Page Range | 42727-42926 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 42865 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
82 FR 42757 - Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines | |
82 FR 42765 - Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines | |
82 FR 42808 - Notice of Reopening of Public Comment Period on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Availability of List Decisions | |
82 FR 42772 - Air Plan Approval; ID; 2012 PM2.5 | |
82 FR 42834 - Notice of Proposed Class II Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Leases, Utah | |
82 FR 42781 - Improving Customer Service | |
82 FR 42800 - National Sea Grant Advisory Board (NSGAB) Public Meeting of the National Sea Grant Advisory Board's Fall 2017 Meeting | |
82 FR 42836 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles-ATF Form 3310.12 | |
82 FR 42813 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
82 FR 42842 - Information Collection: NRC Form 445, “Request for Approval of Foreign Travel” | |
82 FR 42838 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Second Modification to Consent Decree Under The Clean Air Act | |
82 FR 42842 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 42839 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
82 FR 42831 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Fee or Roster Personnel (Appraisers and Inspectors) Designation and Appraisal Reports | |
82 FR 42831 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: FHA-Insured Mortgage Loan Servicing of Delinquent, Default and Foreclosure With Service Members Act | |
82 FR 42804 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Evaluation of the ESSA Title I, Part C, Migrant Education Programs (Study Instruments) | |
82 FR 42803 - Community Bank Advisory Council Meeting | |
82 FR 42858 - New Postal Products | |
82 FR 42798 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 42802 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 42801 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 42871 - Administrative Declaration of an Economic Injury Disaster for the State of Mississippi | |
82 FR 42879 - Pricing for the 2017 American Liberty 225th Anniversary Silver Four-Medal Set | |
82 FR 42823 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
82 FR 42803 - Record of Decision for the Establishment and Modification of Oregon Military Training Airspace | |
82 FR 42748 - Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation; Correcting Amendment | |
82 FR 42872 - Multiple Reservoir Land Management Plans | |
82 FR 42733 - Bylaws of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation | |
82 FR 42839 - Earth Science Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
82 FR 42837 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decrees Under the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | |
82 FR 42785 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7-Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Authorization of Production Activity; MSD International GMBH (Puerto Rico Branch) LLC (Pharmaceuticals); Las Piedras, Puerto Rico | |
82 FR 42784 - Foreign-Trade Zone 44-Morris County, New Jersey; Application for Subzone; Ekornes Inc.; Somerset, New Jersey | |
82 FR 42874 - Notice of Continuation and Request for Nominations for the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 42784 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 43-Battle Creek, Michigan; Authorization of Production Activity; Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, dba Mead Johnson Nutritional; Subzone 43B; (Infant Formula/Nutritional Products); Zeeland, Michigan | |
82 FR 42792 - Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
82 FR 42788 - Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China, and Switzerland: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations | |
82 FR 42788 - Large Residential Washers From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
82 FR 42794 - Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From the Russian Federation and the United Arab Emirates: Affirmative Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances for Imports of Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From the Russian Federation | |
82 FR 42785 - Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments, and Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
82 FR 42790 - Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland: Antidumping Duty Orders | |
82 FR 42796 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Belarus: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
82 FR 42735 - Affixation and Position of Copyright Notice | |
82 FR 42832 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Onshore Oil and Gas Operations and Production | |
82 FR 42754 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Ortho-Fluorofentanyl, Tetrahydrofuranyl Fentanyl, and Methoxyacetyl Fentanyl Into Schedule I | |
82 FR 42836 - High Pressure Steel Cylinders From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year Review | |
82 FR 42805 - Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Financing Programs | |
82 FR 42782 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Bees and Related Articles | |
82 FR 42841 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments | |
82 FR 42860 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 42861 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 42860 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 42861 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 42860 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 42861 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 42827 - Accreditation of Intertek USA, Inc., Yabucoa, PR, as a Commercial Laboratory | |
82 FR 42829 - Nebraska; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
82 FR 42826 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., Savannah, GA, as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
82 FR 42826 - Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., Baytown, TX, as a Commercial Gauger | |
82 FR 42828 - Idaho; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
82 FR 42828 - Louisiana; Emergency and Related Determinations | |
82 FR 42818 - International Drug Scheduling; Convention on Psychotropic Substances; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Ocfentanil, Carfentanil, Pregabalin, Tramadol, Cannabidiol, Ketamine, and Eleven Other Substances; Extension of Comment Period | |
82 FR 42784 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the South Dakota Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 42819 - Evaluation and Reporting of Age, Race, and Ethnicity Data in Medical Device Clinical Studies; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
82 FR 42815 - Center for Devices and Radiological Health Premarket Approval Application Critical to Quality Pilot Program | |
82 FR 42871 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Mark Tobey: Threading Light” Exhibition | |
82 FR 42871 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Bosch to Bloemaert: Early Netherlandish Drawings From the Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam” Exhibition | |
82 FR 42735 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Carquinez Strait, Martinez, CA | |
82 FR 42875 - Determination Under the African Growth and Opportunity Act | |
82 FR 42821 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Information Collection Request Title: National Practitioner Data Bank for Adverse Information on Physicians and Other Health Care Practitioners-45 CFR Part 60 Regulations and Forms, OMB No. 0915-0126-Revision | |
82 FR 42825 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 42752 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines | |
82 FR 42806 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice | |
82 FR 42808 - Just Energy Texas I Corp.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 42808 - Just Energy Pennsylvania Corp.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 42806 - Hudson Energy Services, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 42806 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
82 FR 42807 - Black Marlin Pipeline Company; Notice of Request for Waiver | |
82 FR 42878 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
82 FR 42800 - Permanent Advisory Committee To Advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission; Meeting Announcement | |
82 FR 42861 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Commentary .06 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.91-O To Enhance the Price Protections for Complex Orders Executed on the Exchange | |
82 FR 42865 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the EtherIndex Ether Trust Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 | |
82 FR 42866 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Commentary .06 to Rule 980NY To Enhance the Price Protections for Complex Orders Executed on the Exchange | |
82 FR 42838 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Hoist Operators' Physical Fitness | |
82 FR 42859 - International Product Change-GEPS 8 Contracts | |
82 FR 42869 - Active Weighting Funds ETF Trust and Active Weighting Advisors LLC | |
82 FR 42870 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 42829 - Determination Pursuant to Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as Amended | |
82 FR 42825 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 42823 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 42824 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 42824 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 42803 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Middle Grades Longitudinal Study of 2017-18 (MGLS:2017) Main Study Base Year (MS1), Operational Field Test First Follow-Up (OFT2), and Tracking and Recruitment for Main Study First Follow-Up (MS2) | |
82 FR 42880 - Public Availability of the Department of Veterans Affairs Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Service Contract Inventory Report and FY 2016 Service Contract Proposed Analysis | |
82 FR 42781 - Oral Rabies Vaccine Trial; Availability of a Supplement to an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact | |
82 FR 42727 - Importation of Fresh Persimmon With Calyxes From Japan Into the United States | |
82 FR 42729 - Importation of Bone-In Ovine Meat From Uruguay | |
82 FR 42835 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
82 FR 42810 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
82 FR 42810 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
82 FR 42809 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
82 FR 42811 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
82 FR 42812 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
82 FR 42749 - Noncommercial Educational Station Fundraising for Third-Party Non-Profit Organizations | |
82 FR 42814 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
82 FR 42857 - Northern States Power Company-Minnesota; Entergy Operations, Inc.; FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; Virginia Electric and Power Company; TEX Operations Company, LLC; South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Inc.; STP Nuclear Operating Company; Tennessee Valley Authority | |
82 FR 42767 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Delaware; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Under the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) | |
82 FR 42844 - Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
82 FR 42765 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Placer County and Ventura County Air Pollution Control Districts | |
82 FR 42746 - Air Plan Approval; KY; Revisions to Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
82 FR 42815 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
82 FR 42738 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan | |
82 FR 42783 - Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
82 FR 42876 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in Tennessee Improvement Project in Tennessee | |
82 FR 42751 - Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs | |
82 FR 42882 - Restrictions on Qualified Financial Contracts of Systemically Important U.S. Banking Organizations and the U.S. Operations of Systemically Important Foreign Banking Organizations; Revisions to the Definition of Qualifying Master Netting Agreement and Related Definitions | |
82 FR 42877 - Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB Agency Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved Collection: Disclosure of Code-Sharing Arrangements and Long-Term Wet Leases |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the regulations concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables to allow the importation of fresh persimmon with calyxes from Japan into the United States. As a condition of entry, the persimmon must be produced in accordance with a systems approach that includes requirements for orchard certification, orchard pest control, post-harvest safeguards, fruit culling, traceback, and sampling. The persimmons will also have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that they were produced under, and meet all the components of, the agreed upon systems approach and were inspected and found to be free of quarantine pests. This action will allow the importation of fresh persimmons with calyxes from Japan while continuing to protect against the introduction of plant pests into the United States.
