motors with similar features. DOE will further investigate whether these categories of motors exist within the range of motors considered in any such rulemakings. For liquid-cooled, inverter-only, and submersible motors, DOE reviewed online manufacturer catalogs and one distributor's Web site and found at least one model corresponding to each of these three categories of motors that was within the horsepower ranges and frame sizes described in Table II-1.
An electric motor is a device that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power. Some motors may modify the electrical input via rectification, inversion, or other processes prior to generating a magnetic field within the motor. This electrical conversion process can take place via a device integrally connected to the motor, or via a device wired in-line between the power source and the motor. In a potential rulemaking, DOE plans to specify which components (
One example of a motor that includes electrical conversion is a DC brushless permanent magnet motor (commonly referred to as an electronically commutated motor [ECM]). Typically, the DC brushless permanent magnet motor is connected to AC power. The AC power is rectified into DC and inverted to a new waveform (
Although motor regulations currently apply to certain small electric motors (subpart X of 10 CFR part 431) and electric motors (subpart B of 10 CFR part 431), regulations do not cover certain varieties of motors that are used in pool pump applications. For example, enclosed motors of less than one output horsepower are not subject to the current test procedure or energy conservation standards, nor are multispeed motors.
The issue of the efficiency of electric motors used in dedicated purpose pool pumps (DPPP) was brought up by several stakeholders in comments submitted in response DOE's direct final rule for DPPPs. 82 FR 5650 (January 18, 2017). Several manufacturers suggested that an energy conservation standard for the motors used in DPPPs was needed in addition to the standards for DPPPs themselves. This included a manufacturer of the motors used in pool pump applications, Regal Beloit Corporation, manufacturers of pumps, Hayward Industries, Inc. and Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc., and a manufacturer of pool equipment, Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. (EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, Regal, No. 122 at pg. 1; Hayward, No. 125 at p. 1; Pentair, No. 132 at pp. 1-2; Zodiac No. 134 at pp. 1-2). Other commenters also argued for a specific pool pump motor standard, including the California Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOUs), the industry trade association (Association of Pool and Spa Professionals (APSP)), and two policy advocacy organizations (the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)). (EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008; CA IOUs, No. 130 at p. 2; APSP, No. 127 at p. 2; ASAP No. 133 at pp. 4-5; NRDC No. 121 at p. 4). In response to these comments, DOE published a notice announcing a public meeting pertaining to potential energy conservation standards for DPPP motors. 82 FR 30845 (July 3, 2017). In order to consider the need for a specific pool pump motor regulations, DOE is requesting information on the physical characteristics of motors used in pool pump applications and any applicable test procedures that DOE should consider.
The existing small electric motor test procedure uses motor average efficiency at full-load as the metric. 10 CFR 431.444. A manufacturer of small electric motors must determine the average efficiency, at full-load, of a basic model through testing and applying a sampling plan; or through the use of alternative methods for determining energy efficiency or energy use (also known as alternative efficiency determination methods, or “AEDMs”). 10 CFR 431.445. For electric motors, the existing test procedure uses the metric nominal full-load efficiency. Provisions for determining a basic model's efficiency through testing or with an AEDM are currently described in 10 CFR 431.17.
In a potential test procedure rulemaking, DOE could evaluate whether to use the same metric and establish the performance of small electric motors and newly regulated motors based on their tested average full-load efficiency or whether to use a different metric,
Pursuant to EPCA's requirement that DOE review a given test procedure at least once every 7 years, DOE will undertake a test procedure review.
DOE plans to (1) determine if the existing DOE test procedure requires revisions, and (2) determine whether new test procedures for any new motors identified in section II.A are needed (3) determine whether any new motors identified in section 11.A should be categorized as small electric motors or as electric motors are needed. If DOE develops test procedures for any new motors, it would consider either (1) adding testing instructions that modify the test methods currently incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.443, or (2) establishing new methods based on industry standards not currently incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 431.443.
The existing test procedure for small electric motors is codified at 10 CFR 431.443, 10 CFR 431.444, and 10 CFR 431.445. The referenced industry standards for each motor category are shown in Table II-5 in this RFI.
DOE reviewed existing industry standards from the IEEE, the CSA Group, and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and found existing test methods for all other motor topologies that DOE may consider in future regulations (see Table II-6). However, the existing test procedure may not apply to all existing mechanical designs or electrical features within a given motor category (
For air-over motors specifically, DOE plans to investigate testing instructions that would allow testing based on the same industry standards incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.443. In the past, as part of the December 2013 electric motors test procedure final rule, DOE investigated possible methods to test air-over electric motors and determined that it did not have sufficient information to overcome the practical challenges associated with testing air-over motors, such as providing a standard flow of cooling air from an external source that provides a constant velocity over the tested motor under defined ambient temperature and barometric conditions. Therefore, at the time, DOE did not establish any test methods for air-over motors. 78 FR 75926, 78 FR 75962, 75973-75975 (December 13, 2013).
DOE reviewed section 8.2.1 of IEEE 114-2010 and section 5 of CSA C747-09, which include provisions for testing air-over single-phase motors. Typically, the measurements according to these test standards are performed when the tested motor's winding is thermally stable.
NEMA published an air-over efficiency test standard which provides three testing methods for measuring the efficiency of single phase and polyphase air-over motors (NEMA Air-over Motor Efficiency Test Method).
DOE intends to review these test methods, and evaluate whether a similar approach for testing single-phase and polyphase air-over motors should be considered. DOE will also review the possibility of testing polyphase air-over motors using different target temperatures depending on the air-over motor's insulation class for polyphase motors.
DOE also is evaluating possible test procedures for motors with non-standard construction. These motors, which otherwise meet the definition of small electric motors, include motor variants such as motors with special shaft dimensions, motors with brakes, or motors with vertical mounting. For these motors, DOE plans on reviewing the applicability of the testing instructions in section 4 of appendix B to subpart B of part 431.
Finally, DOE is also evaluating potential test procedures for synchronous motors. Specifically, DOE will evaluate the industry standards applicable to synchronous motors in Table II-6. DOE will consider each test procedure with respect to any proposed scope of applicability (
As part of the potential test procedure rulemaking, DOE is considering establishing a method to determine the load point for testing a motor under full-load (
To better specify the test procedures, DOE is considering approaches to determine rated motor horsepower based on motor properties like breakdown torque and temperature rise. NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-2014, (MG 1-2014), “Motors and Generators,” section 10.34 specifies that the rated motor horsepower of a small or medium single-phase induction motor is based on breakdown torque. NEMA MG 1-2014 then provides ranges of breakdown torque associated with rated motor horsepower and pole configurations. However, DOE identified multiple motor models that had a manufacturer-listed breakdown torque outside of the associated NEMA range (
Another option would be to determine the rated motor horsepower based on a load which results in a temperature rise associated with the insulation class of the motor (
The procedure for determining the represented value of average full-load efficiency of a small electric motor can be found at 10 CFR 431.445. Specifically, DOE provides sampling provisions that must be used when determining the average full-load efficiency of a basic model through testing. On June 24, 2016, DOE published a separate notice of proposed rulemaking on certification, compliance, labeling, and enforcement for electric motors and small electric motors, which included a proposal to revise the sampling provisions for small electric motors to conform with the sampling provisions for other types of covered product and equipment at 10 CFR part 429, subpart B. 81 FR 41378.
DOE plans to investigate whether the proposed sampling provision for determining the represented value
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE welcomes comment on any other aspect of the existing test procedures for small electric motors not already addressed by the specific areas identified in this document. DOE particularly seeks information that would improve the repeatability, reproducibility, and consumer representativeness of the test procedures. 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 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. Regarding the Federal test method, DOE seeks comment on the degree to which the DOE test procedure should consider and be harmonized with the most recent relevant industry standards for small electric motors and whether there are any changes to the Federal test method that would provide additional benefits to the public.
Additionally, DOE requests comment on whether the existing test procedures limit a manufacturer's ability to provide additional features to consumers of small electric motors. DOE particularly seeks information on how the test procedures could be amended to reduce the cost of these new or additional features and make it more likely that such features are included on small electric motors.
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by August 30, 2017, comments and information on matters addressed in this RFI and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of new and/or amended test procedure for small electric motors and electric motors. These comments and information will aid in the development of a test procedure NOPR for small electric motors and electric motors if DOE determines that amended test procedures may be appropriate for these products.
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).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this rulemaking should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or via email at
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
The OCC, Board, and FDIC (collectively, the agencies) are inviting comment on a proposed rule to amend the agencies' regulations requiring appraisals of real estate for certain transactions. The proposal would increase the threshold level at or below which appraisals would not be required for commercial real estate transactions from $250,000 to $400,000. This proposed change to the appraisal threshold reflects comments the
Comments must be received by September 29, 2017.
Interested parties are encouraged to submit written comments jointly to all of the agencies. Commenters should use the title “Real Estate Appraisals” to facilitate the organization and distribution of comments among the agencies. Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to:
•
• Click on the “Help” tab on the
•
•
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this proposed rule by any of the following methods:
•
• Click on the “Help” tab on the
•
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments will be made available on the Board's Web site at
•
•
•
•
•
Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (Title XI)
Title XI directs the agencies to prescribe appropriate standards for Title XI appraisals under the agencies' respective jurisdictions,
Title XI defines a “federally related transaction” as a real estate-related financial transaction that is regulated or engaged in by a federal financial institutions regulatory agency and requires the services of an appraiser.
The agencies have authority to determine those real estate-related financial transactions that do not require the services of a certified or licensed appraiser and are therefore exempt from the appraisal requirements of Title XI. These real estate-related financial transactions are not federally related transactions under the statutory or regulatory definitions because they are not required to have Title XI appraisals.
The agencies have exercised this authority by exempting several categories of real estate-related financial transactions from the appraisal requirements.
In 1992, Congress amended Title XI, expressly authorizing the agencies to establish a threshold level at or below which an appraisal by a state certified or licensed appraiser is not required in connection with federally related transactions if the agencies determine in writing that the threshold does not represent a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions.
Under the current thresholds, which were established by rulemaking in 1994,
For real estate-related financial transactions that are exempt from the appraisal requirement because they are within the applicable thresholds or qualify for the exemption for certain existing extensions of credit,
In early 2017, the agencies completed a review of their regulations pursuant to EGRPRA, which requires that, not less than once every 10 years, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), Board, OCC, and FDIC conduct a review of their regulations to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions (IDIs).
As part of the EGRPRA review, the agencies received numerous comments from bankers, banking trade associations, associations of appraisers, and other commenters related to the Title XI appraisal regulations. These comments included recommendations to increase the thresholds at or below which real estate-related financial transactions are exempt from the Title XI appraisal requirements. Some commenters noted that the current thresholds have not been adjusted since they were established in 1994, even though property values have increased, and that the time and cost associated with the appraisal process impose an unnecessary burden in the completion of smaller-dollar amount real estate-related transactions. Some commenters also argued that the time and financial costs attributed to meeting the appraisal requirements at the current threshold levels particularly affect banks in rural markets. These commenters contended that it is often difficult to find state certified and licensed appraisers to complete assignments for properties in rural areas.
In March 2017, the agencies submitted a joint EGRPRA report to Congress (EGRPRA Report) that identified potential initiatives to reduce regulatory burden.
In the EGRPRA Report, the agencies also addressed whether it would be appropriate to increase the current $250,000 threshold for transactions secured by residential real estate. The agencies determined that it would not be appropriate to increase the threshold for this category of transactions at this time based on three considerations. First, the agencies observed that any increase in the threshold for residential transactions would have a limited impact on burden, as appraisals would still be required for the vast majority of these transactions pursuant to rules of other federal government agencies and the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs).
Second, appraisals can provide protection to consumers by helping to assure the residential purchaser that the value of the property supports the purchase price and the mortgage amount.
During the EGRPRA process, the staff of the agencies conferred with the CFPB regarding comments the agencies received supporting an increase in the threshold for 1-to-4 family residential transactions. CFPB staff shared the view that appraisals can provide consumer protection benefits and their concern about potential risks to consumers resulting from an expansion of the number of residential mortgage transactions that would be exempt from the Title XI appraisal requirement.
Third, the agencies considered safety and soundness concerns that could result from a threshold increase for residential transactions. As the EGRPRA Report noted, the 2008 financial crisis showed that, like other asset classes, imprudent residential mortgage lending can pose significant risks to financial institutions.
For these reasons, the agencies concluded in the EGRPRA Report that a change to the current $250,000 threshold for residential mortgage loans would not be appropriate at the present time. The agencies are interested in comment on whether there are other factors that should be considered in evaluating the current threshold for 1-to-4 family residential transactions and whether the threshold can and should be raised, consistent with consumer protection, safety and soundness, and reduction of unnecessary regulatory burden. The agencies will also continue to consider possibilities for relieving burden related to appraisals for residential mortgage loans, such as coordination of the agencies' Title XI appraisal regulations with the practices of HUD, the GSEs, and other federal participants in the residential real estate market.
The agencies propose to amend the Title XI appraisal regulations to increase the monetary threshold for commercial real estate transactions at or below which a Title XI appraisal would not be required.
In considering whether to propose an increased threshold for commercial real estate transactions, the agencies considered the comments received through the EGRPRA process, and took into account whether changes to the threshold would be appropriate to reduce regulatory burden consistent with the federal financial and public policy interests in real estate-related financial transactions and the safety and soundness of regulated institutions.
As stated, the threshold for exempt transactions was last modified in 1994. Given increases in commercial property values since that time, the current threshold requires institutions to obtain Title XI appraisals on a larger proportion of commercial real estate transactions than in 1994. This increase in the number of appraisals required may contribute to the increased burden in time and cost described by the EGRPRA commenters.
Based on supervisory experience and available data, the agencies propose to increase the threshold for commercial real estate transactions, as defined below, to $400,000. This proposal would reduce burden for both rural and non-rural institutions and, as discussed below, would not pose a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions. The agencies are consulting with the CFPB regarding this proposal and will continue this consultation in developing a final rule.
The agencies propose to make the proposal, if adopted, effective on publication of the final rule in the
Question 1. The agencies invite comment on the proposed effective date, including whether this time period is appropriate and, if not, why.
The proposed $400,000 threshold would apply only to transactions defined as “commercial real estate transactions.” Under the proposed definition, a commercial real estate transaction would include any “real estate-related financial transaction,” as defined in the Title XI appraisal regulations, excluding any loans secured by a 1-to-4 family residential property,
The proposed definition would largely capture the following four categories of loans secured by real estate in the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report)
The definition generally aligns with the categories of transactions to which
Supervisory experience indicates that financial institutions generally administer construction loans to consumers in a way similar to construction loans to businesses. Therefore, subjecting most construction loans to the same threshold would minimize regulatory burden. This treatment would also be consistent with other mortgage-related rules, which exempt consumer construction loans from various consumer protection requirements.
Moreover, including all 1-to-4 family residential construction-only loans in the proposed definition of commercial real estate transactions is consistent with the agencies' longstanding practice under the Title XI appraisal regulations of treating construction loans for 1-to-4 family residential properties as “nonresidential” for purposes of the requirement that certified appraisers be used for “nonresidential” federally related transactions.
As discussed further below, financial institutions report information about consumer construction loans aggregated with other construction loans through the Call Report.
Question 2. The agencies invite comment on the proposed definition of commercial real estate transaction.
Question 3. The proposed definition of commercial real estate transaction would include loans to consumers for the initial construction of their dwelling or transactions financing the construction of any building with 1-to-4 dwelling units, so long as the loan does not include permanent financing, with the effect of permitting these loans to qualify for the higher $400,000 threshold. The agencies invite comment on the consumer, regulatory burden, and other implications of the proposal. What would be the implications of not including these loans in the definition, which would leave the current $250,000 threshold in place?
Question 4. The agencies invite comment on the consumer, regulatory burden, and other implications of the proposed exclusion of construction-to-permanent loans from the definition of commercial real estate transaction, meaning that the current $250,000 threshold would apply. What would be the implications of including construction-to-permanent loans in the definition of commercial real estate transaction, thus allowing these loans to qualify for the higher $400,000 threshold?
The agencies propose to increase the threshold in the Title XI appraisal regulations for commercial real estate transactions from $250,000 to $400,000. In determining the level of increase, the agencies considered the change in prices for commercial real estate measured by the Federal Reserve Commercial Real Estate Price Index (“CRE Index”). The CRE Index
Based on a review of the CRE Index, prices for commercial real estate have increased since 1994, resulting in an increased proportion of commercial real estate transactions exceeding the threshold level today compared to 1994. Based on the change in the CRE Index, a commercial property that sold for $250,000 as of June 30, 1994 would be expected to sell for approximately $830,000 as of December 2016. However, as shown below in Table 1, the price of commercial real estate can be particularly volatile. For example, the CRE Index indicates a commercial property that sold for $250,000 in 1994 would be expected to sell for approximately $412,000 in December 2003, $711,000 in December 2007, and $423,000 in March 2010, when commercial real estate prices were at their lowest point in the most recent downturn.
In proposing to raise the commercial real estate threshold to $400,000 the agencies are approximating prices at the low point of the most recent cycle, which occurred in 2010. This more conservative approach is appropriate because it takes into consideration the
This figure is also consistent with general measures of inflation across the economy since 1994, when the current threshold of $250,000 was set. The agencies considered general inflation indices, including the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
As indicated in the table below, when adjusting a $250,000 basket of goods under the CPI and PCE from 1994 dollars to 2017 dollars and using a lowest point in the cycle adjustment for the prices for commercial real estate under the CRE Index, each of the indices considered approximately tracks the $400,000 proposed threshold.
Question 5. The agencies invite comment on the proposed level of $400,000 for the threshold at or below which regulated institutions would not be required to obtain appraisals for commercial real estate transactions.
Question 6. How would having three threshold levels ($250,000 for all transactions, $400,000 for commercial real estate transactions, and $1 million for qualifying business loans) rather than two threshold levels applicable to Title XI appraisals within the appraisal regulations affect burden to applicable institutions?
Under Title XI, the agencies may set a threshold at or below which an appraisal performed by a state certified or licensed appraiser is not required if they determine in writing that such a threshold level does not pose a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions.
Many variables, including changing market conditions and various loan underwriting practices, may affect an institution's loss experience. The $250,000 threshold has been applicable to commercial real estate transactions since 1994. Analysis of supervisory information concerning losses on commercial real estate transactions suggests that faulty valuations of the underlying real estate collateral have not been a material cause of losses in connection with transactions at or below $250,000. In the last three decades, the banking industry suffered two crises in which poorly underwritten and administered commercial real estate loans were a key feature in elevated levels of loan losses and bank failures.
The agencies' analysis of available data
In order to consider the potential impact of the proposed threshold
The agencies' analysis of data reported on the Call Report suggests that the threshold for commercial real estate transactions could be raised without exceeding the risk that these transactions posed when the thresholds were established in 1994.
All FDIC-insured depository institutions report information about loans on their balance sheets by category of loan,
IDIs report information on NFNR loans in the Call Report by three separate size categories: (1) Loans with original amounts of $100,000 or less; (2) loans with original amounts of more than $100,000, but $250,000 or less; and (3) loans with original amounts of more than $250,000, but $1,000,000 or less. They separately report the dollar amount of all NFNR loans, including those over $1,000,000. Using this data, the agencies calculated the dollar amount of NFNR loans at or under the current $250,000 threshold as a percentage of the dollar amount of all NFNR loans.
According to Call Report data, when the threshold for real-estate related financial transactions was raised from $100,000 to $250,000 in 1994, approximately 18 percent of the dollar volume of all NFNR loans reported by IDIs had original loan amounts of $250,000 or less. As of the fourth quarter of 2016, approximately 4 percent of the dollar volume of such loans had original loan amounts of $250,000 or less. This analysis suggests that a larger proportion of commercial real estate transactions now require appraisals than when the threshold was last raised.
In contemplating an increase in the threshold for commercial real estate transactions, the agencies also used Call Report data to consider the transactions exempted from the appraisal threshold as a share of equity capital plus the allowance for loan and lease losses (the allowance), which is a measure of the potential concentration risk that these transactions could pose to the financial well-being of institutions as a whole. In 1994, NFNR loans with original loan amounts of $250,000 or less represented in the aggregate approximately 14 percent of IDIs' equity capital plus the allowance. By the fourth quarter of 2016, such loans represented only about 3 percent of IDIs' equity capital plus the allowance.
To determine whether concentration risk would be similar for small institutions, the agencies separately considered the percentage of NFNR transactions exempted from the appraisal threshold as a share of equity capital plus the allowance for IDIs with assets of less than $1 billion. This analysis produced similar results. Approximately 30 percent of the dollar volume of all NFNR loans in such smaller institutions had original loan amounts of $250,000 or less in 1994. By the fourth quarter of 2016, however, only about 11 percent of the dollar volume of such loans had original loan amounts of $250,000 or less. In 1994, the dollar volume of smaller IDIs' NFNR loans with original loan amounts of $250,000 or less represented approximately 33 percent of equity capital plus the allowance. These loans represented only about 18 percent of IDIs' equity capital plus the allowance by the fourth quarter of 2016.
Because IDIs report loans on the Call Report aggregated into only the three categories mentioned above (less than $100,000, $100,000 to $250,000, and $250,000 to $1,000,000), the agencies cannot use Call Report data to determine the precise percentage or number of transactions that would be exempted by the proposed $400,000 threshold or the precise impact of a $400,000 threshold on equity capital plus the allowance.
As described below, the agencies have used the CoStar Comps database to estimate this impact. The CoStar Comps database
The CoStar Comps database contains data for transactions involving nonresidential commercial mortgages, multifamily and land. The CoStar Comps database is derived from sales data and reflects the total transaction amount, as opposed to the loan amount. For purposes of this analysis, the agencies included only financed transactions and assumed a loan-to-value ratio of 85 percent for nonresidential and multifamily commercial mortgages and a loan-to-value ratio of 65 percent for raw land transactions
An analysis of the CoStar Comps database suggests that increasing the threshold to $400,000 would significantly increase the number of commercial real estate transactions exempted from the Title XI appraisal requirements, but the portion of the total dollar size of commercial real estate transactions that would remain exempted by the threshold would be minimal. The percentage of commercial properties with loans in the CoStar Comps database that would be exempted from the Title XI appraisal regulations by the threshold would increase from 17 percent to 28 percent if the threshold were raised from $250,000 to $400,000. However, the total dollar volume of loans for commercial properties in the CoStar Comps database would only increase from 0.7 percent to 1.5 percent.
Exempting an additional 11 percent of commercial real estate transactions would provide burden relief as sought by some of the EGRPRA commenters. The 0.8 percentage point increase in the dollar volume of commercial real estate transactions that the CoStar data suggests would be exempted from the appraisal requirements under the proposed threshold is unlikely to expose financial institutions to increased safety and soundness risk.
In addition to assessing changes in the magnitude of transactions covered by the appraisal threshold, the agencies assessed trends in the loss rate experience of commercial real estate transactions.
While the agencies do not regularly collect data on rates of loss for commercial real estate by the size of loans, they do collect net charge-off
In order to evaluate the impact of commercial real estate lending on the safety and soundness of the banking system generally, the agencies compared peak net charge-off rates for two periods: 1991 to 1994 and 2007 to 2012. These periods represent two distress cycles when aggregate net charge-offs rose to their highest levels. The agencies separately examined charge-off rates on lending for all commercial real estate categories covering construction, multifamily, nonfarm, nonresidential, and farmland. In order to evaluate whether commercial real estate lending may have a disparate impact on the safety and soundness of IDIs of varying sizes, the agencies examined peak charge-off rates on loans for all IDIs, IDIs under one billion dollars in total assets, IDIs with total assets between one billion dollars and ten billion dollars, and IDIs with total assets of more than ten billion dollars.
The analysis showed that aggregate peak net charge-off rates for the most recent cycle were generally no worse than those recorded for the prior cycle, with the exception of construction loans. Moreover, aggregate commercial real estate loan loss rates for banks less than $1 billion (which would reasonably be expected to have a larger proportion of small loans, given their lower legal lending limits due to their smaller size) were lower than for larger banks as a group.
This data suggests that the loss experience associated with commercial real estate loans for the banking system as a whole has stayed at a relatively consistent rate through multiple credit cycles. Thus, banking system safety and soundness concerns associated with the commercial real estate loan loss rates have not increased. However, commercial real estate loan charge-off rates during periods of economic stress have and will continue to vary across individual IDIs based on location, collateral, quality of underwriting and risk management, and other factors. Thus commercial real estate loan concentration risk at individual institutions remains a focus for the banking agencies.
Question 7. The agencies invite comment on the safety and soundness impact of the proposed $400,000 threshold for commercial real estate transactions.
Question 8. The agencies invite comment on the data used in this analysis, and what alternative sources of data would be appropriate for this analysis.
The Title XI appraisal regulations require regulated institutions to obtain evaluations for three categories of real estate-related financial transactions that the agencies have determined do not require a Title XI appraisal, including real-estate related financial transactions at or below the $250,000 threshold and qualifying business loans at or below the $1,000,000 threshold. Similarly, the agencies propose to require that institutions entering into commercial real estate transactions at or below the proposed $400,000 threshold obtain evaluations that are consistent with safe and sound banking practices for such transactions.
An evaluation provides a general estimate of the value of real estate, but is not subject to the same requirements as a Title XI appraisal. An evaluation should provide appropriate information to enable the institution to make a prudent decision regarding the transaction. Through the Guidelines, the agencies have provided guidance to regulated institutions on their expectations regarding when and how evaluations should be used. The
Institutions should conduct evaluations consistent with the provisions in the Guidelines.
In evaluating this proposal, the agencies considered the impact to the financial system of the proposal, and specifically the impact to financial institutions and borrowers of obtaining evaluations instead of Title XI appraisals. Based on information from industry participants, the cost of third-party evaluations of commercial real estate generally ranges from $500 to over $1,500, whereas the cost of appraisals of such properties generally ranges from $1,000 to over $3,000. Commercial real estate transactions with transaction values above $250,000 but at or below $400,000 (affected transactions), are likely to involve smaller and less complex properties, and appraisals and evaluations on such properties would likely be at the lower end of the cost range. This third-party pricing information suggests a savings of several hundred dollars per affected transaction.
The agencies also considered the costs in terms of time to obtain and process appraisals and evaluations. There may be less delay in finding appropriate personnel to perform an evaluation than to perform a Title XI appraisal, particularly in rural areas. As described in the Guidelines, financial institutions should review the property valuation prior to entering into the transaction. Financial institutions require less time to review evaluations than to review appraisals, because evaluations contain less detailed information. The agencies estimate that, on average, the review process for an appraisal would take approximately forty minutes and the review process for an evaluation would take approximately ten minutes. Thus, for affected transactions, the proposed rule would alleviate approximately thirty minutes of employee time per transaction, in addition to the reduced delay and the cost savings of obtaining an evaluation instead of an appraisal.
In considering the aggregate effect of this proposal, the agencies considered the number of affected transactions. As previously discussed, the agencies estimate that the number of commercial real estate transactions that would be exempted by the threshold is expected to increase by approximately 11 percent under the proposed rule. Thus, while the precise number of affected transactions and the precise cost reduction per transaction cannot be determined, the proposed rule is expected to lead to significant cost savings for institutions that engage in commercial real estate lending.
Question 9. The agencies invite comment on the proposed requirement that regulated institutions obtain evaluations for commercial real estate transactions at or below the $400,000 threshold.
Question 10. What type of additional guidance, if any, do institutions need to support the increased use of evaluations?
Question 11. To what extent does the use of evaluations reduce burden and cost over the use of appraisals? To what extent are evaluations currently done by in-house staff versus outsourced to appraisers or other qualified professionals?
The current Title XI appraisal regulations, require that “[a]ll federally related transactions having a transaction value of $250,000 or more, other than those involving appraisals of 1-to-4 family residential properties, shall require an appraisal prepared by a State certified appraiser.”
As noted above, in the 2017 EGRPRA Report to Congress, the agencies stated their intention to gather more information about the appropriateness of increasing the $1 million threshold for qualifying business loans. The agencies are not proposing an increase in the business loan threshold at this time, but the agencies invite comment on the following questions concerning the qualifying business loan exemption:
Question 12. The agencies invite comment and supporting data on the appropriateness of raising the current $1,000,000 threshold for qualifying business loans and the associated implications for safety and soundness.
Question 13. What unique risks do institutions associate with qualifying business loans?
Question 14. What percentage of total real estate lending at financial institutions, by number of loans and dollar volume of lending, are qualifying business loans?
Question 15. What is the average size of a qualifying business loan at financial institutions? What are the incidences of default on qualifying business loans compared to other commercial real estate transactions that institutions have observed over time?
Question 16. The agencies invite comment on the clarity of the application of the current threshold for qualifying business loans, and on any difficulty that financial institutions have experienced in interpreting the limitation on source of repayment.
The Agencies invite comment on all aspects of the proposed rulemaking.
Question 17. As discussed earlier, the agencies have articulated several bases for declining to propose an increase in the residential threshold. The agencies request comment on whether there are other factors that should be considered in evaluating the current appraisal threshold for 1-to-4 family residential properties.
The OCC currently supervises approximately 956 small entities. Data currently available to the OCC are not sufficient to estimate how many OCC-supervised small entities make CRE loans in amounts that fall between the current and proposed thresholds. Therefore, we cannot estimate how many small entities may be affected by the increase threshold. However, because the proposal does not contain any new recordkeeping, reporting, or compliance requirements, the proposal will not impose costs on any OCC-supervised institutions. Accordingly, the OCC certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Board requests public comment on all aspects of this analysis.
In response to comments received in the EGRPRA process, the agencies are proposing to increase the threshold from $250,000 to $400,000 at or below which a Title XI appraisal is not required for commercial real estate transactions. Because commercial real estate prices have increased since 1994, when the current $250,000 threshold was established, a smaller percentage of commercial real estate transactions are currently exempted from the Title XI appraisal requirements than when the threshold was established. This threshold adjustment is intended to reduce the regulatory burden associated with extending credit secured by commercial real estate in a manner that is consistent with the safety and soundness of financial institutions.
As discussed above, the agencies' objective in proposing this threshold increase is to reduce the regulatory burden associated with extending credit in a safe and sound manner by reducing the number of commercial real estate transactions that are subject to the Title XI appraisal requirements.
Title XI explicitly authorizes the agencies to establish a threshold level at or below which a Title XI appraisal is not required if the agencies determine in writing that the threshold does not represent a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions and receive concurrence from the CFPB that such threshold level provides reasonable protection for consumers who purchase 1-to-4 unit single-family homes.
The Board's proposed rule would apply to state chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System (state member banks), as well as bank holding companies and nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies that engage in lending. There are approximately 601 state member banks and 35 nonbank lenders regulated by the Board that meet the SBA definition of small entities and would be subject to the proposed rule. Data currently available to the Board do not allow for a precise estimate of the number of small entities that would be affected by the proposed rule because the number of small entities that will engage in commercial real estate transactions within the proposed threshold is unknown.
The proposed rule would reduce reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for small entities. For transactions at or below the proposed threshold, regulated institutions would be given the option to obtain an evaluation of the property instead of an appraisal. Unlike appraisals, evaluations may be performed by a lender's own employees and are not required to comply with USPAP. As discussed in detail in Section II.B of the
In addition to costing less to obtain than appraisals, evaluations also require less time to review than appraisals because they contain less detailed information. As discussed further in Section II.B of the
As previously discussed, the Board estimates that the percentage of commercial real estate transactions that would be exempted by the threshold is expected to increase by approximately 11 percent under the proposed rule. The Board expects this percentage to be higher for small entities, because a higher percentage of their loan portfolios are likely to be made up of small, below-threshold loans than those of larger entities. Thus, while the precise number of transactions that will be affected and the precise cost reduction per transaction cannot be determined, the proposed rule is expected to have a significant positive economic impact on small entities that engage in commercial real estate lending.
The Board has not identified any federal statutes or regulations that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed revisions.
The agencies considered additional burden-reducing measures, such as increasing the commercial threshold to a higher dollar amount and increasing the residential and business loan thresholds, but have not proposed such measures at this time for the safety and soundness and consumer protection reasons previously discussed. For transactions exempted from the Title XI appraisal requirements, the proposed rule would require regulated institutions to get an evaluation if they do not get an appraisal. The agencies believe this requirement is necessary to protect the safety and soundness of financial institutions, which is a legal prerequisite to the establishment of any threshold. The Board is not aware of any other significant alternatives that would reduce burden on small entities without sacrificing the safety and soundness of financial institutions or consumer protections.
The FDIC supervises 3,744 depository institutions,
The proposed rule will raise the appraisal threshold for commercial real estate transactions from $250,000 to $400,000. Any commercial real estate transaction with a value in excess of the $400,000 threshold is required to have an appraisal by a state licensed or state certified appraiser. Any commercial real estate transaction at or below the $400,000 threshold requires an evaluation.
To estimate the dollar volume of commercial real estate transactions the proposed change could potentially affect, the FDIC used information on the dollar volume and number of loans in the Call Report for small institutions from two categories of loans included in the definition of a commercial real estate transaction. The Call Report data reflect that 4.55 percent of the dollar volume of nonfarm, nonresidential loans secured by real estate has an original loan amount between $1 and $250,000, while 11.81 percent have an original loan amount between $250,000 and $1,000,000. The Call Report data also reflects that 8.85 percent of the dollar volume of agricultural loans secured by farmland has an original loan amount between $1 and $250,000, while 7.49 percent have an original loan amount between $250,000 and $500,000.
Therefore, raising the appraisal threshold from $250,000 to $400,000 for commercial real estate transactions could affect an estimated 1.53 percent to 4.10 percent of the dollar volume of all commercial real estate transactions originated each year. This estimate assumes that the distribution of loans for the other loan categories within the proposed definition of commercial real estate transactions is similar to those loans secured by nonfarm, nonresidential properties or farmland.
The proposed rule is likely to reduce valuation review costs for covered institutions. The FDIC estimates that it takes a loan officer an average of 40 minutes to review an appraisal to ensure that it meets that standards set forth in Title XI, but 10 minutes to perform a similar review of an evaluation, which does not need to meet the Title XI standards for appraisals. The proposed rule increases the number of commercial real estate transactions that would require an evaluation by raising the appraisal threshold from $250,000 to $400,000. Assuming that 15 percent of the outstanding balance of commercial real estate transactions for small entities gets renewed or replaced by new originations each year, the FDIC estimates that small entities originate $31.9 billion in new commercial real estate transactions each year. Assuming that 1.53 percent to 4.10 percent of annual originations represent loans with an origination amount greater than $250,000 but not more than $400,000, the FDIC estimates that the proposed rule will affect approximately 1,504 to 4,040 loans per year,
Any associated recordkeeping costs are unlikely to change for small FDIC-supervised entities as the amount of labor required to satisfy documentation requirements for an evaluation or an appraisal is estimated to be the same at about five minutes for either an appraisal or evaluation.
The proposed rule also is likely to reduce the loan origination costs associated with real estate appraisals for commercial real estate borrowers. The FDIC assumes that these costs are always paid by the borrower for this analysis. Anecdotal information from industry participants indicates that a commercial real estate appraisal costs between $1,000 to over $3,000, or about $2,000 on average, and a commercial real estate evaluation costs between $500 to over $1,500, or about $1,000 on average. Based on the prior assumptions, the FDIC estimates that the proposed rule will affect approximately 1,504 to 4,040 transactions per year,
By lowering valuation costs on commercial real estate transactions greater than $250,000 but less than or equal to $400,000 for small FDIC-supervised institutions, the proposed rule could marginally increase lending activity. As discussed previously, commenters in the EGRPRA review noted that appraisals can be costly and time consuming. By enabling small FDIC-supervised institutions to utilize evaluations for more commercial real estate transactions, the proposed rule will reduce transaction costs. The reduction in loan origination fees could marginally increase commercial real estate lending activity for loans with an origination value greater than $250,000 and not more than $400,000.
Certain provisions of the proposed rule contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995.
(a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments on aspects of this notice that may affect reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements and burden estimates should be sent to the addresses listed in the
The Riegle Act requires that each of the agencies, in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on IDIs, consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the benefits of such regulations.
The proposed rule would reduce burden and would not impose any reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on IDIs. For transactions exempted from the Title XI appraisal requirements by the proposed rule (
Because delaying the effective date of the rule is not required and would serve no purpose, the agencies propose to make the threshold increase effective on the first day after publication of the final rule in the
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
• Have the agencies organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could this material be better organized?
• Are the requirements in the proposed rules clearly stated? If not, how could the proposed rules be stated more clearly?
• Do the proposed rules contain language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the proposed rules easier to understand? If so, what changes to the format would make the proposed rules easier to understand?
• What else could the agencies do to make the regulation easier to understand?
The OCC has analyzed the proposed rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this analysis, the OCC considered whether the proposed rule includes a federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation).
The proposed rule does not impose new requirements or include new mandates. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed rule will not result in an expenditure of $100 million or more by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, in any one year.
Appraisal, Appraiser, Banks, Banking, Consumer protection, Credit, Mortgages,
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Federal Reserve System, Capital planning, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Stress testing
Banks, banking, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the OCC proposes to amend part 34 of chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1, 25b, 29, 93a, 371, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1465, 1701j-3, 1828(o), 3331
(e)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(12) The OCC determines that the services of an appraiser are not necessary in order to protect Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate-related financial transactions or to protect the safety and soundness of the institution; or
(13) The transaction is a commercial real estate transaction that has a transaction value of $400,000 or less.
(b)
(d) * * *
(2)
For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the Board amends part 225 of chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(13), 1818, 1828(o), 1831i, 1831p-1, 1843(c)(8), 1844(b), 1972(l), 3106, 3108, 3310, 3331-3351, 3906, 3907, and 3909; 15 U.S.C. 1681s, 1681w, 6801 and 6805.
(e)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(13) The Board determines that the services of an appraiser are not necessary in order to protect Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate-related financial transactions or to protect the safety and soundness of the institution; or
(14) The transaction is a commercial real estate transaction that has a transaction value of $400,000 or less.
(b)
(d) * * *
(2) Commercial real estate transactions of more than $400,000. All federally related transactions that are commercial real estate transactions having a transaction value of more than $400,000 shall require an appraisal prepared by a State certified appraiser.
For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the FDIC amends part 323 of chapter III of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1818, 1819 [“Seventh” and “Tenth”], 1831p-1 and 3331
This subpart is issued under 12 U.S.C. 1818, 1819 [“Seventh” and “Tenth”], 1831p-1 and title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) (Pub. L. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183, 12 U.S.C. 3331
(e)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(12) The FDIC determines that the services of an appraiser are not necessary in order to protect Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate-related financial transactions or to protect the safety and soundness of the institution; or
(13) The transaction is a commercial real estate transaction that has a transaction value of $400,000 or less.
(b)
(d) * * *
(2)
By order of the Board of Directors.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule.
The NCUA Board (Board) proposes to amend in its Chartering and Field of Membership Manual the definition of the term “in danger of insolvency” for emergency merger purposes. The current definition requires a credit union to fall into at least one of three net worth categories over a period of time to be “in danger of insolvency.” For two of the three categories, the Board proposes to lengthen by six months the forecast horizons, the time period in which NCUA projects a credit union's net worth will decline to the point that it falls into one of the categories. This will extend the time period in which a credit union's net worth is projected to either render it insolvent or drop below two percent from 24 to 30 months and from 12 to 18 months, respectively. Additionally, the Board proposes to add a fourth category to the three existing net worth categories to include credit unions that have been granted or received assistance under section 208 of the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) in the 15 months prior to the Region's determination that the credit union is in danger of insolvency.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
•
•
•
Thomas I. Zells, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, or Amanda Parkhill, Loss/Risk Analysis Officer, Office of Examination and Insurance, at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 or telephone: (703) 548-2478 (Mr. Zells) or (703) 518-6385 (Ms. Parkhill).
Credit unions that experience a sharp decline in net worth have a much higher likelihood of failing. From the second quarter of 1996 through the second quarter of 2016, there were 11,734 federally insured credit unions. As shown by the table below, 2,502 of these credit unions fell below the well-capitalized threshold (7 percent net worth ratio) after having a net worth ratio above that threshold for at least one quarter. The net worth ratio of 490 of these 2,502 credit unions eventually fell below two percent. Importantly, only 15 percent of those credit unions whose net worth dropped below two percent sometime in this period remain active.
Credit union failures are costly to the entire credit union system through their effect on the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF). NCUA, as a prudential safety and soundness regulator, is charged with protecting the safety and soundness of the credit union system and, in turn, the NCUSIF and the taxpayer through regulation and supervision.
Under the emergency merger provision of section 205(h) of the FCU Act, the Board may allow a credit union that is either insolvent or in danger of insolvency to merge with another credit union if the Board finds that: (1) An emergency requiring expeditious action exists; (2) no other reasonable alternatives are available; and (3) the action is in the public interest.
To take such action, NCUA must first determine that a credit union is either insolvent or in danger of insolvency before the agency can make the additional findings that an emergency exists, other alternatives are not reasonably available, and the public interest would be served by the merger. The FCU Act, however, does not define when a credit union is “in danger of insolvency.”
In 2009, NCUA proposed a definition of in danger of insolvency to establish an objective standard to aid it in making in danger of insolvency determinations.
Experience gained since 2010, including the analysis of Call Reports and other NCUA internal data, have led the Board to conclude that an update to the current definition of in danger of insolvency is needed.
The current definition of in danger of insolvency requires a credit union to fall into at least one of three net worth categories to be found to be in danger of insolvency. The Board believes it necessary to amend the current definition in three ways.
First, the Board proposes to lengthen by six months the “forecast horizons,” the time periods in which NCUA projects a credit union's net worth for determining if it is in danger of insolvency. This change would apply to two of the three current categories. It would result in forecast horizons of 30 months for the insolvency (zero net worth) category, up from 24 months, and 18 months for the critically undercapitalized (under two percent net worth) category, up from 12 months. The third category of the current definition, in which a credit union is significantly undercapitalized and NCUA determines there is no reasonable prospect of the credit union becoming adequately capitalized in the succeeding 36 months, would remain unchanged.
The second change the Board proposes is the addition of a fourth category to the definition. Specifically, a credit union would be considered in danger of insolvency if it had been granted or received assistance under section 208 of the FCU Act in the 15 months prior to the Region's determination that the credit union is in danger of insolvency.
Finally, the Board proposes to make a technical spelling correction to the first category of the definition to replace the word “relay” with the word “rely”.
The Board believes the proposed changes to the current definition would provide NCUA with a more appropriate degree of flexibility and better allow NCUA to act when the statutory criteria for an emergency merger are met, namely an emergency requiring expeditious action exists, no other reasonable alternatives are available, and the action is in the public interest.
In some instances, the rigidity of the current regulatory definition unnecessarily limits NCUA's ability to resolve failing institutions. This comes at a greater cost to a credit union's members and the NCUSIF, particularly in the case of an eventual liquidation. The FCU Act grants the Board broad authority to define the term “in danger of insolvency” for emergency merger purposes. The Board believes that the proposed definition increases agency flexibility and will enable NCUA to act more timely to preserve credit union services and credit union assets and to protect the safety and soundness of the credit union system and the NCUSIF.
The Board proposes to amend the definition of in danger of insolvency in the glossary to appendix B to part 701 to extend the forecast horizons, the time periods in which NCUA must project whether a credit union will become insolvent or critically undercapitalized. Currently, to be deemed in danger of insolvency under the definition's first two categories, NCUA must project a credit union's future net worth will decline at a rate that will either render the credit union insolvent within 24 months or drop below two percent (critically undercapitalized) within 12 months. The Board proposes to extend these periods to 30 months and 18 months, respectively. The Board intends to leave as is the forecast horizon of the third category of the definition pertaining to significantly undercapitalized credit unions that NCUA projects have no reasonable prospect of becoming adequately capitalized in the succeeding 36 months.
The Board believes that these proposed changes to the definition will capture more credit unions that are in danger of insolvency earlier in their decline, before their net worth declines most rapidly, and will provide value to both the members of the credit union being merged and the NCUSIF. Increasing the likelihood that a distressed credit union would be eligible for an emergency merger earlier could help to protect net worth, reduce payouts on deposit insurance or merger assistance, and improve merger prospects. The proposed changes also provide NCUA with additional flexibility to resolve the distressed credit union through a merger and help to better ensure continuity of financial services for members. This additional flexibility is especially beneficial when circumstances deplete a credit union's capital slowly and steadily rather than abruptly, such as in the case of an institution with a large portfolio of declining illiquid assets.
To evaluate the benefit of shifting the critically undercapitalized threshold from 12 to 18 months and the insolvency threshold from 24 to 30 months, NCUA used a simple forecast of the net worth ratios of 46 credit unions that underwent an emergency merger between the second quarter of 2010, when the current in danger of insolvency definition was put into place, and the fourth quarter of 2016.
The data closely aligns with the views and experiences of NCUA. The agency has found that the current forecast horizons for these two categories can result in the unnecessary delay or even rejection of emergency merger requests that do not meet the current regulatory definition of in danger of insolvency, but would otherwise meet the statutory criteria for an emergency merger. NCUA believes that extending these forecast horizons will lessen the potential for such occurrences. When a credit union cannot be timely merged through an emergency merger and no other credit unions with compatible fields of membership submit a merger proposal, NCUA must consider alternative and usually less desirable means of resolution. These less desirable means of resolution could even include the liquidation of the credit union. In general, merging a credit union into another institution is more desirable than liquidating the credit union because a merger is generally lower cost to the NCUSIF and provides continued and, in most cases, expanded service to the membership.
NCUA believes that the delay associated with waiting for an institution to deteriorate to the point where it satisfies the current regulatory definition of in danger of insolvency has too frequently resulted in struggling institutions being allowed to deteriorate over time to the point where they are no longer viable merger partners and have to be resolved by means that are more costly to the NCUSIF and more disruptive to the members. Rather than continue to operate under the current definition, which hampers NCUA's ability to take responsible supervisory action on a timely basis and ensure the safety and soundness of the credit union system, the Board proposes to amend the regulatory definition of in danger of insolvency to facilitate those mergers that satisfy the statutory requirements.
As stated above, the Board proposes to leave the forecast horizon for the third category of the current definition as is. Rather than establishing a time period in which credit unions are projected to decline to a certain point, as the other two categories do, the third category only allows NCUA to find that a credit union is in danger of insolvency if the credit union has no reasonable prospect of improving its net worth from the significantly undercapitalized level to the adequately capitalized level in the succeeding 36 months. The Board believes that the current forecast horizon for this category already provides credit unions significant time to become adequately capitalized and is concerned that any extension to the forecast horizon would make it exceedingly difficult to accurately determine if a credit union has a reasonable possibility of returning its net worth to the adequately capitalized level.
The Board proposes to expand the definition of in danger of insolvency in the glossary to appendix B to part 701 to add a fourth category that provides that a credit union will satisfy the definition of in danger of insolvency if
In analyzing credit union Call Reports and other internal NCUA data, NCUA has found that an overwhelming number of credit unions that received section 208 assistance eventually left the credit union system. Between the first quarter of 2001 and the fourth quarter of 2016, 181 credit unions received at least one type of section 208 assistance. Since then, 165, or 91.2%, of these credit unions have stopped filing Call Reports.
Further, the data shows that not only did the overwhelming majority of the credit unions that received section 208 assistance stop filing Call Reports, but did so not long after, or prior to, receiving the assistance. Notably, 13.9% of the total number of credit unions that received section 208 assistance began receiving such assistance after they filed their final Call Report. An additional 37.0% of these 165 credit unions filed their final Call Report in the same quarter in which they first began receiving section 208 assistance. Another 41.2% of these credit unions filed their final Call Report within the four quarters after the quarter they first received section 208 assistance. In total, 152 of the 165 credit unions, or 92.1%, stopped filing Call Reports prior to or within 15 months of receiving the section 208 assistance.
The quantitative evidence, along with NCUA's experiences and observations, demonstrate that credit unions receiving section 208 assistance within the last 15 months are in danger of insolvency for emergency merger purposes.
It must be noted that the Board is not proposing that every credit union that receives section 208 assistance, thus meeting the proposed definition of in danger of insolvency, is destined for an emergency merger. The emergency merger statute addresses exigent circumstances. Credit unions to be merged on an emergency basis still must meet the statutory requirements that an emergency exists, other alternatives are not reasonably available, and the public interest would be served by the merger.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that, in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a proposed rule on small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, however, if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (defined for purposes of the RFA to include credit unions with assets less than $100 million) and publishes its certification and a short, explanatory statement in the
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection requirements.
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, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. This rulemaking 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. NCUA has determined that this proposal does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.
Credit, Credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed above, the NCUA Board proposes to amend 12 CFR part 701 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, 1788, 1789. Section 701.6 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601
In danger of insolvency—In making the determination that a particular credit union is in danger of insolvency, NCUA will establish that the credit union falls into one or more of the following categories:
1. The credit union's net worth is declining at a rate that will render it insolvent within 30 months. In projecting future net worth, NCUA may rely on data in addition to Call Report data. The trend must be supported by at least 12 months of historic data.
2. The credit union's net worth is declining at a rate that will take it under two percent (2%) net worth within 18 months. In projecting future net worth, NCUA may rely on data in addition to Call Report data. The trend must be supported by at least 12 months of historic data.
3. The credit union's net worth, as self-reported on its Call Report, is significantly undercapitalized, and NCUA determines that there is no reasonable prospect of the credit union becoming adequately capitalized in the succeeding 36 months. In making its determination on the prospect of achieving adequate capitalization, NCUA will assume that, if adverse economic conditions are affecting the value of the credit union's assets and liabilities, including property values and loan delinquencies related to unemployment, these adverse conditions will not further deteriorate.
4. The credit union has been granted or received assistance under section 208 of the Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. 1788, in the 15 months prior to the Region's determination that the credit union is in danger of insolvency.
General Services Administration (GSA).
Request for comments; extension of comment period.
GSA issued a request on May 30, 2017 seeking input by July 31, 2017. The comment period is extended until August 14, 2017, to provide additional time for interested parties to review and submit comments on the request.
The comment period for the document published in the
Submit comments identified by “Notice-MA-2017-03, Evaluation of Existing Federal Management and Federal Property Regulations” by any of the following methods:
•
•
If you are commenting via the google form, please note that each regulation or part that you are identifying for repeal, replacement or modification should be entered into the form
•
GSA requests that comments be as specific as possible, include any supporting data, detailed justification for your proposal, or other information such as cost information, provide a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or
Mr. Bob Holcombe, Director, Personal Property, Office of Government-wide Policy, 202-501-3828 or via email at
GSA published a request in the
General Services Administration (GSA).
Request for comments; extension of comment period.
GSA issued a document on May 30, 2017 seeking input by July 31, 2017. The comment period is extended to provide additional time for interested parties to review and submit comments on the document.
The comment period for the document published in the
Submit comments identified by “Notice-MA-2017-02, Evaluation of Existing Federal Travel Regulation” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
GSA requests that comments be as specific as possible, include any supporting data, detailed justification for your proposal, or other information such as cost information, provide a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) citation when referencing a specific regulation, and provide specific suggestions regarding repeal, replacement or modification.
Mr. Craig Flynn, Office of Government-wide Policy, 202-384-5977, or via email at
GSA published a document in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by Gray Television Licensee, LLC (Gray), the licensee of KYES-TV, channel 5, Anchorage, Alaska, requesting the substitution of channel 7 for channel 5 at Anchorage. The Commission instituted a freeze on the acceptance of full power television rulemaking petitions requesting channel substitutions in May 2011, and a freeze on the filing of modification applications by full power and Class A television stations that would increase a station's noise-limited or protected contour beyond the station's currently licensed or authorized facility in April 2013. Gray asks that the Commission waive these freezes to permit KYES to relocate its transmitter and utilize upgraded equipment, thereby improving its over-the-air- signal to better serve viewers.
Comments must be filed on or before August 15, 2017, and reply comments on or before August 25, 2017.
Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Joan Stewart, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 1776 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006.
Joyce Bernstein,
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 17-187, adopted July 17, 2017, and released July 17, 2017. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
General Services Administration (GSA).
Request for comments; extension of comment period.
GSA issued a request on May 30, 2017 seeking input by July 31, 2017. The comment period is extended, until August 14, 2017, in order to provide additional time for interested parties to review and submit comments on the request.
The comment period for the document published in the
Submit comments identified by “Notice-MV-2017-01, Evaluation of Existing Acquisition Regulations” by any of the following methods:
•
•
If you are commenting via the google form, please note that each regulation or part that you are identifying for repeal, replacement or modification should be entered into the form
•
Ms. Francine Serafin, Office of Government-wide Policy, 202-705-8659, or via email at
GSA published a request in the
General Services Administration (GSA).
Request for comments; extension of comment period.
GSA issued a document on May 30, 2017 seeking input by July 31, 2017. The comment period is extended until August 14, 2017, in order to provide additional time for interested parties to review and submit comments on the document.
The comment period for the document published in the
Submit comments identified by “Notice-MV-2017-02, Evaluation of Existing Leasing Acquisition Regulations” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ms. Francine Serafin, 202-705-8659, or via email at
GSA published a document in the
Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is proposing new, experimental procedures to encourage increased project management flexibility, more innovation in project funding, improved efficiency, timely project implementation, and new project revenue streams. A primary goal is to address impediments to the greater use of public-private partnerships (P3s) and private investment in public transportation capital projects (Private Investment Project Procedures or PIPP). FTA anticipates using the lessons learned from these experimental procedures to develop more effective approaches to including private
Comments must be received September 29, 2017. Any comments filed after this deadline will be considered to the extent practicable.
Please identify your submission by Docket Number (FTA-2016-0008) or RIN number (2132-AB27) through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
For program matters, Tom Yedinak, Office of Budget and Policy, (202) 366-5137 or
Over the past decade, Federal legislation has evolved to encourage increased use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects. Pursuant to section 3011(c) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) established a pilot program, commonly referred to as “Penta-P,” to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of public-private partnerships for certain new fixed guideway capital projects. 72 FR 2583-01 (January 19, 2007). SAFETEA-LU also required that the Secretary identify and examine the costs, benefits, and efficiencies of applying P3 delivery approaches to transit projects. The resulting report, entitled “Report to Congress on the Costs, Benefits, and Efficiencies of Public-Private Partnerships for Fixed Guideway Capital Projects,”
In order to facilitate increased private sector participation in project development, finance, design, construction, maintenance, and operations of transit projects, in 2008 and 2009, FTA, along with the National Council of Public-Private Partnerships, sponsored eight public workshops on P3s in transit and a one-day workshop for FTA employees. Each workshop attracted almost 100 participants and provided technical assistance to transit agencies, local officials, and consultants on legal and regulatory issues, financing, and contract matters related to P3s.
In 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, “Public Transportation—Federal Project Approval Process Remains a Barrier to Greater Private Sector Role and DOT Could Enhance Efforts to Assist Project Sponsors, (GAO-10-19)”
More recently, Section 20013(b)(1) of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141 (July 6, 2012), directed 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 the Special Experimental Project Number 15 of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), commonly referred to as “SEP-15”. Additionally, Section 3005(b) of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, Public Law 114-94 (December 4, 2015), authorizes an expedited project delivery program for capital investment projects that requires projects be supported, at least in part, by public-private partnerships.
Moreover, project sponsors have used the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) (23 U.S.C. 181-189, 601-609), the private activity bonds (PABs) legislation (26 U.S.C. 141-147) and the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program (45 U.S.C. 821-823) to help finance public transit capital projects. TIFIA provides Federal credit assistance in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit. The PABs legislation authorized the Department of Transportation to offer PABs allocations to private developers and operators, providing them access to tax-exempt interest rates and potentially more favorable interest rates. The RRIF program provides Federal credit assistance in the form of direct loans and loan guarantees.
FTA also has issued guidance to facilitate private sector participation, such as Circular 7050.1, “Federal Transit Administration Guidance on Joint Development,” which provides guidance on how transit agencies may use FTA funds or FTA-funded real property for joint development with the private sector.
Section 9001 of the FAST Act established the National Surface Transportation and Innovative Finance Bureau (referred to as the Build America Bureau), in the Department which aims to drive transportation infrastructure development projects in the United States by streamlining credit opportunities and grants more quickly and transparently, while providing technical assistance and encouraging innovative best practices in project planning, financing, delivery, and monitoring. The Bureau works with project sponsors to educate them on how they can best utilize innovative project delivery approaches, such as P3s, and offers project-specific technical assistance.
Pursuant to Section 20013(b)(1) of MAP-21, FTA has undertaken research on potential impediments to the greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects. FTA has reviewed a number of Federal agency reports on the use of private investment in public infrastructure projects and has reviewed statements from the private sector, financial institutions, transit agencies, other transit industry organizations and the public about perceived barriers that exist industry-wide and in FTA's policies. FTA also conducted an online dialogue from October 2014 to January 2015 with grantees and stakeholders to help inform this rulemaking process.
In general, commenters suggested that FTA grant processes should be further streamlined in order to encourage greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects. In addition, some commenters suggested that the timing of 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 DOT financing programs, such as TIFIA, RRIF and PABs. Commenters recommended that 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. Commenters also suggested that FTA rely more heavily upon approvals of third parties with jurisdiction over a project, rather than replicate certain reviews, and 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. Some comments were unrelated to the subject matter of the online dialogue or provided only opinions as to the benefits or disadvantages of private investment in public projects, without offering any suggestions that FTA could apply to draft this proposed rule.
This proposed rule aims to address the comments received during the online dialogue as well as other potential impediments identified in FTA's research. Under the proposed 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 a specific FTA regulation, practice, procedure or guidance document (including a circular) that may be 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.
Section 20013(b)(1) of MAP-21 required 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. FTA must develop and implement on a project basis procedures and approaches that address such impediments in a manner similar to FHWA's 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 the issuance of a rule to carry out the procedures and approaches developed under section 20013(b)(1).
In 2004 FHWA initiated SEP-15, pursuant to authority granted the Secretary by 23 U.S.C. 502(b), to create a procedure to waive the 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 (October 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 the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321,
FHWA currently administers several projects under SEP-15, including the two examples provided below.
1. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) is replacing 558 bridges throughout the State as a single P3 project. At PennDOT's request, FHWA allowed the private partner in the P3 to be responsible for preparing, in coordination with the overall replacement schedule, the NEPA supporting documentation and draft environmental decision documents for each bridge. In addition, the private partner was allowed to select the consultant that prepares the NEPA document and retain exclusive control over the consultant. These are deviations from FHWA design-build regulations codified at 23 CFR part 636. FHWA's acceptance of the PennDOT proposal was conditional and contingent on the inclusion of specific safeguards to protect the integrity of the environmental decision-making process. FHWA and PennDOT remain responsible for issuing the final environmental determinations under NEPA, and FHWA and PennDOT remain responsible for the scope and contents of the NEPA documents.
2. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) recently completed a ten-year capital program that added 120 miles to Idaho's highway system, including many new or improved bridges and interchanges. The program was funded primarily through a series of
Having concluded its research, and pursuant to Section 20013(b)(5) of MAP-21, FTA is proposing the PIPP, which would be similar to FHWA's SEP-15, and would help address impediments to the greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects identified by FTA. The PIPP are intended to encourage project sponsors to seek modifications of Federal requirements that 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.
A key goal of the PIPP would be to identify provisions of current FTA regulations, practices, procedures, and guidance documents that may be impediments to the greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects, and, where possible, modify such requirements while ensuring protection of the public interest and any public investment in the project. In accordance with Section 20013(b)(6) of MAP-21, the PIPP could not be used to waive any requirement under NEPA, 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 (including 49 U.S.C. 5333), or any other provision of Federal statute. Thus, the PIPP would allow for innovations in project delivery while maintaining FTA's stewardship responsibilities. The lessons learned from projects approved under the PIPP would aid FTA in developing more effective approaches to project planning, project development, finance, design, construction, maintenance, and operations.
As with the SEP-15 program, a recipient could apply to FTA to request modification or waiver of specific FTA requirements that the recipient contends make a project unattractive from the P3 or private investment standpoint. The FTA Administrator would have discretion to grant a modification or waiver of a requirement under certain circumstances. Applications would be required to include specific information in order to be considered for the PIPP; FTA is considering creating a standard format for applications that would assist applicants in ensuring the completeness of their applications, and allow for electronic submission of applications via the FTA Web site. FTA recognizes that PIPP project proposals could include multi-modal components. FTA would coordinate the review of multi-modal project proposals with the appropriate DOT modal administration(s). In addition, if PIPP project proposals anticipate financing under TIFIA, RRIF or PABs, FTA would coordinate with the Bureau.
The proposed rule would add a new part 650, “Private Investment Project Procedures,” to title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The rule proposes to implement the statutory requirements of section 20013(b)(1) of MAP-21. The rule would be composed of four subparts.
Subpart A, sections 650.1 through 650.5, would contain the definitive terms of the rule: The purpose, applicability and defined terms.
Subpart B, section 650.11, would describe who may submit an application, the type of project eligible for consideration, and factors that the applicant must demonstrate in order for FTA to consider waiving or modifying its requirements. The proposed section 650.13 would provide limitations on FTA's ability to waive or modify certain requirements despite implementation of the proposed rule.
Subpart C, section 650.21 would require successful applicants to submit a report following completion of the project that would analyze the impact of the experimental procedures on project delivery.
Subpart D, section 650.31, would describe the application process, including the minimum requirements for applications. One of the minimum requirements is evidence of committed financing for the project, including from private partners or investors in a proposed project. FTA seeks comment on whether requiring evidence of committed financing would be premature at the time of application.
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 proposed rule would 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 proposed rule would provide 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. The proposals set forth in 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 proposed rule is expected to be an EO 13771 deregulatory action because FTA believes it would reduce the cost of complying with FTA's requirements. However, FTA is unable at this time to quantify the cost savings due to the lack of information about (1) the types of waivers that would be requested, (2) the number of waivers that would 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 proposed rule. FTA requests public comments on estimating the cost savings of this proposed rule.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354; 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FTA has evaluated the likely
This proposed rulemaking would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48).
This proposed rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria established by Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999). FTA has determined that the proposed action would not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. FTA has also determined that this proposed action would 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 NPRM 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 proposed 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 proposed actions in the form of a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement. This proposed rulemaking 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 proposed rulemaking under Executive Order 13045 (April 21, 1997), Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FTA certifies that this proposed 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 proposed 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. You may review USDOT'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
Grant programs—transportation, Mass transportation.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of Section 20013(b)(1) of The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141) and the delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.91, FTA hereby proposes to amend Chapter VI of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations by adding Part 650 to read as follows:
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 project may be submitted. 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 that 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 consideration of an application under this part does not commit Federal-aid funding for the project.
No later than one year after completion of a project for which the Administrator has modified or waived any FTA requirement pursuant to this part, the recipient shall submit to FTA
(a) Applications must be submitted to the FTA Private Sector Liaison at the Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
(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 that the recipient requests to have modified or waived and a proposal as to how a requirement should be modified,
(5) Provide a justification for the modification or waiver, including an explanation of how the FTA requirement 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 or waiver 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 committed to the project, and
(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 § 650.31(b). 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 650.31(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.
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 August 30, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
To ensure a favorable balance of trade and compliance with export health requirements, APHIS uses information collection activities such as U.S. Origin Health Certificates; U.S. Interstate and International Certificates of Health Examinations for Small Animals; U.S. Origin Health Certificates for the Export of Horses from the United States to Canada; Health Certificates for the Export of Live Finfish, Mollusks, and Crustaceans (and their Gametes); Undue Hardship Explanations-Animals; Applications for Approval of Inspection Facility-Environmental Certification; Annual Inspections of Inspection Facilities; Opportunities to Present Views Concerning Withdrawal of Facility Approval; Certifications to Carry Livestock; Inspections of Vessel Prior to Voyage; Notarized Statements; Aircraft Cleaning and Disinfection; Country-Specific Health Care; and Travel Time.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is partially rescinding its administrative review on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate products (CTL plate) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) for the period of review (POR) February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.
Effective July 31, 2017.
Yang Jin Chun AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760.
On February 8, 2017, we published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CTL plate from Korea for the POR February 1,
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, “in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” Because Nucor Corporation withdrew its review request in a timely manner, and because no other party requested a review of the 12 companies identified above, we are rescinding the administrative review in part with respect to these 12 companies.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For these 12 companies, for which the review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at the rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days after publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Notice of issuance of an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to Florida Citrus Exports, L.C. (FCE), application No. 94-5A007.
The Secretary of Commerce, through the Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (OTEA), issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to FCE on July 17, 2017. A previous amended Export Trade Certificate of Review was issued to FCE on October 13, 2010, and a notice of its issuance was published in the
Joseph Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) (the Act) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2015). OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the
FCE's Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to:
• Add the following new Member of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): Premier Citrus Marketing, LLC.
FCE's Export Trade Certificate of Review Membership, as amended, is listed below:
The effective date of the amended certificate is April 17, 2017, the date on which FCE's application to amend was deemed submitted.
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; reopening of public comment period.
On June 26, 2017, NOAA published a notice in the
Written comments must be submitted no later than August 15, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket ID NOAA-NOS-2017-0066 by either of the following methods:
•
•
William Douros, 831-647-1920, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring Metro Campus Building 4 (SSMC4), Eleventh Floor, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Executive Order 13795.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) will hold a meeting, which is open to the public.
The HMSMT meeting will be on Tuesday, August 8, 2017 to Thursday, August 10, 2017. This meeting will start at 8:30 a.m. and continue until business is concluded on each day.
The meeting will be held in the Pacific Room at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8901 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037-1508; phone: (858) 546-7000.
Dr. Kit Dahl, Pacific Council; phone: (503) 820-2422.
The purpose of the HMSMT meeting is to respond to Council guidance from its June 2017 meeting on further development of a range of alternatives for authorizing a fishery using deep-set buoy gear. The HMSMT will provide an updated range of alternatives at the Council's September 2017 meeting. The Council is scheduled to adopt the range of alternatives for public review. The HMSMT may also discuss other HMS topics on the Council's September agenda. These topics include final action on Amendment 4 to the HMS Fishery Management Plan, international management issues, review of exempted fishing permit proposals to use deep-set buoy gear, and swordfish management project planning. Although not on the September Council meeting agenda, the HMSMT may also discuss updates to the HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation document and HMS-related matters scheduled on future Council agendas.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2411 at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that the NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) to take small numbers of six species of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to the dismantling of the original East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) in the San Francisco Bay (SFB), California.
This IHA will be valid from September 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018.
Dale Youngkin, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of references cited in this document, may be obtained at
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the take of marine mammals incidental to construction of the East Span of the SFOBB and made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on November 4, 2003. Due to the modification of part of the construction project and the mitigation measures, NMFS reviewed additional information from CALTRANS regarding empirical measurements of pile driving noises for the smaller temporary piles without an air bubble curtain system and the use of vibratory pile driving. NMFS prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) and analyzed the potential impacts to marine mammals that would result from the modification of the action. A FONSI was signed on August 5, 2009. In addition, for CALTRANS' Piers E4 and E5 demolition using controlled implosion, NMFS prepared an SEA and analyzed the potential impacts to marine mammals that would result from the modification. A FONSI was signed on September 3, 2015. The proposed activity and expected impacts remain within what was previously analyzed in the EA and SEAs. Therefore, no additional NEPA analysis is warranted. A copy of the SEA and FONSI is available at
On April 5, 2017, CALTRANS submitted a request to NMFS for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to the dismantling of the original East Span of the SFOBB in the San Francisco Bay. On May 1, 2017, NMFS deemed the application adequate and complete. CALTRANS requested authorization for incidental take by harassment only and NMFS concurs that mortality is not expected to result from this activity. NMFS is proposing to issue an IHA that will authorize take by Level B harassment of Pacific harbor seal, California sea lion, northern elephant seal, northern fur seal, harbor porpoise, and bottlenose dolphin incidental to CALTRANS' activities. As described in the Overview section, previous IHAs have been issued to CALTRANS for similar activities, specifically for the use of mechanical dismantling and controlled blasts to implode piers of the original East Span of the SFOBB.
CALTRANS proposes removal of the original East Span of the SFOBB by mechanical dismantling and by use of controlled charges to implode 13 piers (Piers E6-E18) into their open cellular chambers below the mudline. Activities associated with dismantling the original East Span may potentially result in incidental take of marine mammals due to the use of highly controlled charges to dismantle the marine foundations of the piers.
Several previous one-year IHAs have been issued to CALTRANS for pile driving/removal and construction of the new SFOBB East Span beginning in 2003. NMFS has issued 10 IHAs to CALTRANS for the SFOBB Project. The first five IHAs (2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011) addressed potential impacts associated with pile driving for the construction of the new East Span of the SFOBB. IHAs issued in 2013, 2014 and July 2015 addressed activities associated with both constructing the new East Span and dismantling the original East Span, specifically addressing vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile extraction/removal, attenuated impact pile driving, pile proof testing, and mechanical dismantling of temporary and permanent marine foundations. On September 9, 2015, NMFS issued an IHA to CALTRANS for incidental take associated with the demolition of Pier E3 of the original SFOBB by highly controlled explosives (80 FR 57584,
A detailed description of the planned SFOBB dismantling project is provided in the
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to CALTRANS for the SFOBB project was published in the
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by CALTRANS' SFOBB project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence were provided in the
Table 1 lists all species and stocks with potential for occurrence in the San Francisco Bay and summarizes information related to the species or stock, including potential biological removal (PBR). Since the time of the proposed IHA, NMFS' SARs have been updated and finalized; however, there were no changes for the marine mammal species or stocks with potential for occurrence in the San Francisco Bay. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. PBR is considered in concert with the known sources of ongoing anthropogenic mortality to assess the population-level effects of the anticipated mortality from a specific project (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR information is included here as a gross indicator of the status of the species and other threats. Gray whales are a species that could potentially occur in the proposed project area but are not expected to have reasonable potential to be harassed by CALTRANS' SFOBB actions because they are unlikely to occur in the project area, as discussed above. This species is included in Table 1 but is omitted from further analysis. For species status, we provide information regarding U.S. regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA in Table 2.
The proposed CALTRANS SFOBB work using controlled charges (
This section provides a summary of the number of incidental takes authorized through the IHA, which informed both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Detailed information on how estimated take was calculated was provided in the Estimated Take section of the proposed IHA
A summary of the authorized number of takes by implosion of Piers E6 through E18 is provided in Table 2.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (the latter is not applicable for this action). NMFS' regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully weigh two primary factors: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat, which considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as well as the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented; and (2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost and impact on operations.
For CALTRANS's proposed controlled implosions of Piers E6 through E18, CALTRANS will utilize the mitigation measures discussed below to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity, which were developed and successfully employed for previous controlled implosions of other piers of the original East Span of the SFOBB. The primary purposes of these mitigation measures are to minimize impacts by reducing sound levels from the activities and to monitor for marine mammals within designated exclusion zones and zones of influence (ZOI). Specific mitigation measures are:
Implosion of Piers E6 through E18 will only be conducted during daylight hours, with enough time for pre and post implosion monitoring during daylight hours. Implosion events will also only be conducted during periods with good visibility when the largest exclusion zone can be visually monitored. In addition, to minimize impacts on biological resources, implosion events will be conducted at slack tides between September and November.
Prior to the demolition of Piers E6 through E18, CALTRANS will install a Blast Attenuation System (BAS) as described above to reduce the noise and shockwave from the implosion.
CALTRANS will establish marine mammal exclusion zones (MMEZ) for both the mortality and Level A harassment zone (including permanent threshold shift (PTS), GI track injury, and slight lung injury) using the criteria threshold that extends out the furthest distance (refer to Table 3). As an additional conservative measure to ensure that no marine mammals are taken by Level A harassment, the field-implemented MMEZ will be 20 percent larger than the calculated distances to threshold criteria.
The isopleths for PTS for phocids (harbor seal and elephant seal) cover the entire area for both Level A harassment and mortality for all pinnipeds (including California sea lions and northern fur seals), as well as bottlenose dolphins. Therefore, the pinniped and dolphin exclusion zone will be established at the radial distance to the phocid PTS Level A harassment threshold plus an additional 20 percent conservative factor. The harbor porpoise exclusion zone will be established at the radial distance to the high-frequency cetacean PTS Level A harassment threshold plus an additional 20 percent conservative factor (see Table 23 and Figures 12-14 and 17-21 of the IHA application). These MMEZs will be monitored by marine mammal observers (MMOs), and if any marine mammals are observed within the MMEZs, the implosion will be delayed until the animal leaves the area or at least 15 minutes have passed since the last observation of pinnipeds and small cetaceans and at least 30 minutes have passed since the last observation of bottlenose dolphins.
Marine mammal monitoring zones will be established for both behavioral response and temporary threshold shift (TTS) (Level B harassment). Hydroacoustic monitoring results from the implosions of Piers E3, E4, and E5
The isopleths for Level B harassment to phocids (harbor seals and elephant seals) for all pier implosion scenarios cover the entire area for Level B harassment to all pinnipeds including otariids (California sea lions and fur seals) as well as bottlenose dolphins. Therefore, the pinniped and dolphin Level B harassment monitoring zones for each pier implosion scenario will be established at the radial distance to the phocid Level B harassment threshold plus an additional 20 percent conservative factor (see Tables 24 and 25 and Figures 12-16 of the IHA application).
All MMOs will be equipped with mobile phones and a VHF radio as a backup. One person will be designated as the Lead MMO and will be in constant contact with the Resident Engineer on site and the blasting crew. The Lead MMO will coordinate marine mammal sightings with the other MMOs. MMOs will contact the other MMOs when a sighting is made within the exclusion zone or near the exclusion zone so that the MMOs within overlapping areas of responsibility can continue to track the animal and the Lead MMO is aware of the animal. If an animal has entered the exclusion zone or is near it within 30 minutes of blasting, the Lead MMO will notify the Resident Engineer and blasting crew. The Lead MMO will keep them informed of the disposition of the animal.
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal);
(2) A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only);
(3) A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only);
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only);
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time; and/or
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for Incidental Take Authorizations (ITA) must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical to both compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring. CALTRANS has proposed marine mammal monitoring measures as part of the IHA application found at
Monitoring measures NMFS prescribes shall improve our understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine animals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
As most elements of marine mammal monitoring plans for pile driving activities are similar to what would be required for underwater implosions, monitoring for impacts to marine mammals from the implosion activities
A minimum of 10 MMOs will be required during the controlled implosions of Piers E6 through E18 so that the MMEZ, Level B Harassment TTS and Behavioral ZOIs, and surrounding area can be monitored. Up to 15 MMOs will be required for implosion events involving multiple piers in order to monitor the full extent of these areas. One MMO will be designated as the Lead MMO and would receive updates from other MMOs on the presence or absence of marine mammals within the MMEZ and will notify the Environmental Compliance Manager of a cleared exclusion zone to the implosion(s).
Implosions of Piers E6 through E18 will be conducted only during daylight hours and with enough time for pre and post-implosion monitoring during daylight hours, and with good visibility (
Each MMO will record the observation position, start and end times of observations, and weather conditions (
• Species;
• Number of animals (with or without pup/calf);
• Age class (pup/calf, juvenile, adult);
• Identifying marks or color (
• Position relative to piers being imploded (distance and direction);
• Movement (direction and relative speed); and
• Behavior (
Although any injury or mortality from the implosions of Piers E6 through E18 is very unlikely, boat or shore surveys will be conducted daily for 3 days following the event, to determine whether any injured or stranded marine mammals are in the area. If an injured or dead animal is discovered during these surveys or by other means, the NMFS-designated stranding team will be contacted to pick up the animal. Veterinarians will treat the animal or will conduct a necropsy to attempt to determine whether it stranded because of the pier implosions.
CALTRANS is required to submit a draft monitoring report within 90 days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the IHA, whichever comes first. This draft report will detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. NMFS will have an opportunity to provide comments on the draft report within 30 days, and if NMFS has comments, CALTRANS will address the comments and submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days. If no comments are provided by NMFS after 30 days of receiving the report, the draft report will be considered final.
Stranding plans for the pier implosions of Piers E3, E4, and E5 were prepared in cooperation with the local NMFS-designated marine mammal stranding, rescue, and rehabilitation center. An updated version of this plan will be implemented during implosions of Piers E6 through E18. Although avoidance and minimization measures likely will prevent any injuries, preparations will be made in the unlikely event that marine mammals are injured. Elements of the plan will include the following:
1. The stranding crew will prepare treatment areas at an NMFS-designated facility for cetaceans or pinnipeds that may be injured from the implosions. Preparation will include equipment to treat lung injuries, auditory testing equipment, dry and wet caged areas to hold animals, and operating rooms if surgical procedures are necessary;
2. A stranding crew and a veterinarian will be on call near the piers at the time of the implosions to quickly recover any injured marine mammals, provide emergency veterinary care, stabilize the animal's condition, and transport individuals to an NMFS-designated facility. If an injured or dead animal is found, NMFS (both the regional office and headquarters) will be notified immediately, even if the animal appears to be sick or injured from causes other than the implosions;
3. Post-implosion surveys will be conducted immediately after the event and over the following 3 days to determine whether any injured or dead marine mammals are in the area; and
4. Any veterinarian procedures, euthanasia, rehabilitation decisions, and time of release or disposition of the animal will be at the discretion of the NMFS-designated facility staff and the veterinarians treating the animals. Any necropsies to determine whether the injuries or death of an animal was the result of an implosion or other anthropogenic or natural causes will be conducted at an NMFS-designated facility by the stranding crew and veterinarians. The results will be communicated to both the CALTRANS and to NMFS as soon as possible, followed by a written report within a month.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses applies to all the species and stocks listed in Table 2, given that the anticipated effects of CALTRANS' SFOBB construction activities involving controlled implosions for Piers E6 through E18 on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature.
No injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of CALTRANS' SFOBB activity associated with the controlled implosions to demolish Piers E6 through E18, and none are authorized. The relatively low marine mammal density and small Level A exclusion zones make injury takes of marine mammals unlikely, based on take calculation described above. In addition, the Level A exclusion zones will be thoroughly monitored before the proposed implosion, and detonation activity will be postponed if any marine mammal is sighted within the exclusion zone.
The takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral responses and TTS). Due to implementation of mitigation measures and proven success in implementation of these measures as evidenced during previous SFOBB activities, more significant acute stress responses, serious injury or mortality, and more significant behavioral responses are not anticipated as a result of the proposed activities. Marine mammals (Pacific harbor seal, northern elephant seal, California sea lion, northern fur seal, harbor porpoise, and bottlenose dolphin) present in the vicinity of the action area and taken by Level B harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (startle reaction) and avoidance of the area from elevated noise level during the implosion noise. A few marine mammals could experience TTS if they occur within the Level B TTS ZOI. However, TTS is a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity when exposed to loud sound, and the hearing threshold is expected to recover completely within minutes to hours. Therefore, it is not considered an injury. In addition, even if an animal receives a TTS, the TTS would be a one-time event from a brief impulse noise (about 5 seconds), making it unlikely that the TTS would lead to PTS. Finally, there is no critical habitat or other biologically important areas in the vicinity of CALTRANS' proposed controlled implosion areas (Calambokidis
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in the “Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and their Habitat” section of the proposed IHA
Based on the best available information, the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from CALTRANS's SFOBB demolition via controlled implosions of Piers E6 through E18 will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Table 2 presents the numbers of marine mammals that could be taken by Level B harassment incidental to CALTRAN's activities. Our analysis shows that less than 2.8 percent of the affected stocks could be taken by behavioral harassment and TTS (see Table 2 in this document). Therefore, the numbers of marine mammals estimated to be taken are small relative to total populations of the affected species or stocks. In addition, the mitigation and monitoring measures (described previously in this document) prescribed in the IHA are expected to reduce even further any potential disturbance to marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
There are no subsistence uses of marine mammals in the proposed project area; and, thus, no subsistence uses impacted by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
NMFS has determined that issuance of the IHA will have no effect on listed marine mammals, as none are known to occur in the action area.
NMFS has issued an IHA to CALTRANS for conducting SFOBB activities involving demolition via controlled implosion of Piers E6 through E18, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Defense Travel Management Office, DoD.
Notice of revised non-foreign overseas per diem rates.
The Defense Travel Management Office is publishing Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 306. This bulletin lists revisions in the per diem rates prescribed for U.S. Government employees for official travel in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and Possessions of the
Ms. Sonia Malik, 571-372-1276.
This document gives notice of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Defense Travel Management Office for non-foreign areas outside the contiguous United States. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the
Notice is hereby given that the Delaware River Basin Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at the Washington Crossing Historic Park Visitor Center, 1112 River Road, Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania. A business meeting will be held the following month on Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at the Linksz Pavilion, Bucks County Community College, 275 Swamp Road, Newtown, Pennsylvania. The hearing and meeting are open to the public.
The list of projects scheduled for hearing, including project descriptions, will be posted on the Commission's Web site,
Written comments on matters scheduled for hearing on August 16 will be accepted through 5:00 p.m. on August 21. Time permitting, an opportunity for Open Public Comment will be provided upon the conclusion of Commission business at the September 13 Business Meeting; in accordance with recent format changes, this opportunity will not be offered upon completion of the Public Hearing.
The public is advised to check the Commission's Web site periodically prior to the hearing date, as items scheduled for hearing may be postponed if additional time is deemed necessary to complete the Commission's review, and items may be added up to ten days prior to the hearing date. In reviewing docket descriptions, the public is also asked to be aware that project details commonly change in the course of the Commission's review, which is ongoing.
There will be no opportunity for additional public comment for the record at the September 13 Business Meeting on items for which a hearing was completed on August 16 or a previous date. Commission consideration on September 13 of items for which the public hearing is closed may result in approval of the item (by docket or resolution) as proposed, approval with changes, denial, or deferral. When the Commissioners defer an action, they may announce an additional period for written comment on the item, with or without an additional hearing date, or they may take additional time to consider the input they have already received without requesting further public input. Any deferred items will be considered for action at a public meeting of the Commission on a future date.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region 2, of a proposed cost recovery settlement agreement pursuant to CERCLA, with 145 Marcus Blvd., Inc. (“Settling Party”) for the Computer Circuits Superfund Site (“Site”), located in Hauppauge, Suffolk County, New York.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 30, 2017.
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at EPA Region 2 offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. Comments should reference the Computer Circuits Superfund Site, Hauppauge, Suffolk County, New York, Index No. II-CERCLA-02-2017-2017. To request a copy of the proposed settlement agreement, please contact the EPA employee identified below.
Henry Guzman, Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866. Email:
The Settling Party agrees to pay EPA $261,000.00 in reimbursement of EPA's past response costs paid at or in connection with the Site.
The settlement includes a covenant by EPA not to sue or to take administrative action against the Settling Party pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), with regard to the response costs related to the work at the Site enumerated in the settlement agreement. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
30-Day notice of submission of information collection for approval from Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA or the Agency) is seeking public comments concerning an information collection known as the “Monthly Survey of Rates and Terms on Conventional 1-Family Nonfarm Mortgage Loans (MIRS),” which has been assigned control number 2590-0004 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). FHFA intends to submit the information collection to OMB for review and approval of a three-year extension of the control number, which is due to expire on July 31, 2017.
Interested persons may submit comments on or before August 30, 2017.
Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Washington, DC 20503, Fax: (202) 395-3047, Email:
•
•
•
We will post all public comments we receive without change, including any
David L. Roderer, Senior Financial Analyst,
FHFA's Monthly Survey of Rates and Terms on Conventional 1-Family Nonfarm Mortgage Loans, commonly referred to as the “Monthly Interest Rate Survey” or “MIRS,” is a monthly survey of mortgage lenders that solicits information on the terms and conditions on all conventional, single-family, fully amortized, purchase-money mortgage loans closed during the last five working days of the preceding month. The MIRS collects monthly information on interest rates, loan terms, and house prices by property type (
The MIRS originated with one of FHFA's predecessor agencies, the former Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB), in the 1960s and was conducted by the former Federal Housing Finance Board from 1989 through 2008. Data collected through the MIRS was used to derive the FHLBB's National Average Contract Mortgage Rate for the Purchase of Previously Occupied Homes by Combined Lenders (ARM Index), which was used by lenders to set mortgage rates on adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs). For a period of years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were required by statute to use MIRS data in making annual adjustments to their conforming loan limits.
Since 2008, FHFA has continued to conduct the MIRS and to produce the ARM Index.
While adjustments in the conforming loan limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are no longer based solely on data collected through the MIRS, MIRS data remains one of the factors that FHFA is required to consider in assessing the national average one-family house price for purposes of making those adjustments.
The OMB control number for this information collection is 2590-0004. The current clearance for the information collection expires on July 31, 2017.
The Agency received a total of 1,369 monthly MIRS data submissions from 45 unique survey respondents over the period 2014-2016, representing an average of 456.3 monthly submissions per year from all respondents. Based on that figure and the expectation that it may receive slightly fewer data submissions going forward as compared to the last three years, FHFA estimates that it will receive an average of 450 data submissions annually over the next three years.
Most MIRS respondents submit their monthly MIRS data electronically through FHFA's MIRS web interface. Several, primarily larger, respondents transmit an electronic data file to FHFA, which then uploads the data to the same web interface. A few respondents still elect to complete FHFA Form #075 and submit it by facsimile. FHFA believes that, on average, a respondent will spend 20 minutes transmitting each monthly MIRS data set.
Thus, FHFA estimates that the annualized hour burden on all respondents imposed by this information collection over the next three years will be 150 hours (450 submissions x 0.33 hours).
In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FHFA published a request for public comments regarding this information collection in the
In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.10(a), FHFA is publishing this second notice to request comments regarding the following: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FHFA functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FHFA's estimates of the burdens of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should be submitted in writing to both OMB and FHFA as instructed above in the COMMENTS section.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 15, 2017.
1.
1.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent orders—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before August 21, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Kari Wallace (202-326-3085), Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for July 20, 2017), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before August 21, 2017. Write “In the Matter of Baxter International Inc., File No. 171-0052” 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 Web site, 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. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of Baxter International Inc., File No. 171-0052” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), 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 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site 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.
Visit the FTC Web site to read this Notice and the news release describing it. 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 August 21, 2017. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Baxter International Inc. (“Baxter”) and Claris Lifesciences Limited and Arjun Handa (collectively “Claris”) that is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from Baxter's acquisition of voting securities of certain entities and related assets from Claris. Under the terms of the proposed Consent Agreement, the parties are required to divest all of Claris's rights and assets related to fluconazole in saline intravenous bags and milrinone in dextrose intravenous bags to Renaissance Lakewood LLC (“Renaissance”).
The proposed Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty days for receipt of comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again evaluate the proposed Consent Agreement, along with any comments received, to make a final decision as to whether it should withdraw from the proposed Consent Agreement or make final the Decision and Order (“Order”).
Pursuant to agreements dated December 15, 2016, Baxter proposes to acquire voting securities of certain entities and related assets from Claris in two related transactions valued at approximately $625 million (the “Proposed Acquisition”). The Commission alleges in its Complaint that the Proposed Acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by lessening current competition in the market for fluconazole in saline intravenous bags and future competition in the market for milrinone in dextrose intravenous bags in the United States. The proposed Consent Agreement will remedy the alleged violations by preserving the competition that otherwise would be eliminated by the Proposed Acquisition.