Effective October 12, 2017.
Mr. David Lamb, Senior Regulatory Policy Coordinator, Regulatory Policy and Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2103.
Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-78, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into or disseminated within the United States.
On August 30, 2016, we published in the
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending October 31, 2016. We received three comments by that date, from members of the public and the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA). The comments are discussed below.
One commenter requested that we not allow any biological materials into the United States to eliminate the risks associated with exotic plant pests and diseases. Another commenter asked if the demand for persimmon with calyxes was high enough in the United States to justify the risks associated with the importation of the fruit from Japan. The commenter suggested that our resources would be better invested in the domestic production of fresh persimmon fruit.
Under the Plant Protection Act (PPA), APHIS' primary charge with regard to international import trade is to identify and manage the phytosanitary risks associated with importing commodities. When we determine that the risk associated with the importation of a commodity can be successfully mitigated, it is our responsibility to make provisions to import that commodity. For the reasons explained in the RMD and the proposed rule, we have determined that the phytosanitary measures required by this rule are sufficient to mitigate the risks associated with the importation of persimmons from Japan.
The HDOA requested that fresh persimmon with calyxes from Japan be fumigated with an appropriate and effective chemical prior to importation to mitigate the risks associated with several pests like
The PRA rated
The HDOA also noted that persimmons in Hawaii are commercially produced and cultivated as a specialty crop, with the fruit retailing locally for higher than the projected price of persimmons from Japan, which could negatively impact Hawaii's persimmon industry.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's weekly records on advertised fruit and vegetable retail prices confirm that retail prices of fresh persimmon sold in Hawaii sharply increase every January, generally from below $2 per pound in December to over $5 per pound in January. However, given Japan's premium export prices and limited
The HDOA expressed concern that proposed § 319.56-76(c)(2) does not explain how persimmons produced in accordance with the regulations would be segregated from persimmons that are not produced in accordance with those requirements. Additionally, the HDOA expressed concern that the sanitation practices of packinghouses that process different lots of persimmons are omitted from the requirements.
The NPPO of Japan and APHIS will develop an operational workplan that details the activities that the packinghouses will carry out to meet the requirements of the systems approach. The operational workplan will include detailed segregation and sanitation protocols to ensure that all consignments intended for importation into the United States are free from quarantine pests and disease.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the proposed rule, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule without change.
In the proposed rule, the system approach for persimmons with calyxes from Japan was designated as § 319.56-76; however, that section has since been utilized. Therefore, the systems approach will be added as § 319.56-79.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this rule is not significant, it does not trigger the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the
Most U.S. persimmon production takes place in California, where 2013 production totaled about 35,700 metric tons (MT) valued at about $40 million, triple the 2011 level of production. U.S. persimmon imports in 2014 totaled 1,757 MT valued at about $3 million, $2 million of which were imported from Israel and $0.4 million from Spain. The United States is a net exporter of fresh persimmon, with the value of exports totaling about $6 million in 2014.
Japan's persimmon acreage and production have been gradually declining over the last decade. A very small percentage of Japan's persimmon (about 0.2 percent of production) was exported in 2014, totaling about 578 MT and valued at $2.4 million, primarily to Southeast Asia. The average export price of fresh persimmon from Japan was $4.13 per kilogram (KG) in 2014. This price is considerably higher than the average price paid by the United States for fresh persimmon imports, about $1.70 per KG in 2014, and the average farm-gate price for persimmon produced in California, about $1.11 per KG in 2013. The wide price differential between persimmon exported from Japan and persimmon imported or produced by the United States suggests that the competitiveness of persimmon from Japan in the U.S. market will be limited.
Japan's Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries expects 30 to 50 MT of fresh persimmons to be exported to the United States in the first year, and the same or additional amounts in following years. This level of imports, valued at about $124,000 to $207,000 based on the average export price of $4.13 per KG in 2014, would have little economic impact on U.S. entities, large or small, all the more so given their likely high price compared to the average price of persimmons imported from elsewhere.
The Small Business Administration's (SBA) small-entity standard for entities involved in fruit farming is $750,000 or less in annual receipts (NAICS 111339). It is probable that most or all U.S. persimmon producers are small businesses by the SBA standard. We expect any impact of the rule for these entities will be minimal, given Japan's expected small share of the U.S. persimmon market.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule allows fresh persimmon with calyxes to be imported into the United States from Japan. State and local laws and regulations regarding persimmon with calyxes imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Fresh persimmons (
(a)
(2)
(b)
(2) The NPPO of Japan must visit and inspect the place of production monthly beginning at blossom drop and continuing until the end of the shipping season for quarantine pests. Appropriate pest controls must be applied in accordance with the operational workplan. If the NPPO of Japan finds that a place of production is not complying with the requirements of this section, no fruit from the place of production will be eligible for export to the United States until APHIS and the NPPO of Japan conduct an investigation and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.
(3) Harvested fruit must be transported to the packinghouse in containers marked to identify the place of production from which the consignment of fruit originated.
(c)
(2) During the time the packinghouse is in use for exporting persimmons to the United States, the packinghouse may only accept persimmons from registered approved production sites and the fruit must be segregated from fruit intended for other markets.
(3) All damaged or diseased fruit must be culled at the packinghouse.
(4) Boxes or other containers in which the fruit is shipped must be marked to identify the place of production where the fruit originated and the packinghouse where it was packed.
(5) The NPPO of Japan must monitor packinghouse operations to verify that the packinghouses are complying with the requirements of the systems approach. If the NPPO of Japan finds that a packinghouse is not complying with the requirements of this section, no fruit from the packinghouse will be eligible for export to the United States until APHIS and the NPPO of Japan conduct an investigation and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.
(d)
(e)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the regulations governing the importation of certain animals, meat, and other animal products by allowing, under certain conditions, the importation of bone-in ovine meat from Uruguay. Based on the evidence in a risk assessment that we prepared, we believe that bone-in ovine meat can safely be imported from Uruguay provided certain conditions are met. This final rule will provide for the importation of bone-in ovine meat from Uruguay into the United States, while continuing to protect the United States against the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease.
Effective October 12, 2017.
Dr. Stephanie Kordick, Import Risk Analyst, Regional Evaluation Services, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC; (919) 855-7733;
The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States to prevent the introduction of various diseases, including rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), African swine fever, classical swine fever, and swine vesicular disease. These are dangerous and destructive communicable diseases of ruminants and swine. Section 94.1 of the regulations contains criteria for recognition by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of foreign regions as free of rinderpest or free of both rinderpest and FMD. APHIS considers Uruguay to be free of rinderpest. However, APHIS does not consider Uruguay to be free of FMD because Uruguay vaccinates cattle against FMD.