The Proposed Acquisition would reduce the current competition in the market for fluconazole in saline intravenous bags, and reduce future competition in the market for milrinone in dextrose intravenous bags.
Fluconazole is an antifungal agent used to treat a variety of fungal and yeast infections. Five companies currently sell generic intravenous fluconazole bags in the United States: Baxter, Claris, Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”), Sagent Pharmaceuticals, and Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC (“Hikma”), but only four of these companies are significant competitors. Baxter and Claris have a combined estimated market share of nearly 60%.
Intravenous milrinone is a vasodilator that dilates the blood vessels, lowering blood pressure and allowing blood to flow more easily through the cardiovascular system. The product is used as a short-term treatment for life-threatening heart failure. Three companies—Baxter, Hikma, and Pfizer—currently sell the product in the United States. Claris is expected to enter this market shortly, once its pending application at the FDA is approved, a development expected to occur in the very near future.
Entry into the two markets at issue would not be timely, likely, or sufficient in magnitude, character, and scope to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of the Proposed Acquisition. The combination of drug development times and regulatory requirements, including approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), is costly and lengthy.
The Proposed Acquisition likely would cause significant anticompetitive harm to consumers by eliminating current competition between Baxter and Claris in the market for fluconazole in saline intravenous bags. Fluconazole in
In addition, the Proposed Acquisition likely would cause significant anticompetitive harm to consumers by eliminating future competition that would otherwise have occurred if Baxter and Claris remained independent in the market for milrinone in dextrose intravenous bags. The evidence shows that the Proposed Acquisition, absent a remedy, would eliminate an additional independent entrant in the currently concentrated market for milrinone in dextrose intravenous bags, which would have enabled customers to negotiate lower prices. Customers and competitors have observed—and pricing data confirms—that the price of these pharmaceutical products decreases with new entry even after several other suppliers have entered the market. Thus, absent a remedy, the Proposed Acquisition likely will cause U.S. consumers to pay significantly higher prices for milrinone in dextrose intravenous bags in the future.
The proposed Consent Agreement effectively remedies the competitive concerns raised by the acquisition in both markets at issue by requiring Claris to divest all its rights to fluconazole in saline intravenous bags and milrinone in dextrose intravenous bags to Renaissance. Renaissance is a pharmaceutical corporation that develops, manufacturers, sells, and distributes injectable pharmaceutical products in the United States. The parties must accomplish these divestitures no later than ten days after they consummate the Proposed Acquisition.
The Commission's goal in evaluating possible purchasers of divested assets is to maintain the competitive environment that existed prior to the Proposed Acquisition. If the Commission determines that Renaissance is not an acceptable acquirer, or that the manner of the divestitures is not acceptable, the proposed Order requires the parties to unwind the sale of rights to Renaissance and then divest the products to a Commission-approved acquirer within six months of the date the Order becomes final. The proposed Order further allows the Commission to appoint a trustee in the event the parties fail to divest the products as required.
The proposed Consent Agreement and Order contain several provisions to help ensure that the divestitures are successful. Baxter will supply Renaissance with fluconazole in saline intravenous bags and milrinone in dextrose intravenous bags for up to five years while the company transfers the manufacturing technology to Renaissance or its contract manufacturing designee. The proposed Order also requires Baxter to provide transitional services to Renaissance to assist it in establishing its manufacturing capabilities and securing all of the necessary FDA approvals. These transitional services include technical assistance to manufacture fluconazole in saline intravenous bags and milrinone in dextrose intravenous bags in substantially the same manner and quality employed or achieved by Claris. It also includes advice and training from knowledgeable employees of the parties. Under the proposed Consent Agreement, the Commission also will appoint an Interim Monitor.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Order or to modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for revision and an extension to existing OMB clearances regarding the Buy American statute, Trade Agreements, and duty-free entry.
Submit comments on or before September 29, 2017.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0024, Buy American, Trade Agreements, and Duty-Free Entry, by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number 9000-0024. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0024, Buy American, Trade Agreements, and Duty-Free Entry. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0024, Buy American, Trade Agreements, and Duty-Free Entry” on your attached document.
•
Ms. Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 219-0202 or email
* The Buy American statute (41 U.S.C. chapter 83 and E.O. 10582).
* The Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2501-2515), including the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement and various free trade agreements.
* The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5) (Recovery Act).
* Subchapters VIII and X of Chapter 98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202).
a. 52.225-2, Buy American Certificate, as prescribed in FAR 25.1101 (a)(2), requires the offeror to identify in its proposal supplies that do not meet the definition of domestic end product. The Buy American statute does not apply to acquisitions of commercial information technology.
b. 52.225-4, Buy American—Free Trade Agreements—Israeli Trade Act Certificate, as prescribed in FAR 25.1101(b)(2)(i), requires separate listing of foreign products that are eligible under a trade agreement, and listing of all other foreign end products.
c. 52.225-6, Trade Agreements Certificate, as prescribed in FAR 25.1101(c)(2), requires the offeror to certify that all end products are either U.S.-made or designated country end products, except as listed in paragraph (b) of the provision. Offerors are not allowed to provide other than a U.S.-made or designated country end product, unless the requirement is waived.
d.
• 52.225-9, Buy American-Construction Materials
• 52.225-10, Notice of Buy American Requirement—Construction Materials
• 52.225-11, Buy American—Construction Materials under Trade Agreements
• 52.225-12, Notice of Buy American Requirement—Construction Materials under Trade Agreements
• 52.225-21, Required Use of American Iron, Steel and Manufactured Goods—Buy American—Construction Materials
• 52.225-23, Required Use of American Iron, Steel and Manufactured Goods—Buy American—Construction Materials under Trade Agreements.
The listed provisions and clauses, as prescribed in FAR 25.1102(a) through (e), provide that an offeror/contractor requesting to use foreign construction material due to unreasonable cost of domestic construction material shall provide adequate information to permit evaluation of the request.
e. 52.225-8, Duty-Free Entry (formerly OMB clearance 9000-0022), as prescribed in FAR 25.1101(e), requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer when it purchases foreign supplies, in order to determine whether the supplies should be duty-free. In addition, all shipping documents and containers must specify certain information to assure the duty-free entry of the supplies.
1.
FAR Clause 52.225-2, Buy American Certificate, requires the offeror to identify in its proposal supplies for use in the United States that do not meet the definition of domestic end product. The Buy American statute does not apply to acquisitions of commercial information technology.
FAR Clause 52.225-4, Buy American-Free Trade Agreements-Israeli Trade Act Certificate, requires separate listing of foreign products that are eligible under a trade agreement, and listing of all other foreign end products.
FAR Clause 52.225-6, Trade Agreements Certificate, requires the offeror to certify that all end products are either U.S.-made or designated country end products, except as listed in paragraph (b) of the provision. Offerors are not allowed to provide other than a U.S.-made or designated country end product, unless the requirement is waived.
2. Buy American and Trade Agreements—Construction provisions and clauses provide that an offeror/contractor requesting to use foreign construction material due to unreasonable cost of domestic construction material shall provide adequate information to permit evaluation of the request.
3. Duty-Free Entry. The clause at FAR 52.225-8, Duty-Free Entry (formerly OMB clearance 9000-0022), is included in solicitations and contracts for supplies that may be imported into the United States and for which duty-free entry may be obtained in accordance with FAR 25.903(a), if the value of the acquisition (1) exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold; or (2) does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, but the savings from waiving the duty is anticipated to be more than the administrative cost of waiving the duty. The contracting officer analyzes the information submitted by the contractor to determine whether or not supplies should enter the country duty-free.
4. Summary
C.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0024, Buy American, Trade Agreements, and Duty-Free Entry in all correspondence.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by September 29, 2017.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the renewal of the charter of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education APOE (the Panel) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Panel advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Thomas Dudley, (410) 786-1442.
The Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) is governed by the provisions of Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. The Panel is authorized by section 1114(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a).
On January 21, 1999, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) signed the charter establishing the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education
The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) expanded the existing health plan options and benefits available under the M+C program and renamed it the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. CMS has substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options available and better tools to evaluate these options. Successful MA program implementation required CMS to consider views and policy input from a variety of private sector constituents and to develop a broad range of public-private partnerships.
In addition, Title I of the MMA authorized the Secretary and the Administrator of CMS (by delegation) to establish the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The drug benefit allows beneficiaries to obtain qualified prescription drug coverage. In order to effectively administer the MA program and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, CMS has substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options and benefits available and to develop better tools to evaluate these plans and benefits.
The Affordable Care Act (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152) expanded the availability of options for health care coverage and enacted a number of changes to Medicare as well as to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Qualified individuals and qualified employers are now able to purchase private health insurance coverage through competitive marketplaces, called an Affordable Insurance Exchange (also called Health Insurance Marketplace
The scope of this panel also includes advising on issues pertaining to the education of providers and stakeholders with respect to the Affordable Care Act and certain provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).
On January 21, 2011, the Panel's charter was renewed and the Panel was renamed the Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education.
Pursuant to the charter approved on January 19, 2017, the APOE was renewed. The APOE will advise the Department of Health and Human Services and CMS on developing and implementing education programs that support individuals enrolled in or eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, the CHIP, coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace and other CMS programs about options for selecting health care coverage under these and other programs envisioned under health care reform to ensure improved access to quality care, including prevention services. The scope of this FACA group also includes advising on education of providers and stakeholders with respect to health care reform and certain provisions of the HITECH Act enacted as part of ARRA. The charter will terminate on January 19, 2019, unless renewed by appropriate action. The APOE was chartered under 42 U.S.C. 217a, section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The APOE is governed by provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
Pursuant to the renewed charter, the APOE will advise the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the CMS Administrator concerning optimal strategies for the following:
• Developing and implementing education and outreach programs for individuals enrolled in or eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP or health coverage available through the Health Insurance Marketplace and other CMS programs.
• Enhancing the Federal government's effectiveness in informing the Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP or the Health Insurance Marketplace consumers, issuers, providers and stakeholders pursuant to education and outreach programs of issues regarding these programs, including the appropriate use of public-private partnerships to leverage the resources of the private sector in educating beneficiaries, providers, and stakeholders.
• Expanding outreach to vulnerable and underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and Health Insurance Marketplace education programs and other CMS programs as designated.
• Assembling and sharing an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers evaluate health coverage options.
• Building and leveraging existing community infrastructures for information, counseling, and assistance.
• Drawing the program link between outreach and education, promoting consumer understanding of health care coverage choices, and facilitating consumer selection/enrollment, which in turn support the overarching goal of improved access to quality care, including preventive services, envisioned under the Affordable Care Act.
The current members of the Panel are: Kellan Baker, Associate Director, Center for American Progress; Robert Blancato, President, Matz, Blancato & Associates; Dale Blasier, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Orthopaedics, Arkansas Children's Hospital; Deborah Britt, Executive Director of Community & Public Relations, Piedmont Fayette Hospital; Deena Chisolm, Associate Professor of Pediatrics & Public Health, The Ohio State University, Nationwide Children's Hospital; Josephine DeLeon, Director, Anti-Poverty Initiatives, Catholic Charities of California; Robert Espinoza, Vice President of Policy, Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute; Louise Scherer Knight, Director, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Roanne Osborne-Gaskin, M.D., Senior Medical Director, MDWise, Inc.; Cathy Phan, Outreach and Education Coordinator, Asian American Health Coalition DBA HOPE Clinic; Kamilah Pickett, Litigation Support, Independent Contractor; Brendan Riley, Outreach and Enrollment Coordinator, NC Community Health Center Association; Alvia Siddiqi, Medicaid Managed Care Community Network (MCCN) Medical Director, Advocate Physician Partners, Carla Smith, Executive Vice President, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS); Tobin Van Ostern, Vice President and Co-Founder, Young Invincibles Advisors; and Paula Villescaz, Senior Consultant, Assembly Health Committee, California State Legislature.
The Secretary's Charter for the APOE is available on the CMS Web site at:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “Cardiac Troponin Assays.” The purpose of the workshop is to discuss the development of innovative troponin assays designed to aid in the diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI) and additional clinical uses of these assays. The workshop is intended to enhance engagement with stakeholders to facilitate device development and to discuss scientific and regulatory challenges associated with the analytical and clinical validation methods for troponin assay devices. Public input and feedback gained through this workshop may aid in the development of science-based approaches to aid in the efficient development of innovative, safe and effective, troponin diagnostic assays, which may lead to better patient care.
The public workshop will be held on November 28, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public workshop by November 27, 2017. See the
The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 1503 (The Great Room), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before November 27, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Paula Caposino, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4644, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6160,
Since first discovered, cardiac troponin has become increasingly valuable as a biomarker of MI. In 2007, the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines and the Joint European Society of Cardiology, American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, and the World Heart Federation Task Force Guidelines recommended the use of cardiac troponin as a biomarker for the diagnosis of MI when used in conjunction with clinical evidence of myocardial ischemia (Refs. 1 and 2). Cardiac troponin has also been recommended in current clinical guidelines as a prognostic marker in patients with symptoms of acute coronary syndrome with respect to mortality, MI, or ischemic events. These recommendations solidified troponin's importance in MI diagnosis and triage; at the same time, they formalized an adjustment in the clinical cutoffs and changed the way troponin results were interpreted and used. There is a lot of interest in developing innovative troponin assays that aid in the diagnosis of MI and to support additional clinical uses of these assays. We are holding this public workshop to discuss several topics of interest that are important for the development of innovative cardiac troponin assays. The goal of the workshop is to enhance engagement with stakeholders concerning the development and validation of innovative troponin assay devices.
This public workshop will consist of brief presentations providing information to frame the discussion, followed by interactive panel discussions. Following the presentations, a moderated discussion is planned to ask speakers and additional panelists to provide their individual perspectives. Topics for discussion include:
In light of the changes to how troponin is used clinically, there is a need to explore and discuss troponin assay device development and evaluation. We are soliciting comments and feedback from stakeholders regarding additional topics for FDA to consider for discussion. These comments can be submitted to the docket prior to the meeting (see
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register by November 17, 2017, by 4 p.m. Eastern Time. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted. If time and space permit, onsite registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided beginning at 7:30 a.m. We will let registrants know if registration closes before the day of the public workshop.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Susan Monahan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4321, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5661, email:
If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “Developing a Framework for Regulatory Use of Real-World Evidence.” Convened by the Duke-Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University and supported by a cooperative agreement with FDA, the purpose of the public workshop is to bring the stakeholder community together to discuss a variety of topics related to the use of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) in drug development and regulatory decision making. Topics will include an update on FDA's activities to address the use of RWE in regulatory decisions and the development of a framework for tackling challenges related to RWE's regulatory acceptability. In addition, panelists will discuss opportunities to improve data development activities, study designs, and analytical methods used to create robust RWE.
The public workshop will be held on September 13, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time.
The public workshop will be held at the Conference Center at 1777 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20006. For additional travel and hotel information, please refer to the following Web site:
Kayla Garvin, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6314, Silver Spring, MD 20993, (301) 796-7578,
RWD (data relating to patient health status and/or the delivery of health care routinely collected from a variety of sources) and RWE (clinical evidence regarding the usage and potential benefits or risks of a drug derived from analysis of RWD) are increasingly being used by multiple stakeholders within the health care system. Payers may rely on RWD and RWE to refine formularies or assist in coverage decisions. Physicians and professional societies can utilize RWE to further tailor clinical practice guidelines and decision-support tools. Medical product developers can use RWE to further develop a product's benefit-risk profile, monitor postmarket safety and adverse events, or generate additional hypotheses for continued clinical development.
The 21st Century Cures Act, section 3022 (Pub. L. 114-255), enacted on December 13, 2016, directed FDA to establish a program to evaluate the potential use of RWE. The framework of the program was to include information describing the sources of RWE, the gaps in data collection, standards and methods for collection and analysis, and the priority areas and challenges.
To date, RWD and RWE have been used in very specific regulatory contexts. Some treatments for rare diseases, for example, have utilized RWE as part of the historical controls used for clinical study and, ultimately, regulatory submission. Postmarket safety surveillance has also relied heavily on RWD-generating networks. As part of exploring the opportunities for enhanced use of these types of data and evidence in additional regulatory decision-making contexts, FDA is seeking input on the opportunities and challenges in using RWE to support the approval of a new indication for an already approved drug, and to help support or satisfy postapproval study requirements.
This public workshop is being held to engage external stakeholders in discussions around the current state of RWE development and potential challenge areas for using RWE in regulatory decisions beyond postmarket safety surveillance.
During the course of the public workshop, speakers and participants will cover a range of issues related to
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. A 1-hour lunch break is scheduled, but food will not be provided. There are multiple restaurants within walking distance of the Conference Center.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Joanna Higgison at the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, 908-432-4872,
FDA has verified the Web site addresses in this document, as of the date this document publishes in the
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory committee meeting.
At the September 13-14, 2017 full meeting, the Committee will hear presentations, hold discussions on several health data policy topics and begin to formulate its work plan for 2018. To inform the work plan, the Committee will be briefed by the Commission on Evidence-based Policymaking (CEP) regarding the release of its report and recommendations as well as hear from HHS leadership regarding data needs and gaps. A panel will be held to discuss the new topic “Beyond HIPAA,” an exploration of challenges that extend beyond HIPAA and the range of policy options that may be available to the Department related to privacy, security and access measures to protect individually identifiable health information in an environment of electronic networking and multiple uses of data. Additional discussions are planned on the Predictability Roadmap project in follow up to a Standards Subcommittee workshop focused on possible approaches to improve the predictability and improvements in the adoption and processes related to updating standards and operating rules for electronic administrative transactions (
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the 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/or contract proposals 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 and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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 Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the combined meeting on August 11, 2017, of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) four National Advisory Councils: The SAMHSA National Advisory Council (NAC), the Center for Mental Health Services NAC, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention NAC, the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment NAC; and the two SAMHSA Advisory Committees: Advisory Committee for Women's Services (ACWS) and the Tribal Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC).
SAMHSA's National Advisory Councils were established to advise the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, SAMHSA; and SAMHSA's Center Directors concerning matters relating to the activities carried out by and through the Centers and the policies respecting such activities.
Under Section 501 of the Public Health Service Act, the ACWS is statutorily mandated to advise the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, SAMHSA, and the Associate Administrator for Women's Services on appropriate activities to be undertaken by SAMHSA and its Centers with respect to women's substance abuse and mental health services.
Pursuant to Presidential Executive Order No. 13175, November 6, 2000, and the Presidential Memorandum of
The theme for the August 11, 2017 combined meeting is spirituality and resiliency. It will include remarks from the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, and a report on SAMHSA's priorities and updates by the Centers and Office Directors.
The meeting is open to the public and will be held at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD, 20857. Attendance by the public will be limited to space available. Interested persons may present data, information, or views orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Council. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person by one week prior to the meeting. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations are encouraged to notify the contact by one week prior to the meeting. Five minutes will be allotted for each presentation. The meeting may be accessed via telephone and web conferencing will be available. To attend on site; obtain the call-in number, access code, and/or web access link; submit written or brief oral comments; or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register on-line at:
Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained either by accessing the SAMHSA Council's Web site at
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Downs.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond: Including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Downs.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
MAHRA renewals submission should include a Rent Comparability Study (RCS). If the RCS indicated rents were at or below comparable market rents, the contract was renewed at current rents adjusted by Operating Cost Adjustment Factor (OCAF), unless the Owner submitted documentation justifying a budget-based rent increase or participation in Mark-Up-To-Market. The case is that no renewal rents could exceed comparable market rents. If the RCS indicated rents were above comparable market rents, the contract was referred to the Office of Affordable Housing Preservation (OAHP) for debt restructuring and/or rent reduction. The Preserving Affordable Housing for Senior Citizens and Families in to the 21st Century Act of 1999 (public law 106-74, enacted on October 20, 1999), modified MAHRA.
The Section 8 Renewal Policy Guide sets forth six renewal options from which a project owner may choose when renewing their expiring Section 8 contract: Option One—Mark-Up-To-Market, Option Two—Other Contract Renewal with Current Rents at or Below Comparable Market Rents, Option Three—Referral to the Office of Affordable Preservation (OAHP), Option Four—Renewal of Projects Exempted From OMHAR, Option Five—Renewal of Portfolio Reengineering Demonstration or Preservation Projects, and Option Six—Opt Outs. Owners should select one of six options which are applicable to their project and should submit contract renewal on an annual basis to renew contract.
The Section 8 Renewal Guide sets forth six renewal options from which a project owner may choose when renewing their expiring Section 8 contracts. Option One (Mark-Up-To-Market), Option Two (Other Contract Renewals with Current Rents at or Below Comparable Market Rents), Option Three (Referral to the Office of Multifamily Housing Assistant Restructuring—OHAP), Option Four (Renewal of Projects Exempted from OHAP), Option Five (Renewal of Portfolio Reengineering Demonstration or Preservation Projects), and Option Six (Opt-Outs).
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond: Including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of intent; announcement of public scoping meetings; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, advise the public that we intend to evaluate the impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed issuance of an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, to LCRA Transmission Services Corporation (LCRA TSC; applicant) for incidental take of approximately 35 federally listed species for construction, operation, upgrade, decommissioning, and maintenance of the applicant's facilities within the proposed plan area (approximately 241 counties). LCRA TSC proposes to draft a Habitat Conservation Plan in support of the ITP. We also announce plans for public scoping meetings and the opening of a public comment period under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).
Written comments on alternatives and issues to be addressed must be received by close of business on or before August 30, 2017. Four public scoping meetings will be held throughout the proposed plan area. Exact meeting locations and times will be announced in local newspapers and on the Service's Austin Ecological Services Office Web site,
To request further information or submit written comments, use one of the following methods, and note that your information request or comment is in reference to the LCRA TSC NEPA analysis:
•
•
•
•
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), advise the public that we intend to evaluate the impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed issuance of an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531
We publish this notice in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321,
The applicant proposes to develop an HCP as part of their application for an ITP. The proposed HCP will describe, among other things, the measures necessary to minimize and mitigate the impacts, to the maximum extent practicable, of potential proposed taking of federally listed species and the habitats upon which they depend, resulting from operations, maintenance, upgrade, decommissioning, and construction of LCRA TSC facilities. At this time, we intend to evaluate the impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed issuance of an ITP under the Act to LCRA TSC.
Upon completion of the public scoping process and completion of our review of the applicant's proposed HCP, we will determine whether an environmental assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement is the appropriate NEPA analysis to support potential issuance of the ITP.
Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. The ESA defines “take” as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed animal species, or attempt to engage in such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1533). The term “harm” is defined in the regulations as significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). However, the Service may, under specified circumstances, issue permits that allow the take of federally listed species, provided that the take is incidental to, but not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing ITPs for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA contains provisions for issuing such ITPs to non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species, provided the following criteria are met: (1) The taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking; (3) the applicant will develop a conservation plan and ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided; (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and (5) the applicant will carry out any other measures that we may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(B) and 1539(a)(2)(A)).
Thus, the purpose of issuing an ITP is to authorize take associated with the proposed activities while conserving covered species and their habitats. Implementation of a comprehensive multispecies HCP, rather than a project-by-project approach, will maximize the benefits of conservation measures for the covered species and eliminate expensive and time-consuming efforts associated with processing individual ITPs for each project the applicant undertakes. We expect that the applicant will request ITP coverage for a period of 30 years.
A primary purpose of the scoping process is to receive suggestions and information on the scope of issues and alternatives for the Service to consider. The Service is planning to have scoping meetings. The time and exact locations will be published in local newspapers of record and posted on the Austin Ecological Service Field Office Web site (
The Proposed Action presented in our analysis will be compared to the No-Action alternative. The No-Action alternative represents estimated future conditions to which the Proposed Action's estimated future conditions can be compared.
Because the proposed activities are necessary for providing services to accommodate future population growth and energy demand, these activities would continue regardless of whether the proposed ITP is sought or issued. Under the no-action alternative, the applicant would comply with the ESA by avoiding and minimizing impacts to listed species where practicable. Where impacts to listed species cannot be avoided, and where a Federal nexus exists, the applicant would address such impacts pursuant to the consultation process prescribed by section 7 of the ESA. Absent a Federal nexus, if the applicant is unable to avoid take, they would apply for an ITP on a project-by-project basis. This project-by-project approach would be more time-consuming and less efficient, and could result in an isolated, independent mitigation approach.
The Proposed Action is the issuance of an ITP for the proposed covered species for the proposed covered activities within the Plan Area. The proposed HCP, which must meet the requirements in section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA by providing measures to minimize and mitigate the effects of the potential incidental take of covered species to the maximum extent practicable, would be developed in coordination with the Service and implemented by the applicant.
This alternative will allow for a comprehensive mitigation approach for unavoidable impacts and result in a more efficient and timely permit processing effort for the Service and the applicant. Actions covered under the requested ITP may include possible take of the species associated with the proposed activities.
The proposed activities include construction, operation, upgrade, decommissioning, and maintenance activities associated with current and future LCRA TSC electrical transmission lines, substations, access roads, and related infrastructure and facilities. More specifically, these may include general activities associated with new construction, maintenance, and emergency response and restoration, including stormwater discharges from construction sites, equipment access, and surveying. Construction activities covered for new facilities would include new overhead transmission lines, new support facilities such as substations and switching stations, adding a second circuit on an existing structure, and underground electric installation. Typical maintenance activities would include vegetation management within a right-of-way, expansion of existing support facilities, line upgrades, hardware replacement, and maintenance of above-ground and underground electric facilities.
The Plan Area encompasses 241 Texas counties, including: Anderson, Andrews, Angelina, Aransas, Archer, Armstrong, Atascosa, Austin, Bandera, Bastrop, Baylor, Bee, Bell, Bexar, Blanco, Borden, Bosque, Bowie, Brazoria, Brazos, Brewster, Briscoe, Brooks, Brown, Burleson, Burnet, Caldwell, Calhoun, Callahan, Cameron, Camp, Carson, Castro, Chambers, Cherokee, Childress, Clay, Coke, Coleman, Collin, Collingsworth, Colorado, Comal, Comanche, Concho, Cooke, Coryell, Cottle, Crane, Crockett, Crosby, Culberson, Dallas, Dawson, DeWitt, Deaf Smith, Delta, Denton, Dickens, Dimmit, Donley, Duval, Eastland, Ector, Edwards, Ellis, Erath, Falls, Fannin, Fayette, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Fort Bend, Franklin, Freestone, Frio, Gaines, Galveston, Garza, Gillespie, Glasscock, Goliad, Gonzales, Gray, Grayson, Gregg, Grimes, Guadalupe, Hale, Hall, Hamilton, Hansford, Hardeman, Harris, Harrison, Hartley, Haskell, Hays, Hemphill, Henderson, Hidalgo, Hill, Hood, Hopkins, Houston, Howard, Hudspeth, Hunt, Hutchinson, Irion, Jack, Jackson, Jasper, Jeff Davis, Jefferson, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Johnson, Jones, Karnes, Kaufman, Kendall, Kenedy, Kent, Kerr, Kimble, King, Kinney, Kleberg, Knox, La Salle, Lamar, Lamb, Lampasas, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Liberty, Limestone, Lipscomb, Live Oak, Llano, Loving, Lubbock, Lynn, Madison, Martin, Mason, Matagorda, Maverick, McCulloch, McLennan, McMullen, Medina, Menard, Midland, Milam, Mills, Mitchell, Montague, Montgomery, Moore, Morris, Motley, Nacogdoches, Navarro, Nolan, Nueces, Ochiltree, Oldham, Palo Pinto, Panola, Parker, Parmer, Pecos, Polk, Potter, Presidio, Rains, Randall, Reagan, Real, Red River, Reeves, Refugio, Roberts, Robertson, Rockwall, Runnels, Rusk, San Augustine, San Jacinto, San Patricio, San Saba, Schleicher, Scurry, Shackelford, Shelby, Smith, Somervell, Starr, Stephens, Sterling, Stonewall, Sutton, Swisher, Tarrant, Taylor, Terrell, Terry, Throckmorton, Titus, Tom Green, Travis, Trinity, Tyler, Upshur, Upton, Uvalde, Val Verde, Van Zandt, Victoria, Walker, Waller, Ward, Washington, Webb, Wharton, Wheeler, Wichita, Wilbarger, Willacy, Williamson, Wilson, Winkler, Wise, Wood, Young, Zapata, and Zavala Counties.
The applicant may apply for an ITP to cover 35 species listed as endangered or threatened within the proposed permit area. However, the ultimate list of species covered by the proposed ITP and associated HCP may change based on the outcome of more detailed reviews of the best available science, changes to the list of protected species, or further assessments of the likelihood of take from the proposed activities. At this time, LCRA TSC expects to include the following species:
We seek information regarding other reasonable alternatives during this scoping period and will evaluate the impacts associated with such alternatives in our analysis.
Written comments received will become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that the entire comment—including your personal identifying information—will be publicly available. 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.
The Service will draft our environmental review to analyze the proposed action, as well as other alternatives, and the associated impacts of each alternative on the human environment and each species covered for the range of alternatives to be addressed. Our analysis is expected to provide biological descriptions of the affected species and habitats, as well as the effects of the alternatives on other resources, such as vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, geology and soils, air quality, water resources, water quality, cultural resources, land use, recreation, water use, local economy, and environmental justice. Following completion of the environmental review, the Service will publish a notice of availability and a request for comment on our environmental analysis and the applicants' permit application, which will include the draft HCP.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 30, 2017.
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 Ms. Juanita Mendoza, (202) 208-6123. You may also view the ICR at
We, the BIE, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 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 to the proper functions of the BIE; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BIE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BIE 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 25 U.S.C. 2000-2021 and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), California State Office, Sacramento, California. The surveys which were executed at the request of Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM by August 30, 2017.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the BLM, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825, upon required payment. Please use this address when filing written protests.
Jon Kehler, Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825; 1-916-978-4323;
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest a survey must file a notice that they wish to protest with the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey within 30 days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.
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 the BLM in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chapter 3.
The National Indian Gaming Commission.
Notice of final action.
The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or “the Commission”) is amending its protocol for categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, Executive Order 11514, as amended, and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA for certain NIGC actions.
The NIGC will implement this protocol immediately upon publication.
Andrew Mendoza, Staff Attorney, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1849 C Street NW., Mailstop #1621, Washington, DC 20240; fax at (202) 632-7066; or by email to:
Andrew Mendoza, Staff Attorney at the National Indian Gaming Commission: 202-632-7003 (not a toll-free number).
On December 4, 2009, the Commission published a draft NEPA manual in the
On May 22, 2012, after reviewing the comments submitted on the draft NEPA manual, the Commission published a Protocol for Categorical Exclusions Supplementing the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act for Certain National Indian Gaming Commissions Actions and Activities (77 FR 30315) and requested comments by June 30, 2012. This publication formally adopted two of the three categorical exclusions listed in the draft NEPA manual.
In 2015, after evaluating its past environmental reviews for management contract approvals and the comments received on the 2009 draft NEPA manual, the Commission decided to revisit its policies and procedures for implementing NEPA. To obtain updated views from the regulated community, the Commission held several consultation sessions over a two-year period with tribal nations and solicited comments regarding the scope and extent of its NEPA responsibilities. Following consultation, the Commission evaluated the newly submitted comments in conjunction with those received in response to the 2009 draft manual and decided to amend the 2012 Protocol to include a third CATEX for Management Contract and Agreement Review Activities. This CATEX will apply to certain management contract approvals that are not associated with an application to take land into trust and do not provide for construction or expansion of existing structures. In identifying this category of actions, the NIGC relied on its past experience, several environmental professionals' opinions and comparisons with other Federal agency actions that are categorically excluded.
On January 11, 2017, the Commission published a notice of proposed action and request for comments on the amended protocol in the
The same commenter also questioned how the Commission would interpret the term “known” with respect to the extraordinary circumstances involving “known cultural or archaeological resources.” Given the potential for confusion regarding this term, the Commission eliminated the term and, instead, references the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) 16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm, and NAGPRA. The Commission believes that referencing the particular statutes sufficiently demonstrates its intent to abide by the objective, legal definitions and processes set forth therein.
After considering the comments, the Commission hereby adopts the amended protocol set forth below for determining whether a categorical exclusion applies to particular action as well as the categories of actions the Commission has determined are eligible for categorical exclusions.
A copy of this
The National Indian Gaming Commission is committed to fulfilling its tribal consultation obligations—whether directed by statute or administrative action such as Executive Order (EO) 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments)—by adhering to the consultation framework described in its Consultation Policy published July 15, 2013. Pursuant to the Order, the Commission engaged in extensive consultation on this topic.
This Protocol will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This Protocol is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This Protocol does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, state or local government agencies or geographic regions, and does not have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency within the Department of the Interior, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 2 U.S.C. 658(1).
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that this Protocol does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of General Counsel has determined that the Protocol does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order.
This Protocol supplements CEQ regulations and provides guidance to NIGC employees regarding procedural requirements for the application of NEPA provisions to certain NIGC actions. The CEQ does not direct agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis or document before establishing agency procedures for implementing NEPA.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the National Indian Gaming Commission establishes the following Protocol:
The use of a CATEX can only be applied to an action if all of the following criteria are met:
1. The responsible NIGC official must determine that the entirety of the NIGC action is encompassed by one of the listed CATEXs.
2. The responsible NIGC official must determine that the action has not been segmented in order for the NIGC action to meet the definition of an action that can qualify for a CATEX. Segmentation occurs when an action is broken into smaller parts in an effort to avoid properly documenting impacts associated with the complete action. Segmentation also occurs when the NIGC action is too narrowly defined and the potential impacts are minimized in order to avoid a higher level of NEPA documentation. Connected and
3. The responsible NIGC official must determine if the NIGC action will involve any extraordinary circumstances that would prevent the use of a categorical exclusion.
The NIGC, based on past experience with similar actions, has determined that the following types of actions are categorically excluded and do not require the preparation of an EA or EIS because they will not individually or cumulatively result in a significant impact on the human environment. These types of federal actions meet the criteria established in 40 CFR 1508.4.
A. Normal personnel, fiscal, and administrative activities involving personnel (recruiting, hiring, detailing, processing, paying, supervising and records keeping).
B. Preparation of administrative or personnel-related studies, reports, or investigations.
C. Routine procurement of goods and services to support operations and infrastructure, including routine utility services and contracts, conducted in accordance with applicable procurement regulations, executive orders, and policies (
D. Normal administrative office functions (record keeping; inspecting, examining, and auditing papers, books, and records; processing correspondence; developing and approving budgets; setting fee payments; responding to request for information).
E. Routine activities and operations conducted on or in an existing structure that are within the scope and compatibility of the present functional use of the building, will not result in a substantial increase in waste discharge to the environment, will not result in substantially different waste discharges from current or previous activities, and will not result in emissions that exceed established permit limits, if any. In these cases, a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC), documentation is required.
F. NIGC training in classrooms, meeting rooms, gaming facilities, or via the internet.
A. Promulgation or publication of regulations, procedures, manuals, and guidance documents.
B. Support of compliance and enforcement functions by conducting compliance training for tribal gaming regulators and managers in classrooms, meeting rooms, gaming facilities, or via the internet.
C. Preparing and issuing subpoenas, holding hearings, and taking depositions for informational gathering purposes, not associated with administrative enforcement actions.
A. Approval or disapproval of management contracts, management contract amendments and collateral agreements that meet the following criteria: (1) Are not associated with an application to take land into trust; (2) does not provide for construction or expansion of existing facilities; (3) ensures compliance with all federal, state, local and tribal environmental laws (
B. Conducting background investigations in connection with a management contract or management contract amendment.
Actions that can normally be categorically excluded may not qualify for a CATEX because an extraordinary circumstance exists (
A. The proposed action/project would threaten a violation of applicable federal, state, local or tribal statutory, regulatory, or permit requirements with regard to public health and safety.
B. The proposed action/project has effects on the environment that involve risks that are highly uncertain, unique, or are scientifically controversial.
C. The proposed action/project violates one or more federal, tribal, state, or local environmental laws, regulations, permit requirements, or Executive Order.
D. The proposed action/project has an adverse effect on a property or structure eligible for listing or listed on the National Register of Historical Places as determined by-the Commission, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, or a consulting party under 36 CFR 800. Adverse effects include the degradation, loss, or destruction of (1) scientific, cultural, or historical resources protected by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; (2) on World Heritage properties; or (3) other significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.
E. The proposed action/project has adverse effects on natural, ecological, or scenic resources of federal, tribal, state and/or local significance. These resources include: (1) Resources protected by Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA); (2) resources protected by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; (3) prime, unique, tribal, state or locally important farmlands; (4) cultural items or archaeological resources as defined by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and/or Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; (5) park lands; (6) federal or state listed wild or scenic rivers; and/or (7) other ecologically critical areas.
F. The proposed action/project is related to other actions that may, when considered cumulatively, have significant adverse effects.
G. The proposed action/project may adversely affect (1) a federal or state listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species; or (2) designated or proposed critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
H. The proposed action/project has effects which will impact floodplains and/or wetlands on Federal property.
I. The proposed action/project has effects that will cause a criteria pollutant listed under the Clean Air Act to exceed the threshold level of one or more of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the surrounding geographical area.
J. The proposed action/project has effects that may cause disproportionately high adverse environmental or health impacts specific to children, minorities, or low-income populations.
K. The proposed action/project is likely to have adverse effects on migratory bird populations.
L. The proposed action/project has the potential to disturb hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, or CERCLA-excluded petroleum and natural gas products that preexist in the environment such that there would be uncontrolled or unpermitted releases.
M. The proposed action/project has effects that are highly controversial on environmental grounds.
The purpose of categorical exclusions is to reduce paperwork and delay. The NIGC is not required to repeatedly document actions that qualify for a categorical exclusion and do not involve an extraordinary circumstance (
A. A complete description of the proposed action/project;
B. The CATEX relied upon, including a brief discussion of why there are no extraordinary circumstances;
C. Supplemental documentation that supports the conclusions in the narrative. Examples include exhibit(s) showing boundaries of historical or archeological site(s) previously identified near the proposed project, documentation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service noting that no endangered species or habitat is present near the proposed project, evidence that the proposed project site is located outside any non-attainment area(s), etc. In some cases, a “no effect” determination from the State Historic Preservation Office or Tribal Historic Preservation Office may be required;
D. The following statement:
E. A signature from an environmental professional with a signature block that includes the professional's credentials.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments for 1029-0091.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing that the information collection request for the requirements for surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The information collection request describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burden and cost.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection, but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by August 30, 2017, in order to be assured of consideration.
Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Department of the Interior Desk Officer, by telefax at (202) 395-5806 or via email at
To receive a copy of the information collection request, contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783, or electronically at
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSMRE has submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collection of information for 30 CFR 750—Requirements for surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. OSMRE is requesting a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.
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 number for this collection of information is 1029-0091. Applicants are required to respondent to obtain a benefit.
As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a
Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information, to the addresses listed under
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other
The authorities for this action are the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1201
Notice is hereby given that, on June 29, 2017, 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 V2I Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On December 3, 2014, V2I Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before September 29, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on May 17, 2017, Isosciences, LLC, 1017 West 9th Avenue, Building 10, Suite B, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substances to make reference standards which will be distributed to their customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before August 30, 2017. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before August 30, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on March 7, 2017, R & D Systems, Inc., Bio-Techne, 614 McKinley Place NE., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import bulk active pharmaceutical controlled substances for distribution to its customers for analytical purposes.
In reference to drug codes 7360 and 7370, the company plans to import a synthetic cannabidiol and a synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol. No other activity for these drug codes is authorized for this registration.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before August 30, 2017. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before August 30, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417, (January 25, 2007).
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix of subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on January 19, 2016, Sigma-Aldrich International GMBH, Sigma Aldrich Co. LLC, 3500 Dekalb Street, Saint Louis, Missouri 63118 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for sale to research facilities for drug testing and analysis.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Solicitation of Nominations to Serve on the Task Force on Apprenticeship Expansion.
The Department of Labor published a document in the
Please contact Ms. Natalie S. Linton, Program Analyst, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Apprenticeship, at
In the
Notice of availability; request for comments.
On July 31, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Standard for Construction and General Industry and Electrical Protective Equipment for Construction and General Industry,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 30, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Standard for Construction and General Industry and Electrical Protective Equipment Standard for Construction and General Industry information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.137; 1910.269; 1926, subpart V; and 1926.97 that are designed to help ensure an Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer subject to the Standards provides employees with safe work practices that guard against exposure to electrical shock hazards in workplace. OSH Act sections 2, 6, and 8 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice of availability; request for comments.
On July 31, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Portable Fire Extinguishers Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 30, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation;
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Portable Fire Extinguishers Standard information collection codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.157(e)(3). The Standard requires an Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer to subject each portable fire extinguisher to an annual maintenance inspection and to record the date of the inspection. The regulation requires the employer to retain the inspection record for one year after the last entry or for the life of the shell, whichever is less, and to make the record available to the OSHA on request. This recordkeeping requirement assures employees and OSHA compliance officers that any portable fire extinguisher located in the workplace will operate normally in case of fire; in addition, this requirement provides evidence to an OSHA compliance officer during an inspection that the employer performed the required maintenance checks on the portable fire extinguishers. OSH Act sections 2 and 8 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice of availability; request for comments.
On July 31, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Rigging Equipment for Material Handling,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 30, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW.,
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Rigging Equipment for Material Handling information collection requirements codified in regulations at 29 CFR 1926.251(b)(1); (b)(6)(i) and (ii); (c)(15)(ii); (e)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii); and (f)(2) that require affixing identification tags or markings on rigging equipment, developing and maintaining inspection records, and retaining proof-testing certificates. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 sections 2, 6, and 8 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice of availability; request for comments.
On July 31, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Anhydrous Ammonia Storage and Handling Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 30, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Anhydrous Ammonia Storage and Handling Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.111. Markings the Standard requires help to ensure that an Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH ACT) covered employer subject to the Standard uses only properly designed and tested containers
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice of availability; request for comments.
On July 31, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Process for Expedited Approval of an Exemption for Prohibited Transaction, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1996-62,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 30, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the information collection requirements contained in Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption (PTE) 1996-62, which provides for accelerated approval of an exemption permitting a plan to engage in a transaction that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) might otherwise prohibit. The PTE may be granted following a demonstration to the DOL that the transaction: (1) Is substantially similar in all material respects to at least two other transactions for which the DOL recently granted administrative relief from the same restriction; and (2) presents little, if any, opportunity for abuse or risk of loss to a plan's participants and beneficiaries. Under the PTE, a party may proceed with a transaction in as little as seventy-eight (78) days from the acknowledgment of receipt by the DOL of a written submission filed in accordance with the terms of the PTE. Internal Revenue Code section 4975 and ERISA section 408 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Requirements for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Training Institute Education Centers Program and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Outreach Training Program,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 30, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Requirements for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Training Institute Education Centers Program and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Outreach Training Program information collection. The OSHA has two educational programs, the OSHA Training Institute (OTI) Education Centers Program and the OSHA Outreach Training Program (Outreach). To be a participant in the OTI Education Centers Program or the Outreach Training Program, an individual/organization must provide the OSHA with certain information. The requested information is necessary to evaluate the applicant organization and to implement, oversee, and monitor the OTI Education Centers and Outreach Training Programs, courses, and trainers. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because the OSHA is adding a form that will require OTI education centers to provide a listing of all authorized Outreach trainers to the National Office. Occupational Safety and Health Act section 21 authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Hydrostatic Testing Provision of the Portable Fire Extinguishers Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 30, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Hydrostatic Testing Provision of the Portable Fire Extinguishers Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 1910.157(f)(16) that require and Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer subject to the Standard to keep the most recent certification record verifying that hydrostatic testing of fire extinguishers has been performed at intervals specified in Table L-1 of the Standard. Table L-1 requires testing of fire extinguishers at intervals varying between 5 to 12 years, depending on the type of fire extinguisher. An employer who tests fire extinguishers only at these intervals is required to retain testing certification records for longer than 3 years. OSH Act section 8 authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice of availability; request for comments.
On July 31, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Overhead and Gantry Cranes Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 30, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064 (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Overhead and Gantry Cranes Standard information collection codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.179. More specifically, the regulatory provisions include requirements for (1) marking the rated load of a crane; (2) preparing a certification record to verify the inspection of a crane hook, hoist chain, or rope; and (3) preparing a report of the rated load test for a repaired hook or modified crane. An Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer subject to the Standard must maintain the records and reports and disclose them upon request. OSH Act sections 6 and 8 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
• 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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, NRC Form 5, “Occupational Dose Record for a Monitoring Period.”
Submit comments by August 30, 2017.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Aaron Szabo, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0006), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-3621, email:
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0065 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “NRC Form 5, Occupational Dose Record for a Monitoring Period.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On January 25, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On March 22, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 17, 2017, the Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“MRX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchange proposes to amend various Exchange rules to reflect the MRX system migration to a Nasdaq INET technology.
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 702 (Trading Halts) to conform the treatment of orders and quotes on the Exchange to Phlx Rule 1047(f). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 702(a)(2) to provide that during a halt the Exchange will maintain existing orders on the book but not existing quotes. Pursuant to the revision, during the halt, the Exchange will accept orders and quotes and, for such orders and quotes, process cancels and modifications. Currently, the Exchange maintains existing orders
The Exchange represents that its proposal to maintain existing orders on the book but not existing quotes during a halt would provide market participants with clarity as to the manner in which interests will be handled by the system.
The Commission believes that that cancelling existing quotes during a trading halt would provide market participants the opportunity to update potentially stale quotes. Further, the Commission notes that the Exchange will process cancels and modifications for orders as well as quotes received during a halt. Finally, the Commission further notes that the proposed treatment of quotes during a halt is consistent with existing Phlx Rule 1047(f).
The Exchange proposes to replace existing MRX Rule 703A (Trading During Limit Up-Limit Down States in Underlying Securities) with proposed MRX Rule 702(d).
The Commission believes that the proposed Rule 702(d) would provide certainty to market participants regarding the manner in which Limit or Straddle States would impact the opening process as well as Market Orders and Stop Orders. The Commission believes that the rejection of Market Orders (including elected Stop Orders) is reasonably designed to potentially prevent executions of un-priced orders during times of significant volatility.
The Exchange proposes to amend certain rules to account for the impact of a trading halt on the Exchange's auction mechanisms. First, the Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 723 (Price Improvement Mechanism for Crossing Transactions) regarding the manner in which a trading halt will impact an order entered into the Price Improvement Mechanism (“PIM”). Today, if a trading halt is initiated after an order is entered into the PIM, the Exchange terminates such auction and eligible interest is executed.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to terminate the PIM auction, Block Order Mechanism, Facilitation Mechanism, and Solicited Order Mechanism and not execute eligible interest when a trading halt occurs will provide certainty to participants regarding how their interest will be handled.
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 711 (Acceptance of Quotes and Orders) by adopting a new mandatory risk protection entitled Market Order Spread Protection which will apply to Market Orders.
The Exchange believes, and the Commission concurs, that the proposed Market Order Spread Protection would help mitigate risks associated with trading errors and help reduce the number of executions at dislocated prices.
Today, MRX offers a Price Level Protection that places a limit on the number of price levels at which an incoming order or quote to sell (buy) would be executed automatically when there are no bids (offers) from other exchanges at any price for the options series.
The Exchange represents that it will set the Acceptable Trade Range at levels to ensure that it is triggered infrequently.
The Exchange represents that the Acceptable Trade Range should prevent the system from experiencing dramatic price swings by preventing the market from moving beyond set thresholds.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Primary Market Maker (“PMM”) order handling and opening obligations in MRX Rule 803(c).
The Exchange represents that PMMs' current obligations are no longer necessary due to the introduction of the Acceptable Trade Range and proposed changes to the Exchange's opening process.
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .03 to MRX Rule 803 to eliminate Back-Up PMMs. Today, any MRX member that is approved to act in the capacity of a PMM or an “Alternative Primary Market Maker” may voluntarily act as a Back-Up PMM in an options series in which it is quoting as a Competitive Market Maker (“CMM”).
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 804 (Market Maker Quotations) to establish default parameters for certain risk functionality. The Exchange currently offers a risk protection mechanism for market maker quotes that removes a member's quotes in an options class if a specified number of curtailment events occur during a set time period (“Market Maker Speed Bump”).
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .03 to MRX Rule 804 (Market Maker Quotations) to adopt an anti-internalization rule. Today, MRX's functionality prevents Immediate-or-Cancel orders entered by a market maker from trading with the market maker's own quote.
The Exchange represents that the proposal is designed to assist market makers in reducing trading costs from unwanted executions potentially resulting from the interaction of executable interest from the same firm performing the same market making function.
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 715 (Types of Orders) to remove minimum quantity orders in subpart (q).
The Exchange states that removing the minimum quantity order type would simplify functionality available on the Exchange and reduce the complexity of its order types.
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .02 to MRX Rule 715 (Types of Orders) to memorialize how the Exchange system will handle cancel and replace orders in connection with the Exchange's technology migration to INET.
The Exchange now proposes to define the Cancel and Replace Order to ensure that price and other reasonability checks are applied to Cancel and Replace Orders.
The Exchange represents that conducting price or other reasonability checks for all Cancel and Replace Orders will validate orders against current market conditions prior to proceeding with the request to modify the order.
The Commission notes that other exchanges with a similar order type permit an order to retain priority if only the size of the order is decremented.
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 715(c) to provide that All-Or-None Orders
The Exchange states that this change would remove uncertainty with respect to the manner in which All-Or-None Orders would be handled in the order book, because the All-Or-None Order would be canceled if it cannot be immediately executed in its entirety.
Currently, MRX rules provide for the use of Directed Orders.
The Exchange represents that it proposes to delay the implementation of the Directed Order functionality on MRX to provide the Exchange additional time to rebuild the required technology on the new platform.
For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Amendments effectuate changes that certain Participants have made to their names and addresses, as set forth in Section III(a) of the Plans.
Not applicable.
Because the Amendments constitute “Ministerial Amendments” under both Section IV(b) of the CTA Plan and Section IV(c) under the CQ Plan, the Chairman of the Plan's Operating Committee may submit the Amendments to the Commission on behalf of the Participants in the Plans. Because the Participants have designated the Amendments as concerned solely with the administration of the Plans, the Amendments become effective upon filing with the Commission.
Not applicable.
The Participants assert that the Amendments do not impose any burden on competition because they merely effectuate a change in the names and addresses of certain Participants. For the same reasons, the Participants do not believe that the Amendments introduce terms that are unreasonably discriminatory for purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Exchange Act.
Not applicable.
See Item I.C. above.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Commission seeks general comments on the Amendments. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendments are 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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed change consists of amendments to the NSCC Rules and Procedures (“Rules”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Currently, in calculating its Members' required deposits to the Clearing Fund, NSCC excludes positions in Family-Issued Securities of certain Members from its parametric volatility Clearing Fund component (“VaR Charge”), and instead charges an amount calculated by multiplying the absolute value of the long, net unsettled positions in that Member's Family-Issued Securities by a percentage that is no less than 40 percent (“FIS Charge”). The FIS Charge is currently only applied to Members that are rated 5, 6, or 7 on the Credit Risk Rating Matrix (“CRRM”). The proposed change would expand the application of the FIS Charge to the positions in Family-Issued Securities of all Members to help NSCC cover the specific wrong-way risk posed by Family-Issued Securities, as described further below.
As a central counterparty, NSCC occupies an important role in the securities settlement system by interposing itself between counterparties to financial transactions and thereby reducing the risk faced by participants and contributing to global financial stability. The effectiveness of a central counterparty's risk controls and the adequacy of its financial resources
Among the various risks that NSCC considers when evaluating the effectiveness of its margining methodology are its counterparty risks and identification and mitigation of “wrong-way” risk, particularly specific wrong-way risk, defined as the risk that an exposure to a counterparty is highly likely to increase when the creditworthiness of that counterparty deteriorates.
In 2015, NSCC proposed to address its exposure to specific wrong-way risk in two ways.
The FIS Charge is currently applied only to Members on the Watch List because these Members present a heightened credit risk to NSCC or have demonstrated higher risk related to their ability to meet settlement, and, as such, at the time the FIS Phase 1 Rule Change was proposed, NSCC believed there was a clear and more urgent need to address NSCC's exposure to specific wrong-way risk presented by these Members' positions in Family-Issued Securities.
Second, NSCC proposed to further evaluate its exposure to wrong-way risk presented by positions in Family-Issued Securities by reviewing the impact of expanding the application of the FIS Charge to positions in Family-Issued Securities of all Members.
In order to implement this proposal, NSCC would amend Procedure XV to move the FIS Charge from Section I.(B)(1), where it is currently described as an additional deposit for Members on surveillance, to Sections I.(A)(1) and (2), to include the FIS Charge as a component of the Clearing Fund formula that is calculated for each Member.
The proposed change would also amend NSCC Rule 1 (Definitions and Descriptions) to include a definition of Family-Issued Securities in order to provide more clarity to the Rules. Under the proposed change, “Family-Issued Security” would be defined as a security that was issued by a Member or an affiliate of that Member.
NSCC believes that the proposed change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, NSCC believes that the proposed change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the Rules be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and to protect investors and the public interest.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act requires, in part, that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of confidence.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act requires, in part, that each covered clearing agency that provides central counterparty services establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market.
As stated above, Family-Issued Securities present NSCC with specific wrong-way risk that, in the event that a Member with unsettled long positions in Family-Issued Securities defaults, NSCC would close out those positions following a likely drop in the credit-worthiness of the issuer, possibly resulting in a loss to NSCC. Therefore, the haircut rates were calibrated based on historical corporate issue recovery rate data, and address the risk that the Family-Issued Securities of a Member would be devalued in the event of that Member's default, and would more accurately reflect the risk characteristics of Family-Issued Securities than applying its VaR Charge. In this way, the proposal would assist NSCC in maintaining a risk-based margin system that considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of Family-Issued Securities. Additionally, NSCC believes application of the FIS Charge to positions in Family-Issued Securities of all Members is an appropriate method for measuring its credit exposures, because the FIS Charge accounts for the risk factors presented by these securities,
By expanding the application of the FIS Charge to all Members, and, therefore, increasing the amount of margin that Members may be charged under the Rules, the proposed change may impose a burden on competition. However, because the FIS Charge would be imposed on all Members on an individualized basis in an amount reasonably calculated to mitigate the risks posed to NSCC by those Members' positions in Family-Issued Securities, NSCC does not believe any burden on competition imposed by the proposed change would be significant.
Further, NSCC believes that any burden on competition imposed by the proposed change would be both necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
NSCC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. NSCC will notify the
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 31, 2017, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“MRX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to delete the entirety of current MRX Rule 701 and replace the current Exchange opening process with an opening process reflected in proposed MRX Rules 701 and 715(t).
Currently, a Primary Market Maker (“PMM”) on MRX initiates the “trading rotation” in a specified options class.
Pursuant to MRX Rule 701(b), the opening rotation for each class of options is held promptly following the opening of the market for the underlying security.
Currently, in connection with a trading rotation, MRX Rule 701(c) specifies how transactions may be effected in a class of options after the end of normal trading hours. A trading rotation may be employed whenever the Exchange concludes that such action is appropriate in the interests of a fair and orderly market.
At the outset, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new order type, “Opening Sweep,” for the new opening process.
The first part of the Opening Process determines what constitutes “eligible interest.” The Exchange proposes that eligible interest during the Opening Process
Market Maker Valid Width Quotes and Opening Sweeps received starting at 9:25 a.m. Eastern Time are included in the Opening Process.
The Exchange proposes that the Opening Process for an option series will be conducted pursuant to proposed Rules 701(f)-(j) on or after 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time if: (1) The ABBO,
For all options, the underlying security, including indexes, must be
Proposed Rule 701(c)(3) states that the PMM assigned to a particular equity or index option must enter a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned series not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index. The PMM assigned to a particular U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option must enter a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned series not later than one minute after the announced market opening.
Proposed Rule 701(d) states that the procedure described in proposed Rule 701 will be used to reopen an options series after a trading halt.
Under proposed Rule 701(e), the Exchange will first see if the option series will open for trading with a BBO. If there are no opening quotes or orders that lock or cross each other and no routable orders locking or crossing the ABBO, the system will open with an opening quote by disseminating the Exchange's best bid and offer among quotes and orders (“BBO”), unless all three of the following conditions exist: (i) A Zero Bid Market;
A “Quality Opening Market” is a bid/ask differential applicable to the best bid and offer from all Valid Width Quotes defined in a table to be determined by the Exchange and published on the Exchange's Web site.
If all three of the conditions described above exist, the Exchange will calculate an Opening Quote Range (“OQR”) pursuant to proposed Rule 701(i) (described below) and conduct the Price Discovery Mechanism (“PDM”) pursuant to proposed Rule 701(j) (described below).
If there are Valid Width Quotes or orders that lock or cross each other, the system will try to open with a trade. Proposed Rule 701(h) provides that the Exchange will open the option series with a trade of Exchange interest only at the Opening Price, if any of the following conditions occur: (1) The Potential Opening Price (described below) is at or within the best of the highest bid and the lowest offer among Valid Width Quotes (“Pre-Market BBO”)
To undertake the above described process, the Exchange will calculate the Potential Opening Price by taking into consideration all Valid Width Quotes and orders (including Opening Sweeps and displayed and non-displayed portions of Reserve Orders), except All-or-None Orders that cannot be satisfied, and identify the price at which the maximum number of contracts can trade (“maximum quantity criterion”).
Under proposed Rule 701(g)(1), when two or more Potential Opening Prices would satisfy the maximum quantity criterion and leave no contracts unexecuted, the system would take the highest and lowest of those prices and takes the mid-point. If such mid-point cannot be expressed as a permitted minimum price variation, the mid-point will be rounded to the minimum price variation that is closest to the closing price for the affected series from the immediately prior trading session. If there is no closing price from the immediately prior trading session, the system will round up to the minimum price variation to determine the Opening Price.
If two or more Potential Opening Prices for the affected series would satisfy the maximum quantity criterion and leave contracts unexecuted, the Opening Price will be either the lowest executable bid or highest executable offer of the largest sized side.