On July 1, 2016, we published in the
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending August 30, 2016. We received 17 comments by that date. They were from producers, importers, exporters, industry and professional associations, specialty food retailers, and representatives of local and foreign governments. Ten commenters were generally supportive of the proposed rule. Four commenters were opposed to the proposed rule but did not address specific provisions. The remaining commenters raised questions or concerns about the proposed rule and the risk analysis. The comments are discussed below.
One commenter stated that previous risk assessments, conducted in 2002 and 2012, are too old and should not be used to support this action. The commenter also stated that the 2014 site visit appears to be an update of the 2012 visit.
The 2014 risk assessment focused on evaluation of factors related to the system of mitigations proposed for the select lambs. While specific conclusions reached in previous evaluations were not necessarily revisited, information collected during the 2014 evaluation substantiated our previous conclusions.
Two commenters stated that before action is taken on this matter, an updated and comprehensive quantitative risk analysis should be conducted and the results made available to the public for review and comment.
Most of APHIS' risk analyses for FMD have been, and continue to be, qualitative in nature. APHIS believes that, when coupled with site visit evaluations, qualitative risk analyses provide the necessary information to assess the risk of the introduction of FMD through importation of commodities such as fresh ovine meat. Quantitative risk analysis models may not be the best tool to use to assess the risk of FMD posed by exports from a country, such as in cases where the types of data required by such models are either unavailable or suffer from a high level of parameter uncertainty. In these instances, APHIS' approach is to characterize the risk of outbreak qualitatively in order to determine what appropriate measures to implement in order to mitigate the risk posed to the United States in the event of an outbreak in the exporting country (
One commenter stated that a transparent review process for the recognition of the animal health status for export countries, to include documented management controls and written reporting of site visits, would provide livestock stakeholders in the United States with the assurance of a rigorous, scientific decisionmaking process for assessing and minimizing animal disease risks associated with the trade of animals and animal products.
The risk analysis document, which was made available at the time the proposed rule was published, includes all relevant information collected during the evaluation process, including during the site visit. APHIS encouraged review and comment on this document, especially if additional scientific information is available that informs the risk determination.
In the past, site visit reports and other relevant documents have either been made available as part of the supporting documentation accompanying the proposed rule or upon request. Going forward, these documents will routinely be made available at the time of publication.
One commenter stated that when a product has increased value—in this case bone-in lamb meat sales to the United States from Uruguay—and there are like products in other zones, regions, or areas of lower value because they cannot export their products, there is an opportunity for transshipment or smuggling. The commenter stated that such risk should be measured and included in a quantitative risk analysis.
APHIS notes that this comment could be understood in different ways. If the commenter is referring to the potential for illegal importation of ovine meat not derived from select lambs from Uruguay, we note that the risk of direct smuggling of ovine meat into the United States is outside the scope of the risk analysis.
If the commenter's concern is that animals or their products could be smuggled into Uruguay and represented as Uruguayan lambs (or ovine meat), we note that all lambs selected for inclusion in the select lamb facility originate from source flocks that have been certified by the national veterinary authority of Uruguay. Each lamb that enters the facility receives an official ear tag by the government authority and once the cohort is complete the flock is closed to new entries. The national veterinary authority of Uruguay is responsible for oversight and audit of the select lamb facility. Traceability is maintained from the source flock to the finished, labeled product at the slaughter plant.
One commenter stated that more information is needed on the specific procedures used by the Veterinary Laboratories Division of Uruguay (DILAVE). The commenter stated that information should be published on the laboratory quality control procedures, the proper use of positive and negative controls, and other procedures in place to routinely assess the quality and accuracy of the current diagnostic testing procedures used. The commenter also stated that while FMD test kits are validated by laboratories approved by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the labs using the test kits should provide evidence of annual or more frequent blind testing for accuracy by an independent agency.
Information about laboratory procedures and practices at DILAVE were evaluated as part of the 2002 and 2012 evaluations. These procedures were determined to be satisfactory as a result of those evaluations. Updated information was provided as part of the current evaluation; DILAVE has since updated its quality assurance program, hiring a quality manager and achieving International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001:2008 certification and ISO/IEC17025-2005 accreditation, which help ensure compliance with laboratory standards. DILAVE continues to use OIE-validated test kits for its FMD testing. Therefore, APHIS maintains confidence in Uruguay's laboratory capacity for the detection of FMD virus.
One commenter expressed concern about the serological surveillance conducted in Uruguay. The commenter stated that the term “systematic sampling” is used but not well-defined. The commenter also stated that depending on the type of “systematic sampling” used, significant bias could be introduced that would lessen the likelihood of selecting and detecting an FMD infected animal. As an example, the commenter stated that the assumption of a 0.5 percent prevalence among herds means that a sampling scheme could miss testing an infected herd or flock for every 200 herds sampled and that a very large number of herds would have to be sampled to ensure that the population does not include a few infected herds. The commenter noted that APHIS states that since FMD is a highly contagious disease, most animals in a herd would
Uruguay's national serologic surveillance program for FMD has been addressed in prior evaluations. The active surveillance component of the program has included herd level testing within the bovine and ovine populations, using both systematic and random selection of animals, depending on the study and the year. APHIS determined that the overall sampling scheme was rigorous. Furthermore, under the proposed system of mitigations, additional FMD testing is conducted in 100 percent of lambs upon entry into the select lamb facility followed by herd level testing within the facility prior to slaughter.
Two commenters stated that the claims of sensitivity of the FMD virus antibody test for sheep are not supported by the studies, as cited. The Sharma study
Although the number of sheep tested in the Brocchi study was too small to derive statistical conclusions, because results in sheep mirrored those in cattle, with a detection rate of 100 percent 20 days post-infection, the authors concluded that the findings of the study indicated “performances [for sheep were] similar to those observed for cattle,” which was 99 percent overall. In addition, many peer-reviewed articles have demonstrated that the 3ABC non-structural protein (NSP) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) has adequate diagnostic sensitivity when used in sheep, including both those with clinically apparent and subclinical disease.
Blanco, E., Romero, L.J., El Harrach, M. and Sánchez-Vizcaíno, J.M., 2002. “Serological evidence of FMD subclinical infection in sheep population during the 1999 epidemic in Morocco.”
Bruderer, U., Swam, H., Haas, B., Visser, N., Brocchi, E., Grazioli, S., Esterhuysen, J.J., Vosloo, W., Forsyth, M., Aggarwal, N. and Cox, S., 2004. “Differentiating infection from vaccination in foot-and-mouth-disease: evaluation of an ELISA based on recombinant 3ABC.”
Lu, Z., Cao, Y., Guo, J., Qi, S., Li, D., Zhang, Q., Ma, J., Chang, H., Liu, Z., Liu, X. and Xie, Q., 2007. “Development and validation of a 3ABC indirect ELISA for differentiation of foot-and-mouth disease virus infected from vaccinated animals.”
Sørensen, K.J., Madsen, K.G., Madsen, E.S., Salt, J.S., Nqindi, J. and Mackay, D.K.J., 1998. “Differentiation of infection from vaccination in foot-and-mouth disease by the detection of antibodies to the non-structural proteins 3D, 3AB and 3ABC in ELISA using antigens expressed in baculovirus.”