If the Exchange has not opened with a BBO or trade pursuant to proposed Rule 701(e) or (h), the Exchange will conduct a PDM pursuant to proposed Rule 701(j) to determine the Opening Price. According to the Exchange, the purpose of the PDM is to satisfy the maximum number of contracts possible by applying wider price boundaries and seeking additional liquidity.
Before conducting a PDM, however, the Exchange will calculate the OQR under proposed Rule 701(i). The OQR, which is used during PDM, is an additional boundary designed to limit the Opening Price to a reasonable price and reduce the potential for erroneous trades during the Opening Process.
To determine the minimum value for the OQR, an amount, as defined in a table to be determined by the Exchange, will be subtracted from the highest quote bid among Valid Width Quotes on the Exchange and on the away market(s), if any, except as provided in proposed Rule 701(i)(3) and (4).
The Exchange will use the OQR to help calculate the Opening Price. For example, if there is more than one Potential Opening Price possible where no contracts would be left unexecuted, any price used for the mid-point calculation, pursuant to proposed Rule 701(g)(1), that is outside of the OQR will be restricted to the OQR on that side of the market.
During PDM, the Exchange will take into consideration the away market prices in calculating the Potential Opening Price. For example, if there is more than one Potential Opening Price possible where no contracts would be left unexecuted and the price used for the mid-point calculation is an away market price, pursuant to proposed Rule 701(g)(3), the system will use the away market price as the Potential Opening Price.
After the OQR is calculated, the system will broadcast an Imbalance Message for the affected series
Proposed Rule 701(j)(2), states that any new interest received by the system will update the Potential Opening Price. If during or at the end of the Imbalance Timer, the Opening Price is at or within the OQR, the Imbalance Timer will end and the system will open with a trade at the Opening Price if the executions consist of Exchange interest only without trading through the ABBO and without trading through the limit price(s) of interest within the OQR, which is unable to be fully executed at the Opening Price. If no new interest comes in during the Imbalance Timer and the Potential Opening Price is at or within the OQR and does not trade through the ABBO, the Exchange will open with a trade at the end of the Imbalance Timer at the Potential Opening Price.
If the option series has not opened pursuant to proposed Rule 701(j)(2) described above, the system will concurrently: (i) Send a second Imbalance Message with a Potential Opening Price that is bounded by the OQR (and would not trade through the limit price(s) of interest within the OQR which is unable to be fully executed at the Opening Price) and includes away market volume in the size of the imbalance to participants; and (ii) initiate a Route Timer, not to exceed one second.
Proposed Rule 701(j)(3)(iii) provides that, if no trade occurs pursuant to proposed MRX Rule 701(j)(3)(ii), when the Route Timer expires, if the Potential Opening Price is within the OQR (and would not trade through the limit price(s) of interest within the OQR that is unable to be fully executed at the Opening Price), the system will determine if the total number of contracts displayed at better prices than the Exchange's Potential Opening Price on away markets (“better priced away contracts”) would satisfy the number of marketable contracts available on the Exchange. The Exchange will then open the option series by routing and/or trading on the Exchange, pursuant to proposed Rule 701(j)(3)(iii) paragraphs (A) through (C).
Proposed Rule 701(j)(3)(iii)(A) provides that, if the total number of better priced away contracts would satisfy the number of marketable contracts available on the Exchange on either the buy or sell side, the system will route all marketable contracts on the Exchange to such better priced away markets as an Intermarket Sweep Order designated as Immediate-or-Cancel order(s) and determine an opening BBO that reflects the interest remaining on the Exchange. The system will price any contracts routed to away markets at the Exchange's Opening Price. The Exchange states that routing away at the Exchange's Opening Price is intended to achieve the best possible price available at the time the order is received by the away market.
Proposed Rule 701(j)(3)(iii)(B) provides that, if the total number of better priced away contracts would not satisfy the number of marketable contracts on the Exchange, the system will determine how many contracts it has available at the Opening Price. If the total number of better priced away contracts plus the number of contracts available at the Exchange's Opening Price would satisfy the number of marketable contracts on the Exchange on either the buy or sell side, the system will contemporaneously route, based on price/time priority of routable interest, a number of contracts that will satisfy such away market interest, and trade available contracts on the Exchange at the Opening Price. The system will price any contracts routed to away markets at the better of the Opening Price or the order's limit price pursuant to proposed Rule 701(j)(3)(iii)(B). The Exchange states that this proposed rule is designed to maximize execution of interest on the Exchange or away markets.
Proposed Rule 701(j)(3)(iii)(C) provides that, if the total number of better priced away contracts plus the number of contracts available at the Opening Price plus the contracts available at away markets at the Exchange's Opening Price would satisfy the number of marketable contracts on the Exchange, either the buy or sell side, the system will contemporaneously route, based on price/time priority, a number of contracts that will satisfy such away market interest (pricing any contracts routed to away markets at the better of the Opening Price or the order's limit price), trade available contracts on the Exchange at the Opening Price, and route a number of contracts that will satisfy interest at other markets at prices equal to the Opening Price. The Exchange states that routing at the better of the Opening Price or the order's limit price is intended to achieve the best possible price available at the time the order is received by the away market and that routing at the order's limit price ensures that the order's limit price is not violated.
Proposed Rule 701(j)(4) provides that the system may send up to two additional Imbalance Messages
Proposed Rule 701(j)(5) describes the process that occurs if the steps described above have not resulted in an opening of the options series. After all additional Imbalance Messages have been broadcasted pursuant to proposed Rule 701(j)(4), the system will open the series by executing as many contracts as possible by: (i) Routing to away markets at prices better than the Opening Price for their disseminated size; (ii) trading available contracts on the Exchange at the Opening Price bounded by the OQR (without trading through the limit price(s) of interest within the OQR which is unable to be fully executed at the Opening Price); and (iii) routing contracts to away markets at prices equal to the Opening Price at their disseminated size. In forced opening, the system will price any contracts routed to away markets at the better of the Opening Price or the order's limit price. Any unexecuted contracts from the imbalance not traded or routed will be cancelled back to the entering participant if they remain unexecuted and priced through the Opening Price. Otherwise such orders will remain in the order book.
Proposed Rule 701(j)(6) provides that, to the extent possible, the system will execute orders at the Opening Price that have contingencies (such as without limitation, All-or-None, and Reserve Orders) and non-routable orders such as “Do-Not-Route” or “DNR” Orders.
Proposed Rule 701(j)(6)(i) provides that the system will cancel: (i) Any portion of a Do-Not-Route Order that would otherwise have to be routed to the exchange(s) disseminating the ABBO for an opening to occur or (ii) any order that is priced through the Opening Price. All other interest will remain in the system and be eligible for trading after opening. The Exchange states that it cancels these orders since it lacks enough liquidity to satisfy these orders on the opening.
Proposed Rule 701(k) provides that during the opening of the option series, where there is a possible execution, the system will give priority first to Market Orders
The Exchange states that it intends to begin implementation of the proposed rule change in the third quarter of 2017.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchange proposes to delete in its entirety the current opening process and replace it with an opening rotation similar to the process in place on its affiliated exchanges, Phlx, ISE Gemini, and ISE. In making this change, the Exchange delineates, unlike in the current, more opaque rule, detailed steps of the opening process. By providing more clearly each sequence of the opening process, the Commission notes that the proposed rule helps market participants understand how the new opening rotation will operate. To that extent, the new opening process may promote transparency, reduce the potential for investor confusion, and assist market participants in deciding whether to participate in MRX's opening rotation. Further, if they do participate in the new opening process, the proposed rule may help provide market participants with the confidence and certainty as to how their orders or quotes will be processed.
Further, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade by seeking to ensure that option series open in a fair and orderly manner. For example, the Commission notes that the proposed rule change is designed to mitigate the effects of the underlying security's volatility as the overlying option series undergoes the opening rotation. Specifically, the proposed rule provides for a range of no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 5 seconds in order to ensure that the Exchange has the ability to adjust the period for which the underlying must be open on the primary market before the opening process commences. Moreover, the Commission notes that the proposed rule provides an orderly process for handling eligible interests during the opening rotation, while seeking to avoid opening executions at suboptimal prices. For instance, the new process ensures that the Exchange will not open with the Exchange's BBO if there is a Zero Bid Market, no ABBO, and no Quality Opening Market. Likewise, the Exchange will not open an option series with a trade unless one following conditions is met: (1) The Potential Opening Price is at or within the Pre-Market BBO and the ABBO; (2) the Potential Opening Price is at or within the non-zero bid ABBO if the Pre-Market BBO is crossed; or (3) where there is no ABBO, the Potential Opening Price is at or within the Pre-Market BBO which is also a Quality Opening Market. Finally, while the new opening process attempts to maximize the number of contracts executed on the Exchange during such rotation, including by seeking additional liquidity, if necessary, the Commission notes that the new opening process, unlike the current process, takes into consideration away market interests and ensures that better away prices are not traded through. For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Amendments effectuate changes that certain Participants have made to their names and addresses, as set forth in Section I(A) of the NASDAQ/UTP Plan and to update the listing of Participant identifying codes set forth in Section VIII(C) of the Plan.
Not applicable.
Because the Amendments constitute “Ministerial Amendments” under Section XVI of the Nasdaq/UTP Plan, the Chairman of the Plan's Operating Committee may submit the Amendments to the Commission on behalf of the Participants in the Plan. Because the Participants have designated the Amendments as concerned solely with the administration of the NASDAQ/UTP Plan, the Amendments become effective upon filing with the Commission.
Not applicable.
The Participants assert that the Amendments do not impose any burden on competition because they merely effectuate a change in the names and addresses of certain Participants. For the same reasons, the Participants do not believe that the Amendments introduce terms that are unreasonably discriminatory for purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Exchange Act.
Not applicable.
See Item I.C. above.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Commission seeks general comments on the Amendments. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendments are 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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to modify the tier-based incremental credits for Members that are Lead Market Makers (“LMMs”) for their orders that provide displayed liquidity in the securities described under footnote 14.
On April 17, 2014, the Exchange filed a proposal to adopt rules to create an LMM Program (the “Program”) on an immediately effective basis.
As described above, the Exchange offers tier-based incremental credits to Members that are LMMs for their orders that provide displayed liquidity pursuant to part (B) of footnote 14 of the fee schedule. Specifically, Members that are a Qualified LMM
The Exchange proposes to increase these LMM Credits for Tape B securities and to create new LMM Credits for Tape A and Tape C securities. For Tape B securities, the Exchange is proposing to increase the LMM Credits as follows: (i) From an LMM Credit of $0.0001 to $0.0002 per share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at least 25 ETPs; (ii) from an LMM Credit of $0.0002 to $0.0004 per share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at least 50 ETPs; (iii) from an LMM Credit of $0.0003 to $0.0006 per share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at least 75 ETPs; and (iv) from an LMM Credit of $0.0004 to $0.0008 per share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at least 125 ETPs.
For Tape A and Tape C securities, the Exchange is proposing to create new LMM Credit Tiers such that a Member would receive: (i) An LMM Credit of $0.0001 per share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at least 25 ETPs; (ii) an LMM Credit of $0.0002 per share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at least 50 ETPs; (iii) an LMM Credit of $0.0003 per share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at least 75 ETPs; and (iv) an LMM Credit of $0.0004 per share where an LMM is a Qualified LMM in at least 125 ETPs.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to implement a cap of $100,000 per Member on a monthly basis for additional rebates as part of the LMM Credit Tiers under part B of footnote 14.
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee schedule on September 1, 2017.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The proposed changes are intended to encourage Members to promote price discovery and market quality across all Exchange-listed securities for the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that increasing the LMM Credits for Tape B securities and offering LMM Credits in Tape A and Tape C securities provides greater incentives to Members to become LMMs in Exchange-listed ETPs, to satisfy the Minimum Performance Standards in ETPs each month, and to add liquidity in securities on the Exchange, and is therefore reasonable because the Exchange believes doing so would encourage more LMMs to register to quote and trade in as many Exchange-listed ETPs as possible. While the Exchange already offers LMM Credits in Tape B securities, increasing such rebates will further incentivize Members to become LMMs in Exchange-listed ETPs and provide additional liquidity in other ETPs generally. In particular, enhanced rebates based on the number of securities for which a Member is registered as an LMM, would provide an incentive for such Members not only to register as an LMM in more liquid securities, but also to register to quote in lower volume ETPs, which are traditionally less profitable for Market Makers than more liquid ETPs. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed change will incentivize LMMs to register as an LMM in more ETPs, including less liquid ETPs and, thus, add more liquidity in securities to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they remain consistent with the market quality and competitiveness benefits associated with the fee program and because the magnitude of the additional rebate is not unreasonably high in comparison to the requirements associated with receiving such LMM Credit and the rebate paid with respect to other displayed liquidity-providing orders.
The Exchange further believes that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees to offer different LMM Credit rebates between Tape B securities as compared to Tape A and Tape C securities. As described above, LMM Credits are designed to incentivize increased participation in the Exchange's LMM Program, but the Exchange believes that they will also simultaneously incentivize higher trading volumes and enhanced market quality by LMMs in all securities for which the LMM Credits apply. While the Exchange believes that offering LMM Credits on each of Tape A, Tape B, and Tape C securities will enhance market quality on all securities traded on the Exchange, by offering higher LMM Credits for Tape B securities, the Exchange will further incentivize increased liquidity provision in Exchange-listed securities and for ETPs generally, which further supports the purpose of the LMM Credits.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and is not unfairly discriminatory to implement a monthly cap of $100,000 per Member for additional rebates as part of the LMM Credit Tiers under part B of footnote 14. Such a cap will help ensure that it will remain financially viable for the Exchange to continue to offer the LMM Credit Tiers. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed cap is high enough as to not meaningfully reduce the incentives for Members to become an LMM in Bats-listed securities or significantly mitigate any of the market quality benefits to Bats-listed securities or other securities traded on the Exchange that were described above.
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. Similarly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to the Exchange's pricing structure burden competition, but instead, that they enhance competition as they are intended to increase the competitiveness of the Exchange by modifying pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and incentivize participants to increase their participation on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed increase in rebates will burden competition, but instead, enhances competition, as these changes are intended to increase LMM participation in securities, to incentivize Members to register as LMMs in Exchange-listed ETPs, and to encourage Members to meet the Minimum Performance Standards in such ETPs. As such, the proposal is a competitive proposal that is intended to add additional liquidity to the Exchange, which will, in turn, benefit the Exchange and all Exchange participants. Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendments would burden intramarket competition as they would be available to all Members uniformly.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-44. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 23(c)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from section 23(c) of the Act.
Capital Southwest Corporation (“Company”) requests an order to amend a prior order
Capital Southwest Corporation.
The application was filed on January 30, 2017, and amended on May 23, 2017, June 19, 2017, and July 19, 2007.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on August 21, 2017 and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicant, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicant: Bowen S. Deihl, Chief Executive Officer and President, Capital Southwest Corporation, 5400 Lyndon B Johnson Freeway, Suite 1300, Dallas, Texas 75240.
Asen Parachkevov, Senior Counsel, or Robert Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821, (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for the applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Company is an internally managed, non-diversified, closed-end investment company that has elected to be regulated as a business development company (“BDC”) under the Act. The Amended Plan authorizes the Company, among other things, to grant to Participants, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Prior Order, Restricted Stock. Further, under the terms of the Amended 2009 Plan, the Company is authorized, among other things to grant to Participants options to acquire shares of the Company's common stock (“Common Stock”). The Company seeks to amend the Prior Order to permit it to withhold shares of the Company's Common Stock or purchase shares of Common Stock from the Participants to satisfy tax withholding obligations related to the vesting of Restricted Stock granted pursuant to the Amended Plan or the exercise of options to purchase shares of Common Stock granted pursuant to the Amended 2009 Plan. In addition, the Company seeks to permit employees to pay the exercise price of options to purchase shares of Common Stock granted pursuant to the Amended 2009 Plan with shares of Common Stock already held by them or pursuant to a net share settlement feature.
2. On the date that the Restricted Stock vests (assuming no election has been made under section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended), the shares are released to the Participant and are available for sale or transfer (subject to the Company's share retention guidelines).
3. As discussed more fully in the application, upon the exercise of an option, the amount by which the fair market value of the shares of the Company's Common Stock received, determined as of the date of exercise, exceeds the exercise price will be treated as ordinary income to the recipient of the option in the year of exercise. The Company states that in accordance with applicable regulations of the IRS, the Company requires the optionee to pay to it an amount sufficient to satisfy taxes required to be withheld in respect of such compensation income at the time of the exercise of the option.
4. The Amended Plan and the Amended 2009 Plan were approved by the Company's board of directors (“Board”), including the required majority of the Company's directors with the meaning of section 57(o) of the Act. The Company states that the Compensation Committee of the Board, in its discretion, may permit a Participant to irrevocably elect to have the Company withhold Common Shares, or to deliver to the Company Common Shares that the Participant already owns, having a value equal to the amount required to be withheld to satisfy the Participant's tax withholding obligations related to the vesting of Restricted Stock under the Amended Plan, or the exercise of options to acquire Common Stock granted pursuant to the Amended 2009 Plan. The Company states that the Amended 2009 Plan further provides the Compensation Committee of the Board with discretion to permit the Company's employees to pay the exercise price of options to purchase shares of Common Stock with shares of Common Stock already held by them or pursuant to net share settlement.
1. Section 23(c) of the Act, which is made applicable to BDCs by section 63 of the Act, generally prohibits a BDC from purchasing any securities of which it is the issuer except in the open market, pursuant to tender offers or under such other circumstances as the Commission may permit to ensure that the purchase is made on a basis that does not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class or classes of securities to be purchased. The Company states that the withholding or purchase of shares of Common Stock in payment of applicable withholding tax obligations or of Common Stock in payment for the exercise price of a stock option might be deemed to be purchases by the Company of its own securities within the meaning of section 23(c) and therefore prohibited by the Act.
2. Section 23(c)(3) provides that the Commission may issue an order that would permit a BDC to purchase its shares in circumstances in which the purchase is made in a manner or on a basis that does not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class or classes of securities to be purchased. The Company states that it believes that the requested relief meets the standards of section 23(c)(3).
3. The Company states that these purchases will be made on a basis which does not unfairly discriminate against the stockholders of the Company because all purchases of Common Stock will be at the closing sales price of the Common Stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market (or any primary exchange on which its shares of Common Stock may be traded in the future) on the relevant date (
4. The Company submits that the proposed purchases do not raise concerns about preferential treatment of the Company's insiders because the Amended Plan and the Amended 2009 Plan are bona fide compensation plans of the type that is common among corporations generally. Further, the Company argues that the vesting schedule is determined at the time of the initial grant of the Restricted Stock and the option exercise price is determined at the time of the initial grant of the options. The Company represents that all purchases may be made only as permitted by the Amended Plan and the Amended 2009 Plan, which were approved by the Board prior to the application for relief. The Company argues that granting the requested relief would be consistent with policies underlying the provisions of the Act permitting the use of equity compensationas well as prior exemptive relief granted by the Commission for relief under section 23(c) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that C3 Capital Partners III, L.P., 1511 Baltimore, Suite 500, Kansas City, KS 64108, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). C3 Capital Partners III, L.P., proposes to provide debt financing issued by Green Compass Environmental Solutions, LLC, 2775 N. Ventura Road, Suite 209, Oxnard, CA 93036.
The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because C3 Capital Partners II, L.P. an Associate of C3 Capital Partners III, L.P., owns more than ten percent of Green Compass Environmental Solutions, LLC; therefore Green Compass Environmental Solutions, LLC is considered an Associate of C3 Capital Partners II, L.P., as defined in Sec. 105.50 of the regulations. In addition, C3 Capital Partners III, L.P. and C3 Capital Partners II, L.P. are Associates as defined under 13 CFR 107.50.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on this transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Notice of open Hearing of the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board.
The SBA Office of the National Ombudsman is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, and time of the National Regulatory Fairness Hearing. This hearing is open to the public.
The hearing will be held on Monday, August 28, 2017, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EDT).
The meeting will be held at Patriots Plaza One, 395 E. Street SW., in the Hearing Room, Washington, DC 20201. Persons attending the hearing must enter the building with a valid photo identification.
The hearing is open to the public; however, advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to attend and/or make a presentation to the Region III Regulatory Fairness Board must contact Ms. Elahe Zahirieh, Case Management Specialist, by August 15, 2017 in writing, by fax, or email at
Pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121), Sec. 222, SBA announces the hearing for Small Business Owners, Business Organizations, Trade Associations, Chambers of Commerce and related organizations serving small business concerns to report experiences regarding unfair or excessive Federal regulatory enforcement issues affecting small businesses.
For more information on the Office of the National Ombudsman, see our Web site at
The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate for Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans (13 CFR 123.512) on a quarterly basis. The rate will be 3.305 for loans approved on or after July 14, 2017.
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Notice of open meeting of the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards.
The SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time and agenda for the annual board meeting of the ten Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held on: Tuesday, August 29, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT and Wednesday, August 30, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EDT.
The meeting will be held at Patriots Plaza One, 395 E. Street SW., Hearing Room, lobby level, Washington, DC 20201. **A valid photo identification is required to enter the building.
The meeting is open to the public; however advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to attend and/or make a presentation to the Regional Regulatory Fairness Boards must contact Elahe Zahirieh, Case Management Specialist, by August 21, 2017, in writing at the Office of the National Ombudsman, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 5116, Washington, DC 20416, by phone (202) 205-2417, by fax (202) 481-5719 or email
Pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121), Sec. 222, SBA announces the meeting of the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards (Regional Regulatory Fairness Boards). The Regional Regulatory Fairness Boards are tasked to advise the National Ombudsman on matters of concern to small businesses relating to enforcement activities of Federal agencies and to report on substantiated instances of excessive Federal enforcement actions against small business concerns, including any findings or recommendations of the Regional Regulatory Fairness Board regarding agency enforcement practice or policy.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the following topics related to the Regional Regulatory Fairness Boards:
For more information on the Office of the National Ombudsman, please visit our Web site at
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the BTS to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) approval for an information collection from tank car facilities to obtain an estimate of tank cars projected to be modified or built to the new safer Department of Transportation (DOT) standards. A summary report of survey findings will be submitted to Congress as well as published by BTS on the BTS Web page.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 30, 2017.
Clara Reschovsky, (202) 366-2857, Tank Car Facility Survey Project Manager, BTS, OST-R, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Room E34-409, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(1) The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate; and
(2) The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives. In addition, this summary report will also be published to the BTS Web page.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form W-8BEN, Certificate of Foreign Status of Beneficial Owner for United States Tax Withholding and Reporting (Individual), Form W-8BEN-E, Certificate of Status of Beneficial Owner for United States Tax Withholding and Reporting (Entities), Form W-8ECI, Certificate of Foreign Person's Claim That Income Is Effectively Connected With the Conduct of a Trade or Business in the United States, Form W-8EXP, Certificate of Foreign Government or Other Foreign Organization for United States Tax Withholding and Reporting, Form W-8IMY, Certificate of Foreign Intermediary, Foreign Flow-Through Entity, or Certain U.S. Branches for
Written comments should be received on or before September 29, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224 or through the Internet at
Form W-8ECI is used to establish that the person is a foreign person and the beneficial owner of the income for which Form W-8ECI is being provided, and to claim that the income is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States. Form W-8EXP is used by a foreign government, international organization, foreign central bank of issue, foreign tax-exempt organization, or foreign private foundation. The form is used by such persons to establish foreign status, to claim that the person is the beneficial owner of the income for which Form W-8EXP is given and, if applicable, to claim a reduced rate of, or exemption from, withholding. Form W-8IMY is provided to a withholding agent or payer by a foreign intermediary, foreign partnership, and certain U.S. branches to make representations regarding the status of beneficial owners or to transmit appropriate documentation to the withholding agent. Reg. § 1.1441-1(e)(4)(iv) provides that a withholding agent may establish a system for a beneficial owner to electronically furnish a Form W-8 or an acceptable substitute Form W-8. Withholding agents with systems that electronically collect Forms W-8 may voluntarily choose to participate in the IRS EW-8 MOU Program. The EW-8 MOU Program is a collaborative process between the withholding agents and IRS.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 1099-A, Acquisition or Abandonment of Secured Property.
Written comments should be received on or before September 29, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the forms and instructions should be directed to Sara Covington, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning extensions of time to elect method for determining allowable loss.
Written comments should be received on or before September 29, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Kerry Dennis, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of Advisory Committee Charter Renewals.
In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee ACT (FACA) and after consultation with the General Services Administration, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has determined that the following Federal advisory committee is vital to the mission of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and renewing its charter would be in the public interest. Consequently, the charter for the following Federal advisory committee is renewed for a two-year period, beginning on the dates listed below:
The Secretary has also renewed the charter for the following statutorily authorized Federal advisory committee for a two-year period, beginning on the date listed below:
For further information contact Jeffrey Moragne, Committee Management Office, Department of Veterans Affairs, Advisory Committee Management Office (00AC), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420; telephone (202) 266-4660; or email at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hereby gives notice, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act of the establishment of the Creating Options for Veterans' Expedited Recovery Commission (“COVER Commission”), authorized by section 931 of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recover Act of 2016 (CARA).
The COVER Commission will examine the evidence-based therapy treatment model used by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for treating mental health conditions of veterans and the potential benefits of incorporating complementary and integrative health treatments available in non-Department facilities.
The COVER Commission members will be comprised of 10 voting members who are appointed by the President and Congressional leadership for the life of the COVER Commission in accordance with section 931(c) of CARA.
Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Alfred Ozanian, Assistant Deputy Director, Mental Health Operations (10NC5), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC or email at
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Final rule.
The FDIC is amending its regulations regarding Recordkeeping Requirements for Qualified Financial Contracts (“Part 371”), which require insured depository institutions (“IDIs”) in a troubled condition to keep records relating to qualified financial contracts (“QFCs”) to which they are party. The final rule augments the scope of QFC records required to be maintained by an IDI that is subject to the FDIC's recordkeeping requirements and that has total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion or is a consolidated affiliate of a member of a corporate group one or more members of which are subject to the QFC recordkeeping requirements set forth in the regulations adopted by the Department of the Treasury (a “full scope entity”); for all other IDIs subject to the FDIC's QFC recordkeeping requirements, adds and deletes a limited number of data requirements and makes certain formatting changes with respect to the QFC recordkeeping requirements; requires full scope entities to keep QFC records of certain of their subsidiaries; provides an exemption process; and includes certain other changes, including changes that provide additional time for certain IDIs in a troubled condition to comply with the regulations.
Effective October 1, 2017.
Legal Division: Phillip E. Sloan, Counsel, (703) 562-6137; Joanne W. Rose, Counsel, (917) 320-2854. Division of Resolutions and Receiverships: Marc Steckel, Deputy Director, (571) 858-8224; George C. Alexander, Assistant Director, (571) 858-8182.
This final rule (the “final rule”) enhances and updates recordkeeping requirements as to QFCs of IDIs in troubled condition in order to facilitate the orderly resolution of IDIs with QFC portfolios. The final rule revises the format of records required to be maintained in order to provide more ready access to expanded QFC portfolio data. Additionally, the final rule requires that more comprehensive information be maintained to facilitate the FDIC's understanding of complex QFC portfolios of IDIs in receivership. The changes to both the formatting and the quantity of information will enable the FDIC, as receiver, to make better informed and efficient decisions as to whether to transfer some or all of a failed IDI's QFCs during the one-business-day stay period for the transfer of QFCs. This will help the FDIC achieve a least costly resolution.
Part 371 was adopted in 2008 pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(8)(H) (the “FDIA Recordkeeping Provision”) to enable the FDIC to have prompt access to detailed information about the QFC portfolios of IDIs for which the FDIC is appointed receiver.
In July 2010, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
On October 31, 2016, in implementation of Section 210(c)(8)(H), the Department of the Treasury published regulations (“Part 148”) that require large U.S. financial companies and their U.S. subsidiaries (other than IDIs, certain IDI subsidiaries and insurance companies) to maintain QFC recordkeeping systems.
The final rule harmonizes the recordkeeping requirements under Part 371 for large IDIs and IDIs that are consolidated affiliates of financial companies subject to Part 148 with the recordkeeping requirements of Part 148. The harmonization with Part 148 for all of these IDIs supports the policy objective of enabling the FDIC to make judicious QFC transfer decisions. In the case of an IDI that is a member of a corporate group subject to Part 148, it will enable the FDIC, as receiver of the
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005
In the eight and one-half years since it was adopted, Part 371 has proved very useful to the FDIC in connection with QFCs of IDIs for which it was appointed receiver. While these institutions, in general, had limited QFC portfolios, several large IDIs with significant QFC portfolios also became in a troubled condition and were required to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Part 371. The process of working with these IDIs to achieve compliance with Part 371, in addition to being very useful in resolution planning for these institutions, was instructive for the FDIC and caused the FDIC to identify areas where additional data in a more accessible format would provide the FDIC, as receiver, with important benefits in making determinations as to whether to transfer the institution's QFCs in a manner that would help preserve the value of the receivership and minimize losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund. The FDIC also gained experience with respect to the length of time that sometimes is necessary to complete QFC recordkeeping requirements, and identified areas where the requirements could be made clearer.
As previously noted, Part 148 requires more extensive recordkeeping than that required by Part 371 as currently in effect (“Current Part 371”). The additional data include, among other data points, information on underlying QFCs where the QFC in question is a guarantee, additional information as to whether a QFC is guaranteed, information as to positions for which a QFC serves as a hedge, certain information as to the netting sets to which the QFCs pertain, information as to cross-default provisions in QFCs, information as to location of collateral, whether the collateral is segregated by the entity holding the collateral, whether the collateral is subject to re-hypothecation, and information as to the value of QFC positions in the currency applicable to the QFCs. This additional information is expected to greatly assist the FDIC as receiver in making decisions as to the treatment of the receivership's QFCs under the Dodd-Frank Act within the same, short one-business-day stay period that applies where the FDIC is appointed as receiver
On December 28, 2016, the FDIC published a notice of proposed rulemaking (the “NPR”), which proposed to amend and restate Part 371 in its entirety. As proposed in the NPR, the rule (as so proposed, the “proposed rule”) required full scope entities to maintain substantially all of the data mandated by part 148. Additions to the recordkeeping requirements for other IDIs were more limited. The proposed rule would have required all IDIs to maintain records in the revised format set forth in the appendices to the proposed rule. The proposed rule also would have eliminated two data points from the recordkeeping requirements.
The FDIC received one comment letter, submitted by two industry trade associations, in response to the NPR. The letter (the “TCH/SIFMA Letter”) was strongly supportive of the proposal to harmonize the recordkeeping requirements applicable to full scope entity IDIs under Part 371 with the recordkeeping requirements under Part 148 applicable to other entities in the same corporate group and stated that “[s]uch harmonization is important as a matter of sound policy and as a practical matter for our members.”
The TCH/SIFMA Letter also suggested that several changes be made to the proposed rule. The final rule reflects acceptance of many of these proposed changes, as discussed in more detail below. The changes reflected in the final rule include the addition of an exemption process to Part 371; an increase in the ceiling, from 19 QFC positons to 50 QFC positions, for applicability of the
In furtherance of the harmonization of Part 371 with Part 148, the TCH/SIFMA
The TCH/SIFMA Letter also suggested that the final rule include an exemption process for IDIs. This would enable the FDIC to provide exemptions that are the same or similar to those provided under Part 148 if requested by an IDI, if the FDIC deems it prudent to grant the exemption. As the letter notes, the FDIC will have reviewed exemption requests under Part 148 and thus should be able to quickly respond to exemption requests under Part 371. An exemption provision would also enable the FDIC to grant other exemptions that it deems appropriate. The FDIC has determined that an exemption process would be a useful addition and the final rule provides an exemption process.
The TCH/SIFMA Letter proposed that the final rule adopt a
As noted above, because Part 371 applies only to institutions in troubled condition, the Part 371 recordkeeping requirements are applicable when an IDI failure may be imminent and, thus, the FDIC as receiver may need to quickly make decisions as to whether to retain or transfer the IDI's QFCs. As a result, unlike Part 148, the
The TCH/SIFMA Letter noted that unlike Part 148, the proposed rule included as full scope entities IDIs with $50 billion or more in total assets, without regard to the scope of their QFC activities, and proposed that a QFC activity filter be added to the final rule. The FDIC believes that this comment does not take into account the different statutory bases for Part 148 and Part 371. The statute authorizing Part 148 expressly requires that the regulations differentiate, as appropriate, among financial companies by taking into consideration, among other factors, the “frequency and dollar amount of qualified financial contracts.”
The TCH/SIFMA Letter asserted that the proposed rule's requirement that full scope entities maintain records relating to QFCs of certain of their subsidiaries (the “reportable subsidiaries”) exceeds the FDIC's authority. However, the letter acknowledges that Current Part 371 requires some information as to affiliates of an IDI where such affiliates are party to QFCs which are governed by a master agreement that also governs QFCs of the IDI, and argues that information collected as to reportable subsidiaries of an IDI under the final rule should be limited to this information. Alternatively, the TCH/SIFMA Letter argues that even if obtaining information as to subsidiaries is within the FDIC's authority, the scope of reportable subsidiaries should be limited to consolidated subsidiaries organized within the United States.
Contrary to the assertion in the TCH/SIFMA Letter, the FDIA Recordkeeping Provisions contains sufficient authorization for the FDIC to require an IDI to maintain records as to QFCs of its subsidiaries. The statute provides that the FDIC may prescribe regulations requiring recordkeeping by any IDI with respect to QFCs, and does not limit this authorization to QFCs of the IDI. Moreover, as noted in the letter, since its adoption Current Part 371 has required certain information as to affiliates (including subsidiaries) of IDIs.
The TCH/SIFMA Letter also asserted that (i) the benefits to the FDIC of having subsidiary information available to it as receiver of an IDI is not a proper basis for the burden imposed by requiring that an IDI in troubled condition provide QFC information as to its subsidiaries and (ii) such information would be of importance to the FDIC only if it could be appointed receiver for an IDI subsidiary. The FDIC disagrees with these assertions. As discussed in the NPR, requiring data as to QFCs of reportable subsidiaries can be of major importance to the FDIC in providing the FDIC with a more comprehensive understanding of the QFC exposure of the group. Since many QFCs include cross-default clauses that may be triggered by the appointment of the FDIC as receiver for an IDI, QFCs of subsidiaries may be terminated by counterparties unless the FDIC has the opportunity to negotiate with the subsidiary's counterparties to attempt to keep the QFCs in place. If the QFCs are important to the subsidiary, such action may be important to preserving the value of the IDI's ownership interest in the subsidiary. Further, if the FDIC establishes a bridge bank for the IDI, information as to subsidiary QFC positions will enable the receiver to evaluate overall exposure to particular counterparty groups, which may be a necessary factor in determining whether to transfer QFCs of the IDI to the bridge
The TCH/SIFMA Letter also argued that if the final rule retains the requirement for IDIs to maintain records of reportable subsidiary QFCs, subsidiaries that are organized outside of the U.S. and subsidiaries that are not consolidated with the IDI under generally accepted accounting principles should be excluded.
The letter argued that it would be inappropriate for Part 371 to require information as to foreign subsidiaries when Part 148 excludes such companies. This argument fails to take account of the difference between the authorizing statutes for Part 148 and Part 371. The authority for recordkeeping granted under Part 148 is limited to records of companies organized under federal or state law. There is no such limit on recordkeeping under the Part 371 authorizing statute. However, because corporate groups that are subject to Part 148 will not have developed systems for Part 148 reporting of QFCs of foreign subsidiaries it is possible that imposing this requirement in Part 371 on IDI subsidiaries could result in significant costs to the IDI or the corporate group and, accordingly, the FDIC has determined to exclude such companies from the final rule. In excluding such subsidiaries from the definition of records entity, however, the FDIC is not relaxing the requirement that an IDI report QFCs between the IDI (or any reportable subsidiary of the IDI) and any of the IDI's foreign subsidiaries or branches (or between any reportable subsidiary and any foreign subsidiary or foreign branch of the reportable subsidiary).
In addition, because it is less likely that QFC positions of subsidiaries that are not consolidated with an IDI would be relevant to the determination of whether to transfer ownership interests in such subsidiaries to a bridge bank or determinations as to overall exposure to particular counterparties, the FDIC has determined to limit reportable subsidiaries to subsidiaries which are consolidated with an IDI under generally accepted accounting principles or other applicable accounting standards.
The TCH/SIFMA Letter states that certain IDIs may need more than the 270 day period set forth in the proposed rule in order to effect compliance with the final rule. While past experience of the FDIC indicates that large institutions should be able to comply with the rule in this period, even after taking into account the increased recordkeeping requirements included in the rule, the final rule authorizes the FDIC to grant one or more extensions of time for compliance for IDIs that request the extension in accordance with the final rule. This extension process has been successfully used by IDIs heretofore subject to Current Part 371.
The fact that, as noted in the TCH/SIFMA Letter, Part 148 provides more time for compliance is not persuasive to the FDIC, especially since IDIs that are subject to Part 371 are only those in troubled condition and, thus, are institutions from which information may be needed quickly.
The TCH/SIFMA Letter includes several other comments. The first is that the FDIC should develop a comprehensive analysis of the costs of the proposed rule as compared to the benefits to the FDIC of the information. The NPR, as well as the final rule, reflects just such an analysis. Costs determined from such analysis are reflected in the Sections titled
The letter also suggested that the FDIC consider, for IDIs that have been required to comply with Current Part 371, the costs of modifying existing systems to comply with the data requirements of the final rule and determine whether the systems that the IDIs have already developed are sufficient to meet the FDIC's needs. The FDIC has carefully considered this issue. In formulating the data tables for full scope entities, the FDIC replicated the Part 148 data tables and, with very limited exceptions, the final tables for full scope entities under Part 371 are identical to the Part 148 data tables. Thus, if the information technology systems necessary for affiliates of an IDI subject to Part 371 to comply with Part 148 have been constructed at the time the IDI is required to comply with the final rule, the IDI should be able to use those information technology systems in creating the recordkeeping systems necessary to comply with Part 371 and thus significantly reduce its costs of compliance with Part 371. Accordingly, the final rule has been revised to delay the compliance date for any full scope entity that has a consolidated affiliate that is a member of a corporate group with at least one member subject to Part 148 (any such full scope entity, a “Part 148 affiliate”) until the scheduled Part 148 compliance date.
In addition, in order to further limit costs of compliance with the final rule, the FDIC has added a consolidation criterion to the definition of Part 148 affiliate. As a result, an IDI with less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets that is an affiliate of an entity that is a member of a corporate group with one or more members subject to Part 148 will not constitute a full scope entity unless, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles or other applicable accounting standards, the IDI consolidates, or is consolidated with or by, one of the members of the group.
The TCH/SIFMA Letter also argued that the proposed scope of QFCs to be subject to the final rule was too broad, and mentioned, as an example, short-dated cash transactions, exchange traded products, spot foreign exchange transactions and transactions with retail customers. This comment has little relation to this rulemaking, which effects limited changes to the amount and format of data required by Part 371, but does not re-define the term QFC or in any other way modify the scope of products covered by Part 371. In any event, as the FDIA defines “qualified financial contract” and requires that the FDIC as receiver treat all QFCs between a failed IDI and its counterparty and its
The letter also suggested that affiliates of counterparties be defined using a consolidation standard rather than the Bank Holding Company Act definition because it may be difficult for an IDI to obtain data as to non-consolidated counterparty affiliates. Because the statutory provisions governing the FDIC's duties as to QFCs of a counterparty's affiliates use the Bank Holding Company definition of affiliate,
The TCH/SIFMA Letter also asked that the FDIC consider proposals included in an attachment to the letter that is a copy of the comment letter submitted by TCH and SIFMA with respect to Part 148 as initially proposed. Many of these proposals are inapplicable to Part 371 and others were reflected in the proposed rule. It is not entirely clear which of the other proposals the FDIC is requested to review.
One of these proposals is that a records entity's guarantees of QFCs of non-affiliates be excluded from the scope of the required recordkeeping. Because the FDIA includes, as QFCs, guarantees of QFCs, whether or not an affiliate is a party to the underlying QFC, the FDIC has not accepted this suggestion.
The TCH/SIFMA Letter also suggested that operational and business level details, such as trading desk identifiers, points of contact and certain other information be omitted from the required data. While certain of the information mentioned in the letter was not required by the proposed rule (and is not required by the final rule), desk identifiers and points of contact were included in the proposed rule and continue to be required by the final rule, because this data is expected to help enable the FDIC to find personnel at an IDI who are familiar with particular QFCs and obtain any needed additional information from such personnel. A point of contact is necessary during the phase when an IDI is required to establish its recordkeeping systems so that the FDIC will know whom to contact in order to ensure an IDI is proceeding promptly to establish a conforming recordkeeping system.
The TCH/SIFMA Letter also expressed concern that certain data fields may not be applicable to certain types of QFCs and recommend that the rule specifically allow a records entity to use discretion when reporting such data fields. It has been the FDIC's experience in implementing Part 371 that questions of this nature are resolved by the IDI and the FDIC during the compliance process and, accordingly, such a change to the rule is not necessary.
The final rule amends and restates Part 371 in its entirety. The final rule requires full scope entities to maintain the full complement of data required by Part 148.
The FDIC has decided that the $50 billion total consolidated asset threshold for full scope entities is appropriate for several reasons. Institutions of this size are more likely to have larger and more complex QFC portfolios. Also, this is the threshold used in 12 CFR part 360 to identify institutions that are required to file resolution plans
The final rule makes only limited additions to the data required under
Only certain portions of Current Part 371 are substantively changed by the final rule. The changes include the following: (i) The recordkeeping requirements for full scope entities are expanded; (ii) full scope entities are required to keep records on the QFC activity of certain of their subsidiaries; (iii) the required format for QFC records for limited scope entities is revised and a limited number of additional data fields are added for these IDIs; (iv) the length of time that certain IDIs have to comply with the rule is increased; (v) an exemption process has been added; (vi) changes are made to the process for obtaining extensions and to the permitted duration of extensions for certain types of IDIs; (vi) the ceiling for applicability of the
Section 371.1 sets forth the scope and purpose of the final rule, as well as required compliance dates. The expressed purpose of Part 371—to establish recordkeeping requirements with respect to QFCs for IDIs in a troubled condition—is the same as under Current Part 371.
Under Current Part 371, an IDI is required to comply with Part 371 after receiving written notice from the IDI's appropriate Federal banking agency or the FDIC that it is in troubled condition under Part 371. Section 371.1(a) of the final rule provides that Part 371 applies to an IDI that is a “records entity.” A records entity is an IDI that has received notice from its appropriate Federal banking agency or the FDIC that it is in a troubled condition
Section 371.1(c)(1) of the final rule requires that, within three business days of receiving notice that it is a records entity, an IDI must provide the FDIC with the contact information of the person who is responsible for the QFC recordkeeping under Part 371 and a directory of the electronic files that will be used by the IDI to maintain the information required to be kept under Part 371. These requirements are substantially similar to those set forth in Current Part 371, although the final rule clarifies that the contact person must be the person responsible for the recordkeeping system, rather than simply a knowledgeable person. The electronic file directory consists of the file path or paths of the electronic files located on the IDI's systems.
The final rule sets forth a different compliance date schedule than that set forth in Current Part 371. Under Current Part 371, an IDI is required to comply with Part 371 within 60 days of being notified that it is in troubled condition under Part 371, unless it obtains an extension of this deadline. It has been the FDIC's experience that some IDIs with significant QFC portfolios that were subject to Part 371 needed up to 270 days to establish systems that enabled them to maintain QFC records in accordance with Part 371. Because extensions under Current Part 371 are limited to 30 days, several extensions were necessary.
Under § 371.1(c)(2)(i) of the final rule all IDIs, except for an IDI that is an accelerated records entity (as defined in the next paragraph) and IDIs that are subject to Part 371 before the effective date of the final rule, are required to comply with Part 371 within 270 days of becoming a records entity. In addition, § 371.1(d)(1) of the final rule authorizes the FDIC to provide extensions of up to 120 days to records entities other than accelerated records entities. These changes will reduce or eliminate the need for repeated extensions for IDIs that are not accelerated records entities and thus reduce the burden on such IDIs.
Accelerated records entities are IDIs with a composite rating of 4 or 5 or that are determined to be experiencing a significant deterioration of capital or significant funding difficulties or liquidity stress. In view of the increased risk of near-term failure of IDIs that are accelerated records entities, accelerated records entities remain subject to a 60-day compliance period and extensions for such entities are limited to 30 days. The 270-day compliance period with extensions of up to 120 days is applicable to other records entities because those entities do not pose the same near-term failure risk as accelerated records entities. The final rule, under § 371.1(c)(2)(iii), specifies that if a records entity that was not initially an accelerated records entity becomes an accelerated records entity, the entity will be required to comply with this rule within the shorter of 60 days from the date it became an accelerated records entity or 270 days from the date it became a records entity.
Section 371.1(d)(3) of the final rule retains the requirement of Current Part 371 that written extension requests be submitted not less than 15 days prior to the deadline for compliance, accompanied by a statement of the reasons why the deadline cannot be met. In order to reflect the FDIC's past practice in considering extension requests under Part 371, the final rule expressly requires that all extension requests include a project plan for achieving compliance (including timeline) and a progress report.
Section 371.2 contains definitions used in Part 371. The final rule adds new definitions that reflect changes to the substantive text and tables of Part 371.
Newly defined terms include “records entity,” which is added for clarity and conciseness to denote an IDI that is subject to Part 371. As previously discussed, the definition provides that in order to be a records entity, and thus subject to Part 371, an IDI must receive notice from its appropriate Federal banking agency or the FDIC that it is in a troubled condition and must also receive notice from the FDIC that it is subject to the recordkeeping requirements of Part 371. The definition of records entity includes an IDI already subject to the recordkeeping requirements of Part 371 as of the effective date of the final rule.
Current Part 371 defines “troubled condition” to mean any IDI that (1) has a composite rating, as determined by its appropriate Federal banking agency in its most recent report of examination, of 3 (only for IDIs with total consolidated assets of $10 billion dollars or greater), 4, or 5 under the Uniform Financial Institution Rating System, or in the case
The final rule makes no change to the definition of troubled condition under Current Part 371. The FDIC notes that for purposes of Part 371 the third prong of the definition, which addresses IDIs subject to a cease-and-desist order or written agreement issued by the appropriate Federal banking agency that requires action to improve the financial condition of the IDI,
As discussed previously, the final rule defines an “accelerated records entity” as a records entity with a composite rating of 4 or 5 under the Uniform Financial Institution Rating System (or in the case of an insured branch of a foreign bank, an equivalent rating system), or that is determined to be experiencing a significant deterioration of capital or significant funding difficulties or liquidity stress, notwithstanding the composite rating of the institution by its appropriate Federal banking agency in its most recent report of examination.
The final rule requires different recordkeeping requirements for “full scope entities” and “limited scope entities,” and adds definitions of those terms for clarity and conciseness. The rule defines a full scope entity as a records entity that has total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion or that is a Part 148 affiliate. “Part 148 affiliate” is defined as a records entity that, under generally accepted accounting principles or other applicable accounting standards, consolidates, or is consolidated by or with (or is required to consolidate or be consolidated by or with), a member of a corporate group one or more other members of which are required to maintain QFC records pursuant to Part 148.
The final rule defines a limited scope entity as a records entity that is not a full scope entity. As discussed previously, the final rule requires full scope entities to keep more detailed QFC records than limited scope entities.
The final rule requires that full scope entities include, among other items, records for their reportable subsidiaries. A subsidiary is defined to include an entity that is consolidated (or required to be consolidated) by another entity on such entity's financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles or other applicable accounting standards. A reportable subsidiary is defined to include a subsidiary of an IDI that is not a functionally regulated subsidiary as defined in 12 U.S.C. 1844(c)(5), a security-based swap dealer as defined in 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(71), or a major security-based swap participant as defined in 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(67). The definition of reportable subsidiary excludes subsidiaries that are not incorporated or organized under U.S. federal law or the laws of a state (as defined in the final rule). Since QFC data for reportable subsidiaries is not required to be maintained under Part 148, requiring this information in Part 371 will provide the FDIC as receiver with more complete recordkeeping for the largest entities, which are likely to have more subsidiaries and, as discussed previously, are likely to have larger and more complex QFC portfolios.
The final rule also adds a definition for “business day” that is consistent with the definition of this term used in 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(10)(D) and a definition for “control” (used in the definition of the term “affiliate”), which is defined consistently with the definition of this term in the FDIA.
Minor drafting changes to the definition of “qualified financial contract” are included in the final rule. These changes are for clarity only and are not intended to make substantive changes in the meaning of this term.
The final rule also adds certain terms in order to clarify portions of Part 371, including terms used in the new data tables. These terms include “parent entity,” “corporate group,” “counterparty,” “effective date,” “legal entity identifier” (LEI) and “state.”
Section 371.3 of the final rule sets forth the requirements for maintaining QFC records. As under Current Part 371, paragraph (a) of the final rule requires that QFC records be maintained in electronic form in the format set forth in the Appendices to Part 371, unless the records entity qualifies for the exemption from electronic recordkeeping for institutions with less
In recognition of the value to the FDIC of consistency of recordkeeping through an entire corporate group, the final rule adds a new requirement, in § 371.3(a)(4), that records maintained by a Part 148 affiliate are compiled consistently with records compiled by its affiliates pursuant to Part 148. This requires that an IDI subject to Part 371 use the same data inputs (for example, counterparty identifier) as the inputs used for reporting pursuant to Part 148. The final rule clarifies that these updates must be based on the previous end-of-day values.
The final rule requires that a records entity be capable of providing the preceding day's end-of-day values to the FDIC no later than 7 a.m. (Eastern Time) each day. The 7 a.m. deadline is included in light of the limited stay period for transfer of QFCs by the FDIC as receiver, which ends at 5 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the business day following the date of the appointment of the receiver.
The final rule also adds a new requirement that electronic records are compiled in a manner that permits aggregation and disaggregation of such records by counterparty, and if a records entity is maintaining records in accordance with Appendix B, by records entity and reportable subsidiary. The final rule adds a requirement that a records entity maintain daily records for a period of not less than five business days in order to ensure that there are records available to the FDIC that indicate the trends in an institution's QFC holdings even before the actual previous end-of-day's records are available to the FDIC.
The final rule also changes the requirement in Current Part 371 with respect to the point of contact at the records entity to answer questions with respect to the electronic files being maintained at the records entity. Section 371.1(c) of the final rule requires that records entities provide the FDIC the name and contact information for the person responsible for recordkeeping, and § 371.3(b) requires that the FDIC is notified within three business days of any change to such information.
The final rule makes no change to the requirement in Current Part 371 that a records entity may cease maintaining records one year after it is notified that it is no longer in troubled condition. During this one-year period, the entity shall continue to be capable of providing the records to the FDIC on the same basis that is applicable prior to the time it ceased to be in a troubled condition. In addition, as under Current Part 371, if a records entity is acquired by or merges with an IDI entity that is not in troubled condition, it may cease maintaining records following the time it ceases to be a separately insured IDI.
Section 371.4 of the final rule sets forth the requirements for the content of the QFC records that are required to be maintained by records entities. As discussed previously, Section 371.4(b) requires a full scope entity to maintain QFC records in accordance with Appendix B to Part 371, which requires significantly more comprehensive records than are required under Current Part 371. In general, full scope entities are likely to have significant QFC portfolios and the expanded recordkeeping will facilitate the decisions that must be made by the FDIC with respect to these QFC portfolios. Appendix B is substantially similar to the tables included in the Part 148 regulations and, accordingly, if a records entity is an affiliate of an entity that is required to keep records under Part 148, it is likely that it will be able to use the recordkeeping infrastructure developed to comply with Part 148. Consistency of the information as to the IDI and its reportable subsidiaries as well as the other entities in the corporate group will provide the FDIC with a more comprehensive understanding of the QFC exposure of the group.
Section 371.4(a) of the final rule requires a limited scope entity to maintain less comprehensive QFC records under Appendix A, which is similar in scope to the Appendix to Current Part 371, with the changes discussed under “
The QFC records required to be maintained by Appendices A and B are necessary to assist the FDIC in determining, during the short one-business-day stay period applicable to QFCs, whether to transfer QFCs.
The final rule also requires records entities that are subject to § 371.4(b) to include information on QFCs to which their reportable subsidiaries are a party. This information is required to be provided by the records entity, not the reportable subsidiary. As discussed previously, a reportable subsidiary is defined to include a consolidated subsidiary of an IDI organized under federal or state law that is not a functionally regulated subsidiary as defined in 12 U.S.C. 1844(c)(5), a security-based swap dealer as defined in 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(71), or a major security-based swap participant as defined in 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(67). Like IDIs, reportable subsidiaries are excluded from the recordkeeping requirements of Part 148, while information as to subsidiaries that are not reportable subsidiaries would be available to the FDIC from information provided under Part 148. Without information as to QFCs of reportable subsidiaries, the FDIC, as receiver, might not have information that would allow it to assess the effect of its transfer and retention decisions for QFCs of an IDI on the entire group comprised of the IDI and its subsidiaries. While this information might also be useful from limited scope entities maintaining information in accordance with Appendix A, the FDIC does not believe that the advantage of having this information on reportable subsidiaries would outweigh the burden for these smaller IDIs which, individually or with their subsidiaries, are not expected to normally have significant QFC positions.
Section 371.4(c) of the final rule provides requirements for a records entity that changes its recordkeeping
If a limited scope entity that is not yet maintaining QFC records in accordance with Appendix A or B becomes a full scope entity, the final rule requires the records entity to maintain QFC records in accordance with Appendix B within 270 days of the date on which it became a records entity or, if it is an accelerated records entity, within 60 days. The same compliance timeframes apply to a records entity that is a full scope entity that becomes a limited scope entity before it maintains QFC records in accordance with Appendix B. These compliance periods for records entities that change their recordkeeping status reflect the importance to the FDIC of promptly obtaining QFC records from IDIs in troubled condition.
Records entities that experience a change in status, like IDIs newly subject to Part 371, are permitted to apply for extensions of time to comply under § 371.1(d).
The final rule retains the
Section 371.5 of the final rule sets forth a process under which an IDI subject to Part 371 may request an exemption from one or more of the recordkeeping requirements of Part 371. In order to request an exemption, the IDI must submit a written request to the Executive Secretary of the FDIC referring to Part 371. The request must specify the requirements of Part 371 from which the IDI is requesting to be exempt and whether the exemption is proposed to relate solely to QFC records of the IDI or to records of one or more identified reportable subsidiaries, either alone or together with the IDI. The final rule requires that the request specify why it would be appropriate for the FDIC to grant the exemption and why granting the exemption will not impair or impede the FDIC's ability to fulfill statutory obligations under 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(8), (9), or (10), which relate to the treatment of QFCs by the FDIC as receiver, or the FDIC's ability to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the QFC exposures of the ID and its reportable subsidiaries. The final rule also requires a requesting IDI to provide any additional information required by the FDIC.
Section 371.6 of the final rule provides rules for full scope entities that are subject to Current Part 371 immediately prior to the effective date of the final rule to transition to the new recordkeeping requirements included in the final rule. Limited scope entities that are subject to Current Part 371 immediately prior to the effective date are not required to transition to the new recordkeeping requirements. If, however, any such limited scope entity ceases to be subject to the recordkeeping requirements because it ceases to be in troubled condition for one year pursuant to § 371.3(d) but subsequently again becomes subject to the recordkeeping requirements, at such subsequent time the limited scope entity will be subject to the new recordkeeping requirements.
Under the final rule, a full scope entity that, immediately prior to the effective date of the final rule, is maintaining QFC records in accordance with Current Part 371 and is not a Part 148 affiliate eligible for delayed compliance (as described in the next sentence), will be required to comply with all recordkeeping requirements of Part 371 within 270 days after the effective date or, in the case of an accelerated records entity, 60 days. A Part 148 affiliate, other than a Part 148 affiliate that has a corporate group member that is required to comply with Part 148 on the first recordkeeping compliance date under Part 148 pursuant to 31 CFR 148.1(d)(1)(i)(A), that is maintaining QFC records in accordance with Current Part 371 immediately prior to the effective date of the final rule is permitted to delay compliance until the first date on which any of its affiliates is required to comply with Part 148. However, if such Part 148 affiliate is an accelerated records entity it must comply within 60 days of the effective date. Any full scope records entity benefitting from a 270 day or longer compliance period discussed above is required to continue to maintain the records required by Current Part 371 until it maintains the records required by § 371.4(b).
Additionally, the final rule contains a provision that addresses the transition of a full scope entity that is required to keep records under the Current Part 371 but is not in compliance with Current Part 371's recordkeeping requirements immediately prior to the effective date of the amendments to Part 371. The final rule requires such a records entity to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Part 371, as amended, within 270 days after the date that it first became a records entity or, in the case of an accelerated records entity, 60 days.
The effect of these provisions is to provide more time for the transition to the recordkeeping requirements of Part 371, as amended, for full scope entities that are keeping the records required under Current Part 371 and less time for those that are not. The FDIC believes that it is reasonable to give IDIs that are actually maintaining the information required by Current Part 371 more time to transition to the recordkeeping requirements of the amendments to Part 371 because even in the worst case scenario where the IDI is placed into receivership prior to completion of the transition, the FDIC will have some information on the QFCs of the IDI to use in making its transfer determinations. If the transition provisions of the final rule gave a full new 270 day period to an IDI already subject to Part 371 that was not in compliance with Current Part 371, there would be an increased risk that the IDI could be placed into receivership prior to providing any of the records required by Current Part 371 or the final rule.
Section 371.7 of the final rule is unchanged from § 371.5 of Current Part 371. It provides that violation of Part 371 will subject a records entity to enforcement action under Section 8 of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1818).
Appendix A of the final rule applies to a records entity that is a limited scope entity.
Table A-1. Like Table A-1 of Current Part 371, Table A-1 requires position level information as to each QFC of a records entity. Certain changes have been made with respect to the information required on current Table A-1, however, with two data fields eliminated and a few others added in Table A-1 to the final rule.