One commenter stated that in the executive summary of an audit report carried out by the European Commission (EC) in March 2012 concerning the animal health controls for FMD in Uruguay, three outstanding issues were noted as weakening the system of FMD controls in Uruguay. The first of these was insufficient attention paid to targeting official on-the-spot controls on FMD vaccination and deficient official reporting of those controls. Without appropriate targeting, adequate vaccination coverage in all areas with an increased risk of FMD cannot be ensured.
As we explained in the proposed rule, Uruguay vaccinates cattle against FMD, but does not vaccinate sheep. APHIS evaluated factors related to the proposed system of mitigations for sheep in the 2014 risk assessment. The cattle vaccination program was not re-evaluated at this time; however, in our previous evaluations we determined that the vaccination program for cattle in Uruguay was robust. Additionally, the report cited in this comment determined that the observed deficiencies were compensated by the high level of cooperation observed among farmers, and that annual surveys demonstrated that immunity levels in the national cattle population clearly exceeded the OIE recommended target of 80 percent, demonstrating adequate vaccine coverage.
The commenter noted that the second issue identified in the EC report was a very limited contribution of passive surveillance to the detection and notification of suspect cases of vesicular diseases.
APHIS evaluated the contribution of passive surveillance to the overall national surveillance program in Uruguay in its 2012 evaluation, concluding that the measures were “effective and rigorous.” Although national surveillance was not re-evaluated in the October 2015 risk assessment, documents provided by Uruguay support these conclusions, demonstrating the continued legal requirements for notification of suspicious cases of FMD on the part of all livestock owners and workers and an ongoing awareness program. In addition to these requirements for animal owners and handlers, clinical inspection of livestock is conducted by official personnel during routine farm visits, at points of animal concentration such as auctions and at sanitary posts within the country, resulting in inspection of over 1 million head per year. APHIS also notes that passive surveillance within the population of lambs designated for slaughter for export is carried out within the select lamb facility by the two full time employees assigned to the facility, as described in the risk analysis. APHIS believes that surveillance activities carried out in the national livestock population of Uruguay and the select lamb facility are sufficient to detect FMD if present.
The third issue noted by the commenter in the EC report was non-validated sensitivity of the combination of diagnostic tests used to carry out the sero-epidemiological checks conducted since 2007 aimed at proving the absence of virus circulation in cattle and ovine populations. APHIS notes that the EC report addressed Uruguay's use of the ELISA 3A and 3B tests to detect NSP, rather than the 3ABC NSP test, as recommended by the Pan American Foot and Mouth Disease Center. As described in the risk assessment, Uruguay is currently using the 3ABC NSP ELISA, the recommended screening test, in this cohort of lambs. In addition, although APHIS did not re-evaluate the national FMD surveillance program in the current risk assessment, documentation received from Uruguay demonstrate that the recommended protocol was put in place beginning in late 2012, after the conclusion of the report.
One commenter stated that a readily available and up-to-date FMD vaccine bank for the United States with the capacity to meet the demands of a type 3 or greater FMD outbreak should be a priority action for the agency.
We recognize that, depending on the size and scope of an FMD outbreak, the production and distribution of vaccines could prove challenging. While we do have a resource in the North American Foot-and-Mouth Disease Vaccine Bank
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this final rule is not significant, it is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the
With this rule, APHIS will exempt sheep meat imported from Uruguay from the deboning requirement for a select group of lambs subjected to additional risk-mitigating measures. These measures include testing for FMD with negative results, individual animal identification and traceability, and segregation of selected lambs from FMD-susceptible animals following testing.
In 2013, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimated the sheep population in Uruguay to be 7.5 million head, generating income both from the sale of wool and sheep meat. With the exception of dairy farms, most of the livestock farms in Uruguay are mixed, running both beef cattle and sheep. There are approximately 15,000 farms with sheep, but income from sheep is only a minor proportion of total income.
Uruguay has requested the exemption from the deboning requirement specifically to export rack of lamb, which includes the rib bones, to the United States. These cuts are higher quality and command a higher price than lamb meat that has been deboned, as currently required.
Given the additional risk-mitigating measures, Uruguay expects to export bone-in meat from up to 6,000 lambs per year. These lambs will be between 6-8 months of age at the time of slaughter, producing a total carcass weight of lamb meat of about 100 metric tons (MT) per year. While all meat from these lambs will be eligible for import under this rule, the focus will likely be on rack of lamb, which represents about one quarter of this weight, or about 25 MT.
From 2012 through 2015, the United States imported an average of about 43,300 MT of bone-in lamb meat annually, valued at over $427 million. The vast majority of these imports have been from Australia and New Zealand, with small quantities from Canada, Chile, and Iceland. Annual imports of 100 MT of bone-in lamb from Uruguay would be equivalent to less than 3/10 of 1 percent of total annual bone-in lamb imports into the United States.
Given the very small quantity of bone-in lamb meat expected to be imported from Uruguay, this action will not have a significant economic impact on domestic producers or importers, large or small.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 94 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
The revisions read as follows:
(g) All bone and visually identifiable blood clots and lymphoid tissue have been removed from the meat; except that bone-in ovine meat from Uruguay may be exported to the United States under the following conditions:
(1) The meat must be derived from select lambs that have never been vaccinated for FMD;
(2) The select lambs must be maintained in a program approved by the Administrator. Lambs in the program must:
(i) Be segregated from other FMD-susceptible livestock at a select lamb facility operated under the authority of the national veterinary authority of Uruguay;
(ii) Be subjected to an FMD testing scheme approved by the Administrator; and
(iii) Be individually identified with official unique identification that is part of a national traceability system sufficient to ensure that only the products of select lambs meeting all required criteria are exempt from the deboning requirement.
(3) Select lambs and their products must not be commingled with other animals and their products within the slaughter facility.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is amending its bylaws regulation to conform to changes in the bylaws adopted by the Board of Directors.
Effective September 12, 2017.
Judith R. Starr (
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) administers the pension plan termination insurance program under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Section 4002(b)(3) of ERISA gives PBGC power to adopt, amend, and repeal, by the board of directors, bylaws. Section 4002(f) of ERISA provides that the board of directors may alter, supplement, or repeal any existing bylaw, and may adopt additional bylaws from time to time as may be necessary. PBGC's bylaws are set forth in 29 CFR part 4002.
PBGC's Board of Directors (the Secretaries of Labor, the Treasury, and Commerce) voted to amend the bylaws at a meeting of the Board of Directors on September 7, 2017. This rule replaces the old bylaws with the new bylaws in PBGC's regulations.
This is a rule of “agency organization, procedure, or practice” and is limited to “agency organization, management, or personnel matters.” Accordingly, this rule is exempt from notice and public comment requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and the requirements of Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13771. Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 603, 604.
PBGC finds good cause exists for making the bylaws set forth in this rule effective less than 30 days after publication because the amendments were adopted by the Board of Directors on September 7, 2017.
Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions (government agencies).
29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1302(f).
(a)
(2)
(3)
(i) Voting on an amendment to these bylaws.
(ii) Approval of the Annual Report, which includes the Annual Management Report (AMR) (and its components the financial statements, management's discussion and analysis, annual performance report and independent auditor's report), the Chair's message, and other documentation in conformance with guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
(iii) Approval of the Corporation's Investment Policy Statement.
(iv) Approval of all reports or recommendations to the Congress required by Title IV of ERISA.
(v) Approval of any policy matter (other than administrative policies) that would have a significant impact on the pension insurance program.
(vi) Review of reports from the Corporation's Inspector General that the Inspector General deems appropriate to deliver to the Board.
(4)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(1) Regulations must first be reviewed for comment by each Board Representative except for routine updates of PBGC valuation factors and actuarial assumptions.
(2) A Board Representative may, within 21 days of receiving a regulation for review, request that it be referred to the Board Representatives for approval.
(3) Nonsignificant regulations and significant proposed regulations within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and subject to review under paragraph (c)(1) of this section may be issued by the Director upon either the expiration of the time specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, or, if the approval option is exercised, upon Board Representative approval.
(4) Significant final regulations must be approved by the Board Representatives or the Board.
(5) The Director may submit regulations subject to approval by the Board Representatives or the Board to OMB for concurrent review after they have been pending without comment before the Board Representatives or the Board for more than 60 days.
Section 4002(d)(2) of ERISA establishes that a majority of the Board Members will constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Any act of a majority of the Members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum will be the act of the Board.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
A resolution of the Board of Directors signed by all of the Board Members or all of the Board Representatives will have the same effect as if agreed to at a meeting and must be kept in the Corporate Minutes Book. A resolution for an action taken on any matter for which a Board Member has been disqualified under § 4002.6 may be signed by the Board Representative of the disqualified Board Member to the extent the matter is delegable under these bylaws.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a) An emergency exists if a quorum of the Corporation's Board cannot readily be assembled or act through written contact because of the declaration of a government-wide emergency. These emergency procedures must remain in effect during the emergency and upon the termination of the emergency will cease to be operative unless and until another emergency occurs. The emergency
(b) During an emergency, the business of the PBGC must continue to be managed in accordance with its COOP Plan. The functions of the Board of Directors must be carried out by those Members of the Board of Directors in office at the time the emergency arises, or by persons designated by the agencies' COOP plans to act in place of the Board Members, who are available to act during the emergency. If no such persons are available, then the authority of the Board must be transferred to the Board Representatives who are available. If no Board Representatives are available, then the Director of the Corporation must perform essential Board functions.
(c) During an emergency, meetings of the Board may be called by any available Member of the Board. The notice thereof must specify the time and place of the meeting. To the extent possible, notice must be given in accordance with these bylaws. Notice must be given to those Board Members whom it is feasible to reach at the time of the emergency, and notice may be given at a time less than 24 hours before the meeting if deemed necessary by the person giving notice.
The seal of the Corporation must be in such form as may be approved from time to time by the Board.
(a) Section 4002 of ERISA and the bylaws establish the authority and responsibilities of the Board, the Board Representatives, and the Director.
(b) These bylaws may be amended or new bylaws adopted by unanimous vote of the Board.
Issued in Washington, DC.
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 Drawbridge across the Carquinez Strait, mile 7.0, at Martinez, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow advance notification for openings due to mechanical issues at the bridge and to conduct repairs to resolve said issues. This deviation requires the bridge to open on signal if at least 30 minutes notice is given to the bridge operator from approaching vessels and allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation during operating equipment replacement.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from September 12, 2017 through 5 p.m. on September 19, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from September 6, 2017 until September 12, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0844 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
The Coast Guard has recommended and the Union Pacific Railroad Company has agreed to a temporary change in the operation of the Union Pacific Railroad Drawbridge, over the Carquinez Strait, mile 7.0, 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.
Due to bridge operating equipment issues, the bridge will open on signal if at least 30 minutes notice is given to the bridge operator from 12 p.m. on August 25, 2017 through 10 a.m. on September 19, 2017. The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 10 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September 19, 2017, to allow the bridge owner to replace the defective equipment. 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 anytime. From 10 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September 19, 2017, 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.
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Final rule.
This final rule makes a non-substantive technical change to the U.S. Copyright Office's regulations governing the affixation and position of copyright notice on various types of works.
Effective October 12, 2017.
Erik Bertin, Deputy Director of Registration Policy and Practice, by email at
As part of the U.S. Copyright Office's ongoing efforts to streamline its regulations, the Office is consolidating its regulations related to copyright notice.
While U.S. law no longer requires the use of a copyright notice, placing it on a work does have some legal benefits. For example, the use of notice can inform the public that a work is protected by copyright and provide information on authorship and the date of first publication.
Currently, two sections of the Office's regulations concern copyright notice: One contains provisions governing copyright notice generally, 37 CFR 202.2, and the other specifies methods of affixation and positions of the copyright notice on various types of works, 37 CFR 201.20. Because the information and requirements contained in these two separate sections are more appropriately contained in a single location, the contents of 37 CFR 201.20 are being relocated to 37 CFR 202.2. The current 37 CFR 201.20 is now rendered duplicative and is being removed and reserved. In addition to relocating the contents of 37 CFR 201.20, minor technical changes are being made to its contents including removing superfluous definitions previously contained in 37 CFR 201.20(b)(1) and (2)
In addition to the technical changes discussed above regarding copyright notice, this rule is fixing two typos in the 37 CFR 202.6(e)(1), removing an extraneous period and adding a missing comma.
Because this amendment is a non-substantive, technical change not “alter[ing] the rights or interest of parties,” it is therefore not subject to the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act,
Copyright.
For the reasons set forth in the above, the Copyright Office amends 37 CFR parts 201 and 202 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 702.
17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702.
(c)
(ii) The provisions of this paragraph are applicable to copies publicly distributed on or after December 1, 1981. This paragraph does not establish any rules concerning the form of the notice or the legal sufficiency of particular notices, except with respect to methods of affixation and positions of notice. The adequacy or legal sufficiency of a copyright notice is determined by the law in effect at the time of first publication of the work.
(2)
(i) In the case of a work consisting preponderantly of leaves on which the work is printed or otherwise reproduced on both sides, a “page” is one side of a leaf; where the preponderance of the leaves are printed on one side only, the terms “page” and “leaf” mean the same.
(ii) A work is published in
(iii) A
(iv) The meaning of the terms
(v) In the case of a work published in book form with a hard or soft cover, the
(vi) A
(vii) A
(viii) A
(3)
(ii) Where, in a particular case, a notice does not appear in one of the precise locations prescribed in this paragraph but a person looking in one of those locations would be reasonably certain to find a notice in another somewhat different location, that notice will be acceptable under this paragraph.
(4)
(i) The title page, if any;
(ii) The page immediately following the title page, if any;
(iii) Either side of the front cover, if any; or, if there is no front cover, either side of the front leaf of the copies;
(iv) Either side of the back cover, if any; or, if there is no back cover, either side of the back leaf of the copies;
(v) The first page of the main body of the work;
(vi) The last page of the main body of the work;
(vii) Any page between the front page and the first page of the main body of the work, if:
(A) There are no more than ten pages between the front page and the first page of the main body of the work; and
(B) The notice is reproduced prominently and is set apart from other matter on the page where it appears;
(viii) Any page between the last page of the main body of the work and back page, if:
(A) There are no more than ten pages between the last page of the main body of the work and the back page; and
(B) The notice is reproduced prominently and is set apart from the other matter on the page where it appears.
(ix) In the case of a work published as an issue of a periodical or serial, in addition to any of the locations listed in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (viii) of this section, a notice is acceptable if it is located:
(A) As a part of, or adjacent to, the masthead;
(B) On the page containing the masthead if the notice is reproduced prominently and is set apart from the other matter appearing on the page; or
(C) Adjacent to a prominent heading, appearing at or near the front of the issue, containing the title of the periodical or serial and any combination of the volume and issue number and date of the issue.
(x) In the case of a musical work, in addition to any of the locations listed in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (ix) of this section, a notice is acceptable if it is located on the first page of music.
(5)
(6)
(i) Where the separate contribution is reproduced on a single page, a notice is acceptable if it appears:
(A) Under the title of the contribution on that page;
(B) Adjacent to the contribution; or
(C) On the same page if, through format, wording, or both, the application of the notice to the particular contribution is made clear;
(ii) Where the separate contribution is reproduced on more than one page of the collective work, a notice is acceptable if it appears:
(A) Under a title appearing at or near the beginning of the contribution;
(B) On the first page of the main body of the contribution;
(C) Immediately following the end of the contribution; or
(D) On any of the pages where the contribution appears, if:
(
(
(
(iii) Where the separate contribution is a musical work, in addition to any of the locations listed in paragraphs (c)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section, a notice is acceptable if it is located on the first page of music of the contribution;
(iv) As an alternative to placing the notice on one of the pages where a separate contribution itself appears, the contribution is considered to “bear its own notice” if the notice appears clearly in juxtaposition with a separate listing of the contribution by title, or if the contribution is untitled, by a description reasonably identifying the contribution:
(A) On the page bearing the copyright notice for the collective work as a whole, if any; or
(B) In a clearly identified and readily-accessible table of contents or listing of acknowledgements appearing near the front or back of the collective work as a whole.
(7)
(i) A notice embodied in the copies in machine-readable form in such a manner that on visually perceptible printouts it appears either with or near the title, or at the end of the work;
(ii) A notice that is displayed at the user's terminal at sign on;
(iii) A notice that is continuously on terminal display; or
(iv) A legible notice reproduced durably, so as to withstand normal use, on a gummed or other label securely affixed to the copies or to a box, reel, cartridge, cassette, or other container used as a permanent receptacle for the copies.
(8)
(A) With or near the title;
(B) With the cast, credits, and similar information;
(C) At or immediately following the beginning of the work; or
(D) At or immediately preceding the end of the work.
(ii) In the case of an untitled motion picture or other audiovisual work whose duration is sixty seconds or less, in addition to any of the locations listed in paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section, a notice that is embodied in the copies by a photomechanical or electronic process, in such a position that it ordinarily would appear to the projectionist or broadcaster when preparing the work for performance, is acceptable if it is located on the leader of the film or tape immediately preceding the beginning of the work.
(iii) In the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work that is distributed to the public for private use, the notice may be affixed, in addition to the locations specified in paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section, on the housing or container, if it is a permanent receptacle for the work.
(9)
(i) Where a work is reproduced in two-dimensional copies, a notice affixed directly or by means of a label cemented, sewn, or otherwise attached durably, so as to withstand normal use, of the front or back of the copies, or to any backing, mounting, matting, framing, or other material to which the copies are durably attached, so as to withstand normal use, or in which they are permanently housed, is acceptable.
(ii) Where a work is reproduced in three-dimensional copies, a notice affixed directly or by means of a label cemented, sewn, or otherwise attached durably, so as to withstand normal use, to any visible portion of the work, or to any base, mounting, framing, or other material on which the copies are durably attached, so as to withstand normal use, or in which they are permanently housed, is acceptable.
(iii) Where, because of the size or physical characteristics of the material in which the work is reproduced in copies, it is impossible or extremely impracticable to affix a notice to the copies directly or by means of a durable label, a notice is acceptable if it appears on a tag that is of durable material, so as to withstand normal use, and that is attached to the copy with sufficient durability that it will remain with the copy while it is passing through its normal channels of commerce.
(iv) Where a work is reproduced in copies consisting of sheet-like or strip material bearing multiple or continuous reproductions of the work, the notice may be applied:
(A) To the reproduction itself;
(B) To the margin, selvage, or reverse side of the material at frequent and regular intervals; or
(C) If the material contains neither a selvage nor a reverse side, to tags or labels, attached to the copies and to any spools, reels, or containers housing them in such a way that a notice is visible while the copies are passing through their normal channels of commerce.
(v) If the work is permanently housed in a container, such as a game or puzzle box, a notice reproduced on the permanent container is acceptable.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing revisions pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing regional haze in the State of Montana. The EPA promulgated a FIP on September 18, 2012, in response to the State's decision in 2006 to not submit a regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). We proposed revisions to that FIP on April 14, 2017, and are now finalizing those revisions. Specifically, the EPA is finalizing revisions to the FIP's requirement for best available retrofit technology (BART) for the Trident cement kiln owned and operated by Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings, Inc. (Oldcastle), located in Three Forks, Montana. In response to a request from Oldcastle, and in light of new information that was not available at the time we originally promulgated the FIP, we are revising the nitrogen oxides (NO
This rule is effective October 12, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0062. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
On September 18, 2012, the EPA promulgated a FIP that included a NO
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes “as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.”
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999.
The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air quality requirements, including protection of visibility.
Section 169A of the CAA directs states, or the EPA if developing a FIP, to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states' implementation plans to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the “Best Available Retrofit Technology” as determined by the states, or in the case of a FIP, the EPA. Under the RHR, states or the EPA are
On July 6, 2005, the EPA published the Guidelines for BART Determinations under the RHR at appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the “BART Guidelines”) to assist states and the EPA in determining which sources should be subject to the BART requirements and the appropriate emission limits for each applicable source.
A SIP or FIP addressing regional haze must include source-specific BART emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a state or the EPA has made a BART determination, the BART controls must be installed and operated as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the date of the EPA's approval of the final SIP or the date of the EPA's promulgation of the FIP.
In addition to BART requirements, as mentioned previously each regional haze SIP or FIP must contain measures as necessary to make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goals. As part of determining what measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, the SIP or FIP must first identify anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment that are to be considered in developing the long-term strategy for addressing visibility impairment.
The RHR requires that a state, or the EPA if promulgating a FIP that fills a gap in the SIP with respect to this requirement, consult with FLMs before adopting and submitting a required SIP or SIP revision, or a required FIP or FIP revision.
On September 18, 2012, the EPA promulgated a FIP to address Montana's regional haze obligations that included BART emission limits for two power plants and two cement kilns, and an emission limit for a natural gas compressor station based on reasonable progress requirements.
Our proposed action provided a 45-day public comment period and an opportunity to request a public hearing. During this period, we received eight comments from the following four commenters: NorthWestern Energy (NorthWestern),
The proposed emission limit for the Trident kiln of 7.6 lb/ton clinker is nearly equal to that for the Ash Grove Montana City kiln of 7.5 lb/ton clinker established through a control technology demonstration.
As stated in our proposed rule, it is challenging to predict the performance of SNCR for long cement kilns. For this reason, in the proposed rule, the EPA invited comment on whether, in place of the BART emission limit of 7.6 lb NO
Moreover, in arriving at an assumed control effectiveness of 40%, the EPA's conclusions were not strictly based on the performance of SNCR at the Montana City kiln. As explained in the proposal, we also re-evaluated the performance of SNCR at the three Ash Grove long wet kilns in Midlothian, Texas, that served as the basis for the emission limit for Trident in our 2012 final rule. In addition, we reviewed the performance of SNCR at several LaFarge kilns subject to control technology demonstrations. The EPA's evaluation of the control effectiveness of SNCR when applied to long cement kilns is further discussed in the Technical
In order to determine a representative baseline NO
The EPA recognizes that ash rings are part of normal long-term operations for long kilns, and thus the BART emission limit should, generally speaking, allow operation of a kiln while a typical ash ring is present, provided that the SNCR system is reducing emissions during the ash ring event as much as it reasonably can. Accordingly, the EPA has considered the ash ring issue when establishing the single value of the baseline emission rate upon which the BART emission limit is based.
The original emissions baseline period of 2008-2011 used in the 2012 FIP, together with the emissions for 2013 through 2016, yield eight years of emissions data in support of the 12.6 lb/ton clinker baseline used by the EPA.
From the set of approximately 2,400 values for 30-day average emission during the eight-year period,
The representativeness of the baseline NO
Moreover, if the EPA were to use the higher baseline emission rate of 13.9 lb/ton clinker (again yielding an emission limit of 8.3 lb/ton clinker at a 40% reduction with SNCR), then the emission limit would be overly lenient during periods of otherwise normal kiln operation, and the SNCR could be operated at efficiencies well below the demonstrated level of control effectiveness. That is, when baseline emissions are at otherwise normal levels, the control effectiveness of the SNCR could be reduced below the level at which it is capable of performing by reducing the amount of reagent injected into the kiln, while still meeting the emission limit. For example, consider if SNCR had been operated in 2016, the last full year for which emissions data is available, where the uncontrolled 30-day rolling average emissions ranged from 8.9 to 12.6 lb/ton clinker, with an average of 10.4 lb/ton clinker.
In conclusion, the EPA's thorough consideration of nine years of actual emissions data and the application of a 40% reduction to the 99th percentile value of the historical set of 30-day average emission values, leads to an appropriate BART emission limit for the Trident kiln.
Additionally, given that Oldcastle has committed to the most effective control technology for long kilns, SNCR, and in fact had largely completed construction by the time we published the proposed rule in April 2017, there would be little merit in retrospectively assessing less effective control technologies in an updated five-factor BART analysis. The BART Guidelines reflect that it is reasonable, if a source has already committed to a BART determination that consists of the most stringent controls available, to forgo completing the remaining analyses pursuant to a BART determination. 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, IV.D.1. Oldcastle has communicated to the EPA that it is committed to installing and operating SNCR on the Trident kiln. Therefore, consistent with the reasoning of the BART Guidelines, we found that it is not necessary in this instance to revisit the cost effectiveness and visibility benefits associated with SNCR, and instead as explained in our proposal, constrained this FIP revision to considering only the appropriate control effectiveness associated with that control technology.
Because Oldcastle has committed to installing SNCR as the BART control, it is only the emission limit that is in dispute. However, even if we had revisited the full five-factor BART analysis in this action, it is very likely we would have arrived at the same emission limit we are finalizing today. The 2012 rule established an emission limit of 6.5 lb/ton clinker, while we have proposed 7.6 lb/ton clinker, and Oldcastle advocates for 8.3 lb/ton clinker. Note that compliance with a more stringent emission limit requires that more reagent be injected into the kiln to reduce NO
The EPA is taking final action to revise portions of the Montana Regional Haze FIP. Specifically, the EPA is revising the BART NO
We find that the revisions will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment, reasonable progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA, because the FIP, as revised by this action, will result in a significant reduction in emissions compared to current levels. Although this revision will allow an increase in emissions after October 2017 as compared to the prior FIP, the FIP as a whole will still result in overall NO
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 action because it is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities as no small entities are subject to the requirements of this rule.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The revisions to the FIP reduce private sector expenditures. Additionally, we do not foresee significant costs (if any) for state and local governments.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. However, the EPA did send letters to each of the Montana tribes explaining our regional haze FIP revision action and offering consultation; however, no tribe asked for consultation.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). As explained previously, the Montana Regional Haze FIP, as revised by this action, will result in a significant reduction in emissions compared to current levels.
This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular applicability.
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 November 13, 2017. Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this section is subject to the requirements of the CAA section 307(d) as it promulgates a FIP under CAA section 110(c). Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
On June 9, 2015, the NO
(c) * * *
(2) The owners/operators of cement kilns subject to this section shall not emit or cause to be emitted PM, SO
(d)
On June 9, 2015, the NO
(f)
(2)
(ii) For Trident, the emission rate (E) of particulate matter shall be computed by the owner/operator for each run in lb/ton clinker, using the following equation:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), on September 9, 2016. The changes to the SIP that EPA is taking final action to approve pertain to changes to the Commonwealth's air quality standards for carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO
This rule will be effective October 12, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0361. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms.
Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA govern the establishment, review, and revision, as appropriate, of the NAAQS to protect public health and welfare. The CAA requires periodic review of the air quality criteria—the science upon which the standards are based—and the standards themselves. EPA's regulatory provisions that govern the NAAQS are found at 40 CFR 50—
In a proposed rulemaking published on July 17, 2017, EPA proposed to approve changes to the Commonwealth's regulations for ambient air quality standards in the Kentucky SIP, submitted by the Commonwealth on September 9, 2016.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Kentucky regulation 401 KAR 53:010—
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
EPA is taking final action to approve the Commonwealth of Kentucky SIP revision submitted on September 9, 2016. The submission revises Kentucky regulation 401 KAR 53:010 to reflect changes to the Commonwealth's air quality standards for CO, Pb, NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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 November 13, 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.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Interim final rule; correcting amendment.
In the September 6, 2016
Ian Mahoney, (410) 786-4247.
In the September 6, 2016 (81 FR 61538)
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act) (section 701 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-74, enacted on November 2, 2015), which amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act) (Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (1990) (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note 2(a)), is intended to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain the deterrent effect of such penalties by requiring agencies to adjust the civil monetary penalties for inflation on an initial basis and annually. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lists the civil monetary penalties and the penalty amounts administered by all of its agencies in tabular form in 45 CFR 102.3.
On page 61561 of the IFR, in the table indicating the changes in regulations text for § 403.912(a)(1), we inadvertently made errors in the specifying the minimum and maximum civil monetary penalty amounts to which the inflation adjustment would be applied (the “base penalty range”). Specifically, we inadvertently changed the base penalty range from $1,000 and $10,000 to $10,000 and $100,000, respectively. The statutory authority for this civil money penalty is section 1128G of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7h), which requires applicable manufacturers to report annually to CMS any payments or other transfers of value to covered recipients. In addition, the statute requires applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations to report annually to CMS ownership investment interests held by physicians or their family members in such entities. Section 1128G(b)(1) of the Act provides that if an applicable manufacturer or applicable group purchasing organization fails to report the required information in timely manner to CMS, the entity is subject to a civil money penalty amount between $1,000 and $10,000 for each payment or transfer of value or ownership or investment interest not reported, up to an annual maximum of $150,000 per submission by a reporting entity. Accordingly, we are revising
In accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), we ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
We believe that this document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to the requirement for a public comment period. Specifically, we find that undertaking further notice and comment procedures to correct the IFR in unnecessary and contrary to public interest.
First, we believe it is unnecessary to allow for public comment regarding whether to correct a misstated penalty range that is inconsistent with, and exponentially higher than, that permitted by the authorizing statute. As noted previously, this correcting amendment merely corrects a typographical error in the base penalty range to which the inflation increase implemented by the IFR would be applied. This correction is necessary to ensure that the base penalty range does not exceed the range authorized under section 1128G(b)(1)(A) of the Act, as adjusted under the Inflation Adjustment Act. Public comment on this correction amendment is unnecessary because it could never change the statutory penalty range at issue. We note that the IFR never indicated that we were increasing the base penalty range identified in this or any other civil money penalty authority. In fact, on page 61548 of the IFR, we indicated that the new inflation adjusted penalty range under § 403.912(a) would be from $1,087 to $10,874 per unreported arrangement, up to a calendar year cap of $163,117. Furthermore, we note that the erroneous base range stated on page 61561 of the IFR makes little sense in light of the statutory calendar year cap for this penalty. Under the original base penalty range, CMS could impose the minimum penalty of $1,000 for up to 150 unreported arrangements. Under the erroneous regulations text in the IFR, CMS would be permitted to impose the minimum penalty amount of $10,000 for only a maximum of 16 unreported arrangements. Even if we had the statutory authority to increase the base penalty range through rulemaking, the maximum penalty amount erroneously stated in the IFR is patently inconsistent with one of the stated policies of the IFR—to maintain the deterrent effect of civil money penalties. Second, we believe that providing an opportunity for public comment on this correcting amendment is contrary to the public interest. First, as noted previously, public comment in this case could never change the statutory penalty range at issue. We believe that it would not be in the public interest to offer a futile comment period. Second, the entities subject to civil money penalties authorized under section 1128G(b) of the Act should be advised, in a timely manner, of the correct amounts for which they could be liable. It is in the public interest to ensure that the regulations accurately reflect the statutory authority.
For similar reasons, we are also waiving the 30-day delay in effective date for this correcting amendment. First, we believe it is unnecessary to delay the effective date of corrections to a typographical error in regulation text that was patently inconsistent with the relevant statutory authority. Second, we believe that delaying the effective date of these corrections would be contrary to the public interest because the entities subject to civil money penalties should be advised, in a timely manner, of the correct amounts for which they could be liable. Therefore, we find good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.
Finally, the corrections indicated in this correcting amendment are applicable to civil monetary penalties as if they had been included in the IFR. That is, the corrections are applicable to civil money penalties imposed under § 403.912(a)(1) beginning September 6, 2016, the date the IFR became effective. We do not believe this correcting amendment constitutes retroactive rulemaking because the erroneous base penalty range was never authorized under section 1128G(b) of the Act. In addition, we have not imposed any penalties under § 403.912(a)(1) since the effective date of the IFR.
Grant programs—health, Health insurance, Hospitals, Intergovernmental relations, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, as noted in section II. of this document, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is making the following correcting amendments to 42 CFR part 403:
42 U.S.C. 1395b-3 and Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's
The amendments to 47 CFR 73.503(e)(1), 73.621(f)(1), and 73.2527(e)(14), published at 82 FR 21127, May 5, 2017, are effective November 13, 2017.
Kathy Berthot, Media Bureau, Policy Division, at (202) 418-7454, or email:
This document announces that, on August 30, 2017, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the third-party fundraising rules contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 17-41, published at 82 FR 21127, May 5, 2017. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1174. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1174, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on August 30, 2017, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 73.503(e)(1), 73.621(f)(1), and 73.2527(e)(14).
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1174.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
The following is a description of the information collection requirements for which the Commission received OMB approval:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Request for information.
As part of its implementation of Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” issued by the President on January 30, 2017, and Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” issued by the President on February 24, 2017, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is seeking comments and information from interested parties to assist CBP in identifying existing regulations, paperwork requirements, and other regulatory obligations that can be modified or repealed, consistent with law, to achieve savings of time and money while continuing to achieve CBP's statutory obligations.
Written comments and information are requested on or before December 11, 2017.
You may submit suggestions identified by docket number by submitting them to the
Elena Ryan, Special Advisor, Programs and Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, MS1177, Washington, DC 20229. Telephone: 202-325-0004. Email:
On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” That Executive Order stated that the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. The Executive Order also stated that it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. Toward that end, for fiscal year 2017, the Executive Order requires that:
(a) “Unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed.” Sec. 2(a).
(b) “For fiscal year 2017 the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, to be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero, unless otherwise required by law or consistent with advice provided in writing by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.” Sec. 2(b); and
(c) “Any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.” Sec. 2(c).
Further, the Executive Order requires that for fiscal year 2018, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the head of each agency shall identify, for each regulation that increases incremental cost, offsetting regulations, and provide the agency's best approximation of the total costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda”. The Executive Order established a Federal policy to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. Section 3(a) of the Executive Order directs Federal agencies to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force). One of the duties of the Task Force is to evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification. The Executive Order further asks that each Task Force attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard of reproducibility; or
(vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
The Office of Management and Budget has directed that agency policies (such as guidance and interpretative documents) and information collections that impose costs on the public may also be identified under the above criteria, in addition to regulations.
Section 3(e) of the Executive Order calls on the Task Force to seek input and other assistance on this task, as permitted by law, from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations, including State, local, and Tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, and trade associations.
CBP is, through this document, seeking input from entities affected by CBP, including state, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, manufacturers, and their trade associations. These entities are in
Consistent with CBP's commitment to public participation in the rulemaking process, CBP is soliciting views from the public on specific regulations or paperwork requirements that could be altered or eliminated to reduce burdens while still allowing CBP to meet its mission.
While CBP promulgates rules in accordance with the law and to the best of its analytic capability, it is difficult to be certain of the consequences of a rule, including its costs and benefits, until it has been tested. Because knowledge about the full effects of a rule is widely dispersed in society, members of the public are likely to have useful information and perspectives on the benefits and burdens of existing requirements and how regulatory obligations may be updated, streamlined, revised, or repealed to better achieve regulatory objectives, while minimizing regulatory burdens, consistent with applicable law.
Accordingly, CBP is asking you to consider the following questions when providing your input:
(1) Are there CBP rules or reporting requirements that have become outdated and, if so, how can they be modernized to better accomplish their objective?
(2) Are there CBP rules that are still necessary, but have not operated as well as expected such that a modified, or slightly different approach at lower cost is justified?
(3) Are there CBP rules that unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the secure flow of legitimate trade and travel to and from the United States?
(4) Does CBP currently collect information that it does not need or use effectively?
(5) Are there regulations, reporting requirements, or regulatory processes that are unnecessarily complicated or could be streamlined to achieve statutory obligations in more efficient ways?
(6) Are there rules or reporting requirements that have been overtaken by technological developments? Can new technologies be leveraged to modify, streamline, or do away with existing regulatory or reporting requirements?
To allow CBP to more effectively evaluate suggestions, CBP requests that commenters identify with specificity the regulation (in either Title 19 CFR Chapter I, or Title 8 CFR, Chapter I) or reporting requirement at issue, and provide the legal citation where available. Please note that certain regulations which reflect statutory requirements cannot be eliminated until the statute is amended or repealed to eliminate that requirement. CBP also requests that the submitter provide, in as much detail as possible, an explanation why a regulation or reporting requirement should be modified, streamlined, or repealed, as well as specific suggestions of ways CBP can do so while achieving its regulatory objectives. In addition, supporting data or other information, such as cost information, for any suggestions would be useful.
Comments from the public are crucial to understanding regulatory burden and helping CBP find solutions that are cost effective, facilitate legitimate trade and travel, and enhance homeland security. While CBP intends to fully consider all input received in response to this notice, CBP will not respond individually to comments and none of the comments submitted will bind CBP to take any further action.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80A, -80A1, -80A2, and -80A3 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by high cycle fatigue (HCF) cracking of the low-pressure turbine (LPT) stage 3 nozzles. This proposed AD would require replacement of the LPT stage 3 nozzles. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 27, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Herman Mak, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7147; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report of an LPT uncontainment on a CF6-80A2. Investigation determined the uncontainment was the result of HCF cracking of the LPT stage 3 nozzles. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the LPT stage 3 nozzle, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
We reviewed GE CF6-80A Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0749, Revision 2, dated August 31, 2016. The SB describes procedures for replacement of the LPT stage 3 nozzles.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require replacement of the LPT stage 3 nozzles.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 7 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by October 27, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to General Electric (GE) CF6-80A, -80A1, -80A2, and -80A3 turbofan engines with low-pressure turbine (LPT) stage 3 nozzles, part number (P/N) 9290M52P05 and 9290M52P06, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by high cycle fatigue (HCF) cracking of the LPT stage 3 nozzles resulting in LPT uncontainment. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the LPT stage 3 nozzles. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result LPT uncontainment, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace LPT stage 3 nozzles, P/N 9290M52P05 and 9290M52P06, with a part eligible for installation.
(1) The Manager, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Herman Mak, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7147; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) GE CF6-80A Service Bulletin 72-0749, Revision 2, dated August 31, 2016; can be obtained from GE