Specifically, Table A-1 of the final rule makes a limited number of additions to the rows included in Table A-1 of Current Part 371 in order to provide ready electronic access to information that FDIC staff has found to be important in determining whether to transfer or retain QFCs of a failed IDI. These additions include Row A1.1, which requires an “as of” date. This information is important because a records entity often derives data from multiple systems in multiple locations and the FDIC needs to be able to expeditiously determine whether, due to differences in time zone, legal holidays or other factors, any of the data is not current. Other additions are made to allow for systematic, electronic identification of parties. Row A1.2 requires that a records entity identifier be provided and Row A1.4 requires use of a counterparty identifier. Current Part 371 requires that a records entity provide a list of counterparty identifiers, but the new format will facilitate the prompt and accurate identification of counterparties as well as the determination of whether they are affiliated entities. This is important because in an FDIA resolution, QFCs must be transferred on an all-or-none basis with respect to all QFCs entered into with counterparties of the same affiliated group. This may, but does not always, comport with straightforward netting sets, so the efficient identification of affiliated counterparties is critical to the FDIC's decisions that must be made within the short one-business-day stay period. In addition, Table A-1 requires that the identifier used for records entities as well as counterparties be an LEI, if the records entity or counterparty has one. LEIs are identifiers maintained for companies by a global organization and are increasingly used by financial institutions. In order for an LEI to be properly maintained, it must be kept current and up to date according to the standards established by the Global LEI Foundation. Accordingly, the use of LEIs in Part 371 will ensure that variations from formal names do not result in the misidentification of a records entity or counterparty and thus help ensure that the FDIC satisfies its obligation to transfer all, or none, of the QFC positions between a failed IDI and a counterparty and its affiliates.
New Rows A1.5 and A1.6, which require that data include the internal booking location identifier and the unique booking unit or desk identifier of a QFC, are intended to improve the ability of the FDIC to identify individuals at a records entity who are familiar with a particular position. This can be of major importance to the FDIC in determining, during the one business day stay period, whether to retain or transfer a QFC. This requirement replaces the requirement in Current Part 371 that the appendices specify a portfolio location identifier and provide a list of booking locations.
Some of the new rows in Table A-1 are designed to provide the FDIC with information about other positions or assets of the records entity to which a QFC relates. For example, where an interest rate swap relates to a loan made by an IDI or to a different swap of the IDI, this information would be of critical importance to the FDIC in making its determination of whether to transfer or retain that QFC. The FDIA provides that a guarantee or other credit enhancement of a QFC is itself a QFC.
Rows A1.19-A1.21 require additional information as to third party credit enhancements in favor of the records entity. This information is important to assessing credit risk and net exposure with respect to QFCs, which will facilitate decisions with respect to transfer of those QFCs. Rows A1.22-A1.24 require information as to positions of the records entity to which the QFC relates. For example, these rows indicate if obligations relating to a loan made by the failed IDI are being hedged by the QFC.
Other changes are intended to facilitate the ability of the FDIC to electronically identify positions and governing agreements. Rows A1.10-A1.12 require identifying information regarding the QFC master agreement or primary agreement (
Finally, Table A-1 does not include two data fields in Table A of Current Part 371 that in practice have not generally proved to elicit useful information. These are the rows that require that the purpose of the QFC position and that documentation status be identified.
Table A-2. Like Table A-2 of Current Part 371, Table A-2 requires information as to QFC positions aggregated by counterparty and maintained at each level of netting under the relevant governing agreement. If a master agreement covers multiple types of transactions, but does not require that the different types of transactions be netted against each other the net exposures under each type of transaction will need to be separately reported. Thus, for example, where a single master agreement covers both interest rate swaps and forward exchange transactions but does not require netting between the swap positions and the repo positions, the net exposures of the interest rate swaps are required to be reported separately from the net exposures of the repurchase agreements.
While there are several non-substantive, clarifying drafting changes and additions to rows included in the existing Table A-2, the substantive additions are limited. Like Table A-1,
Rows A2.16-A2.17 require information as to the next margin payment date in order to help the receiver or transferee avoid inadvertent defaults and analyze the positions.
Table A-2 continues to require information as to the net current market value of all positions under a netting agreement, but also requires that the current market value of all positive positions and current market value of all negative positions be separately stated. It also changes the manner in which collateral positions are shown. These break downs of information will assist the FDIC in its analysis of the net overall position.
Appendix B of the final rule applies to a records entity that is a full scope entity as well as to a limited scope entity that elects to use Appendix B rather than Appendix A. As discussed previously, Appendix B corresponds to the information required for records entities under Part 148. It includes all of the data discussed above that is required by Appendix A plus additional information that is important for understanding the larger and more complex QFC portfolios of the largest IDIs. The file structure for Appendix B requires four data tables: (1) Table A-1—Position-level data, (2) Table A-2—Counterparty Netting Set Data, (3) Table A-3—Legal Agreements and (4) Table A-4—Collateral Detail Data. It also requires four master data lookup tables: (1) Corporate Organization Master Table, (2) Counterparty Master Table, (3) Booking Location Master Table and (4) Safekeeping Agent Master Table.
The most significant additional data required by Appendix B, as compared to Appendix A, is provided for in Tables A-3 and A-4 of Appendix B. In general, these Tables require additional information with respect to the master agreements or other contracts governing QFCs as well as additional information regarding collateral supporting QFCs.
In addition, Tables A-1 and A-2 for these entities require that the market value and notional amount of positions be expressed in local currencies, as well as in U.S. dollars, and that information as to amount of collateral subject to re-hypothecation be provided.
The information as to governing law is needed to evaluate whether there is any likelihood of different treatment of transfer of the QFC, access to collateral or other matters under non-U.S. law. The cross-default information is necessary so that the likelihood of the QFC terminating on account of the insolvency or payment defaults or other matters relating to a third party can be analyzed. The counterparty contact information may be important in connection with the FDIC's obligations under 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(10) to take steps reasonably calculated to give notice of transfer of a QFC.
The FDIC has considered the expected effects of the final rule on covered institutions, the financial sector and the U.S. economy. The final rule will likely pose some costs for covered institutions, but by expanding the QFC recordkeeping requirements for institutions in troubled condition the final rule will enable the FDIC to make better informed decisions on whether to transfer QFCs of covered institutions if they enter into receivership. The final rule also harmonizes the scope and format of Part 371's QFC recordkeeping requirements for full scope entities with the recordkeeping requirements under Part 148 and thereby permits IDIs that become subject to Part 371 and are members of corporate groups subject to Part 148 to use information technology systems developed by their Part 148 affiliates in order to comply with Part 371. Finally, by enabling the FDIC to more efficiently evaluate and understand QFC portfolios the final rule will help the FDIC as receiver minimize unintended defaults through failures to make timely payments or collateral deliveries to QFC counterparties.
During the financial crisis of 2008 and ensuing recession many banks failed, some of which were party to significant volumes of QFCs. Through its experience of working with banks in troubled condition that were establishing systems to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Current Part 371, the FDIC concluded that institutions with larger and more complex portfolios of QFCs would be more difficult to resolve in an efficient manner unless more QFC information was readily accessible. Readily available information on collateral, guarantees, credit enhancements, etc. would be necessary to evaluate counterparty risk and maximize value to the receivership. The final rule should provide benefits by reducing the likelihood that a future failure of an insured depository institution with a large and complex portfolio of QFCs could result in unnecessary losses to the receivership.
The final rule will likely result in large implementation costs for full scope entities. Significantly more information on QFCs is required to be maintained by the final rule relative to Current Part 371, including additional information as to collateral, guarantees and credit enhancements. The added information will enable the FDIC to more accurately assess and understand the QFC portfolios of institutions this size, which are more likely to be large and complex than the QFC portfolios of limited scope entities. As of March 31, 2017, based on Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income as of that date, there were 41 FDIC-insured institutions with consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. There are another 29 FDIC-insured institutions with consolidated assets of less than $50 billion that are members of corporate groups that are subject to Part 148, resulting in a total of 70 potential full-scope entities. In the event that one of these institutions becomes in a troubled condition and becomes subject to Part 371, as defined in the rule, the FDIC assumes that, on average, it will take approximately 3,000 labor hours to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of the revisions to Part 371 for full scope entities over and above the amount of time that would be expected to be required in order to comply with Current Part 371 for comparable entities. The implementation costs borne by covered institutions primarily include costs that would be incurred in order to accommodate the new data elements. They are anticipated to be incurred when an institution becomes in a troubled condition and begins maintaining the QFC information in accordance with Part 371. Full scope entities that are subject to Current Part 371 when the final rule becomes effective could incur some transition expenses. Ongoing costs of recordkeeping for the final rule are assumed to be approximately similar to those under Current Part 371. The labor hours necessary to comply with the final rule will vary greatly for each institution depending upon the size and complexity of the QFC portfolio, the efficiency of the institution's QFC information management system(s), and the availability and accessibility of information on QFCs. Therefore, they are difficult to accurately estimate. Additionally, a significant portion of the costs related to complying with the rule should be ameliorated for an institution that is a consolidated affiliate of a member of a corporate group subject to the Part 148, since the group's parent company should have already developed the capacity to meet the recordkeeping requirements for Part 148, which cover the same information, in the same format, as the final rule.
Finally, any implementation costs of the final rule are contingent upon an entity becoming in a troubled condition and subject to the final rule. Based on FDIC supervisory experience, it is estimated that two full scope entities per year, on average, will be subject to the recordkeeping requirements of the final rule. It is anticipated that the final rule will result in an additional 6,000 labor hours per year for covered institutions.
The final rule will likely pose some costs for limited scope entities, but those costs would be relatively small. Only slightly more QFC information is required to be maintained by limited scope entities to comply with the final rule relative to Current Part 371. The FDIC is proposing to remove three data elements from the Current Part 371 recordkeeping requirements while adding less than twenty additional data elements. The FDIC understands that
As of March 31, 2017 there were 5,824 FDIC-insured institutions with total consolidated assets less than $50 billion. Of those institutions 2,099 (36.0 percent) reported some amount of QFCs.
In the event that a limited scope entity becomes in a troubled condition, the FDIC assumes that it will take approximately 5 labor hours, on average, to comply with the added recordkeeping requirements of the revisions to Part 371. The implementation costs borne by covered institutions primarily include costs that would be incurred in order to accommodate the new data elements. They are anticipated to be incurred when an institution becomes in a troubled condition and begins maintaining the QFC information in accordance with Part 371. Ongoing costs of recordkeeping for the final rule are assumed to be approximately similar to those under Current Part 371. Therefore, the FDIC estimates that the added compliance costs associated with the final rule are 550 hours annually
To comply with the recordkeeping requirements of the rule it is assumed that entities in troubled condition will employ attorneys, compliance officers, credit analysts, computer programmers, computer systems analysts, database administrators, financial managers, and computer information systems managers. The FDIC has estimated that the average hourly wage rate for recordkeepers to comply with the initial recordkeeping burden is approximately $95.50 per hour based on average hourly wage information by occupation from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The total estimated compliance costs for all covered entities, both full scope and limited scope, is approximately $625,525 each year. The realized compliance costs for covered entities are dependent upon future utilization rates of QFCs, and the propensity of institutions to become troubled. Therefore it is difficult to accurately estimate.
The final rule provides some relief from compliance costs relative to Current Part 371 by extending the time period allotted for an institution in troubled condition to start maintaining the required QFC information from 60 days to 270 days, with the exception of accelerated records entities. It has been the FDIC's experience that large institutions with complex QFC portfolios had difficulty meeting the current 60-day compliance deadline. Failure to meet the initial deadline necessitated multiple rounds of extension requests that were cumbersome and time-consuming for institutions in troubled condition and their primary regulator. By extending the compliance period to 270 days for all institutions, both “full scope” and “limited scope” entities, the final rule will reduce the overall compliance costs. Along with the extended the compliance period the final rule also requires institutions to include a project plan with their extension request. However, the inclusion of the project plan provision reflects current FDIC practice, and therefore, poses no additional burden.
The final rule will harmonize QFC recordkeeping requirements for full scope entities in troubled condition with the Part 148 requirements for other members of their corporate groups. This harmonization benefits these IDIs by enabling them to reduce costs by using information technology created for compliance with Part 148 by other members of their corporate group. Moreover, consistency of reporting across the corporate group will benefit the FDIC as receiver by enabling it to better analyze how an IDI's QFC positions relate to QFC positions of other members of the corporate group.
The final rule should also provide indirect benefits to QFC counterparties of institutions in troubled condition by helping the FDIC as receiver avoid unintended payment or delivery disruptions. The additional information required by the final rule includes detailed information about collateral,
The FDIC considered a number of alternatives in developing the final rule. The major alternatives include: (i) Expanding the recordkeeping scope to include IDIs subject to any cease-and-desist order by, or written agreement with, the appropriate federal banking agency; (ii) expanding the recordkeeping scope for records entities to include all subsidiaries; (iii) recordkeeping thresholds of above and below $10 billion or $50 billion in total consolidated assets; (iv) requiring all records entities to maintain QFC records under the tables in Appendix B; (iv) requiring the same compliance period for all records entities; (v) not requiring existing full scope records entities to transition to the new recordkeeping requirements; and (vi) requiring existing limited scope entities to transition to the new recordkeeping requirements.
The FDIC considered expanding the definition of “troubled condition” to include all cease-and-desist orders or written agreements issued by the appropriate Federal banking agency in addition to those requiring action to improve the financial condition of an IDI. In reviewing the types of orders and agreements, including stipulations and consent orders, that may be issued or entered into, the FDIC determined that the requirement with respect to an action to improve the financial condition of the IDI is appropriate because it is more likely that such orders relate to an institution for which failure is less remote than is likely the case in connection with other types of orders and agreements. As a result, the FDIC decided not to expand this prong of the definition of “troubled condition.” Nonetheless, this preamble clarifies (in Section III.B.2, “
The FDIC also considered requiring IDIs that report on Appendix B to report QFC information for all subsidiaries rather than only “reportable subsidiaries.” However, expanding the scope of recordkeeping to all subsidiaries would be burdensome and would also be redundant for corporate groups that are subject to Part 148 because QFC information for subsidiaries that are not reportable subsidiaries (other than IDIs and insurance companies) is required under Part 148.
In determining the scope of recordkeeping for records entities, the FDIC considered total consolidated asset thresholds above and below $50 billion. As discussed under Section III.A
The final rule requires certain records entities, as described previously, to maintain QFC records according to the tables in Appendix A or B depending on the size of the records entity.
The FDIC considered requiring the same compliance period for all records entities subject to this Part. Based on its experience, the FDIC has found that the longer period (270 days) is appropriate for larger entities. Larger entities that are required to report on Appendix B due to a composite CAMEL rating of 3 generally need a longer period to comply and, because an entity with a composite CAMEL rating of 3 is less likely to fail imminently, the additional time for recordkeeping should not pose significant additional risks that the FDIC as receiver will lack the information it needs with respect to the QFC portfolio. Entities with a composite CAMEL rating of 4 or 5 pose greater risk of near-term failure. For the same reason, the final rule will not increase the length of extensions available for 4 and 5 rated entities (30 days), regardless of their size. Although it may not be feasible for large entities with complex QFC portfolios to complete the recordkeeping requirements within 60 days, the short deadline with the requirement that extension requests be accompanied by progress reports and action plans will help assure that the recordkeeping requirements are being met in the most expeditious manner and that appropriate resources are being devoted to the effort by the IDI in troubled condition.
The FDIC also considered other transition requirements. The alternative of not requiring transition to the new recordkeeping requirements by full scope entities was rejected because of the importance of having available for these entities, that are more likely to have complex QFC portfolios, all of the additional information included in the final rule, should such an entity become subject to receivership. The FDIC also considered requiring existing limited scope entities to transition to the new recordkeeping requirements, but determined that given the limited nature of almost all existing limited scope entity QFC portfolios the added burden would exceed the benefit of requiring this transition.
Finally, the FDIC considered the alternatives suggested in the TCH/SIFMA Letter. As discussed in detail in Section II.C.
Certain provisions of the final rule contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 3064-0163. As required by the PRA and OMB implementing regulations (5 CFR part 1320), when the NPR was published, the FDIC submitted the information collection requirements contained in this final rulemaking to OMB for review and approval. OMB filed its Notice of Action with respect to that submission on March 17, 2017 requesting that the agency address any comments received in response to the NPR in the final rule. The FDIC received one comment letter submitted by two industry trade associations and fully addressed the comments as discussed in the preamble above.
As discussed above, the FDIC is amending its regulations regarding Part 371 which requires IDIs in a troubled condition to keep records relating to QFCs to which they are party. The FDIC estimates that the total compliance burden for covered entities, including full scope and limited scope entities, is as follows:
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
The final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Most small entities do not participate in capital markets involving QFCs since QFCs are generally sophisticated financial instruments that are usually used by larger financial institutions to hedge assets, provide funding, or increase income. According to data from the March 31, 2017 Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income the FDIC insures 4,553 small depository institutions and 1,171 (25.7 percent) report some volume of QFCs. To estimate the number of small institutions affected by the final rule the FDIC analyzed the frequency with which FDIC-insured institutions with consolidated assets less than $550 million became in a troubled condition. Based on FDIC supervisory experience, it is estimated that small institutions became in a troubled condition 252 times per year on average. The annual average estimate of institutions in troubled condition with consolidated assets less than $550 million is adjusted to 65 to reflect the number of institutions in troubled condition that are likely to be a party to some volume of QFCs, and therefore subject to the final rule.
In the event that one of these small institutions becomes in a troubled condition, the FDIC assumes that it will take approximately one labor hour, on average, to comply with the added recordkeeping requirements of the revisions to Part 371. Small depository institutions generally do not have large and complex portfolios of QFCs and, therefore, the anticipated burden hours associated with the final rule is going to be low. Accordingly, the FDIC estimates that the added compliance costs associated with the final rule are 65 hours annually for all small institutions with some volume of QFCs that become in a troubled condition. The labor hours necessary to comply with the final rule will vary greatly for each institution depending upon the size and complexity of the QFC portfolio, the efficiency of the institution's QFC information management system(s) and the availability and accessibility of information on QFCs.
To comply with the recordkeeping requirements of the rule it is assumed that entities in troubled condition will employ attorneys, compliance officers, credit analysts, computer programmers, computer systems analysts, database administrators, financial managers, and computer information systems managers. The FDIC has estimated that the average hourly wage rate for recordkeepers to comply with the initial recordkeeping burden is approximately $95.50 per hour based on average hourly wage information by occupation from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The FDIC 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, enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that the final rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), (5 U.S.C. 801
The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 requires that the FDIC, in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions, consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the benefits of such regulations. In addition, subject to certain exceptions, new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions must take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date
In accordance with these provisions and as discussed above, the FDIC considered any administrative burdens, as well as benefits, that the final rule would place on depository institutions and their customers in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements of the final rule. The final rule will be effective no earlier than the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the final rule is published.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, sec. 722, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (1999)) requires the FDIC to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC has sought to present the final rule in a simple and straightforward manner.
Administrative practice and procedure, Bank deposit insurance, Banking, Banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, State non-member banks.
12 U.S.C. 1819(a)(Tenth); 1820(g); 1821(e)(8)(D) and (H); 1831g; 1831i; and 1831s.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Except as provided in § 371.6:
(i) A records entity, other than an accelerated records entity, shall comply with all applicable recordkeeping requirements of this part within 270 days after it becomes a records entity.
(ii) An accelerated records entity shall comply with all applicable recordkeeping requirements of this part within 60 days after it becomes a records entity.
(iii) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, a records entity that becomes an accelerated records entity after it became a records entity shall comply with all applicable recordkeeping requirements of this part within 60 days after it becomes an accelerated records entity or its original 270 day compliance period, whichever time period is shorter.
(d)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no single extension for a records entity shall be for a period of more than 120 days.
(2) For a records entity that is an accelerated records entity at the time of a request for an extension, no single extension shall be for a period of more than 30 days.
(3) A records entity may request an extension of time by submitting a written request to the FDIC at least 15 days prior to the deadline for its compliance with the recordkeeping requirements of this part. The written request for an extension must contain a statement of the reasons why the records entity cannot comply by the deadline for compliance, a project plan (including timeline) for achieving compliance, and a progress report describing the steps taken to achieve compliance.
For purposes of this part:
(a)
(1) Has a composite rating, as determined by its appropriate Federal banking agency in its most recent report of examination, of 4 or 5 under the Uniform Financial Institution Rating System, or in the case of an insured branch of a foreign bank, an equivalent rating; or
(2) Is determined by the appropriate Federal banking agency or by the FDIC in consultation with the appropriate Federal banking agency to be experiencing a significant deterioration of capital or significant funding difficulties or liquidity stress, notwithstanding the composite rating of the institution by its appropriate Federal banking agency in its most recent report of examination.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) The entity directly or indirectly or acting through one or more persons owns, controls, or has power to vote 25 per centum or more of any class of voting securities of the other entity;
(2) The entity controls in any manner the election of a majority of the directors or trustees of the other entity; or
(3) The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has determined, after notice and opportunity for hearing in accordance with 12 CFR 225.31, that the entity directly or indirectly exercises a controlling influence over the management or policies of the other entity.
(f)
(g)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(1)
(2)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(1) A functionally regulated subsidiary as defined in 12 U.S.C. 1844(c)(5);
(2) A security-based swap dealer as defined in 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(71); or
(3) A major security-based swap participant as defined in 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(67).
(t)
(u)
(v)
(w)
(1) Has a composite rating, as determined by its appropriate Federal banking agency in its most recent report of examination, of 3 (only for insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or greater), 4 or 5 under the Uniform Financial Institution Rating System, or in the case of an insured branch of a foreign bank, an equivalent rating;
(2) Is subject to a proceeding initiated by the FDIC for termination or suspension of deposit insurance;
(3) Is subject to a cease-and-desist order or written agreement issued by the appropriate Federal banking agency, as defined in 12 U.S.C. 1813(q), that requires action to improve the financial condition of the insured depository institution or is subject to a proceeding initiated by the appropriate Federal banking agency which contemplates the issuance of an order that requires action to improve the financial condition of the insured depository institution, unless otherwise informed in writing by the appropriate Federal banking agency;
(4) Is informed in writing by the insured depository institution's appropriate Federal banking agency that it is in troubled condition for purposes of 12 U.S.C. 1831i on the basis of the institution's most recent report of condition or report of examination, or other information available to the institution's appropriate Federal banking agency; or
(5) Is determined by the appropriate Federal banking agency or the FDIC in consultation with the appropriate Federal banking agency to be experiencing a significant deterioration of capital or significant funding difficulties or liquidity stress, notwithstanding the composite rating of the institution by its appropriate Federal banking agency in its most recent report of examination.
(a)
(2) All such records shall be updated on a daily basis and shall be based upon values and information no less current than previous end-of-day values and information.
(3) Except as provided in § 371.4(d), a records entity shall compile the records described in § 371.4(a) or § 371.4(b) (as applicable) in a manner that permits aggregation and disaggregation of such records by counterparty. If the records are maintained pursuant to § 371.4(b), they must be compiled by the records entity on a consolidated basis for itself and its reportable subsidiaries in a manner that also permits aggregation and disaggregation of such records by the records entity and its reportable subsidiary.
(4) Records maintained pursuant to § 371.4(b) by a records entity that is a Part 148 affiliate shall be compiled consistently, in all respects, with records compiled by its affiliate(s) pursuant to Part 148.
(5) A records entity shall maintain each set of daily records for a period of not less than five business days.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(1) The position-level data listed in Table A-1 in Appendix A of this part with respect to each QFC to which it is a party, without duplication.
(2) The counterparty-level data listed in Table A-2 in Appendix A of this part with respect to each QFC to which it is a party, without duplication.
(3) The corporate organization master table in Appendix A of this part for the records entity and its affiliates.
(4) The counterparty master table in Appendix A of this part with respect to each QFC to which it is a party, without duplication.
(5) All documents that govern QFC transactions between the records entity and each counterparty, including, without limitation, master agreements and annexes, schedules, netting agreements, supplements, or other modifications with respect to the agreements, confirmations for each QFC position that has been confirmed and all trade acknowledgments for each QFC position that has not been confirmed, all credit support documents including, but not limited to, credit support annexes, guarantees, keep-well agreements, or net worth maintenance agreements that are relevant to one or more QFCs, and all assignment or novation documents, if applicable, including documents that confirm that all required consents, approvals, or other conditions precedent for such assignment or novation have been obtained or satisfied.
(6) A list of vendors directly supporting the QFC-related activities of the records entity and the vendors' contact information.
(b)
(1) The position-level data listed in Table A-1 in Appendix B of this part with respect to each QFC to which it or any of its reportable subsidiaries is a party, without duplication.
(2) The counterparty-level data listed in Table A-2 in Appendix B of this part with respect to each QFC to which it or any of its reportable subsidiaries is a party, without duplication.
(3) The legal agreements information listed in Table A-3 in Appendix B of this part with respect to each QFC to which it or any of its reportable subsidiaries is a party, without duplication.
(4) The collateral detail data listed in Table A-4 in Appendix B of this part with respect to each QFC to which it or any of its reportable subsidiaries is a party, without duplication.
(5) The corporate organization master table in Appendix B of this part for the records entity and its affiliates.
(6) The counterparty master table in Appendix B of this part with respect to each QFC to which it or any of its reportable subsidiaries is a party, without duplication.
(7) The booking location master table in Appendix B of this part for each booking location used with respect to each QFC to which it or any of its reportable subsidiaries is a party, without duplication.
(8) The safekeeping agent master table in Appendix B of this part for each safekeeping agent used with respect to each QFC to which it or any of its reportable subsidiaries is a party, without duplication.
(9) All documents that govern QFC transactions between the records entity (or any of its reportable subsidiaries) and each counterparty, including, without limitation, master agreements and annexes, schedules, netting agreements, supplements, or other modifications with respect to the agreements, confirmations for each QFC position that has been confirmed and all trade acknowledgments for each QFC position that has not been confirmed, all credit support documents including, but not limited to, credit support annexes, guarantees, keep-well agreements, or net worth maintenance agreements that are relevant to one or more QFCs, and all assignment or novation documents, if applicable, including documents that confirm that all required consents, approvals, or other conditions precedent for such assignment or novation have been obtained or satisfied.
(10) A list of vendors directly supporting the QFC-related activities of the records entity and its reportable subsidiaries and the vendors' contact information.
(c)
(2) A records entity that was a full scope entity maintaining the records specified in paragraph (b) of this section and that subsequently becomes a limited scope entity may continue to maintain the records specified in paragraph (b) of this section or, at its option, may maintain the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section, provided however, that such records entity shall continue to maintain the records specified in paragraph (b) of this section until it maintains the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section.
(3) A records entity that changes from a limited scope entity to a full scope entity and at the time it becomes a full scope entity is not yet maintaining the records specified in paragraph (a) of this section or paragraph (b) of this section must satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of paragraph (b) of this section within 270 days of first becoming a records entity (or 60 days of first becoming a records entity if it is an accelerated records entity).
(4) A records entity that changes from a full scope entity to a limited scope entity and at the time it becomes a limited scope entity is not yet maintaining the records specified in paragraph (b) of this section must satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of
(d)
(a)
(1) Specify the requirement(s) under this part from which the records entity is requesting to be exempt and whether the exemption is sought to apply solely to the records entity or to one or more identified reportable subsidiaries of the records entity or to the records entity and one or more identified reportable subsidiaries;
(2) Specify the reasons why it would be appropriate for the FDIC to grant the exemption;
(3) Specify the reasons why granting the exemption will not impair or impede the FDIC's ability to fulfill its statutory obligations under 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(8), (9), or (10) or the FDIC's ability to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the QFC exposures of the records entity and its reportable subsidiaries; and
(4) Include such additional information (if any) that the FDIC may require.
(b)
(a)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, such records entity shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements of this part within 270 days after October 1, 2017 (or no later than 60 days after October 1, 2017 if it is an accelerated records entity); and
(2) If—
(i) Such records entity is a Part 148 affiliate and, on October 1, 2017, is not an accelerated records entity; and
(ii) The compliance date for any other member of such record entity's corporate group to comply with Part 148 is set forth in 31 CFR 148.1(d)(1)(i)(B),(C), or (D), as in effect on October 1, 2017, such records entity shall be permitted to delay compliance with the recordkeeping requirements of this part until the first date on which members of any corporate group of which such records entity is a member is required to comply with Part 148 pursuant to 31 CFR 148.1(d)(1)(i)(B),(C), or (D), as in effect on October 1, 2017; provided, that if such records entity becomes an accelerated records entity, it shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements of this part no later than 60 days after it becomes an accelerated records entity; provided, that in the case of each of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section until such full scope entity maintains the records required by § 371.4, it continues to maintain the records required by this part as in effect immediately prior to October 1, 2017.
(c)
Violating the terms or requirements set forth in this part constitutes a violation of a regulation and subjects the records entity to enforcement actions under Section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1818).
Pursuant to § 371.4(b), the records entity is required to provide the information required by this appendix B for itself and each of its reportable subsidiaries in a manner that can be disaggregated by legal entity. Accordingly, the reference to “records entity” in the tables of appendix B should be read as referring to each of the separate legal entities (
By order of the Board of Directors.
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |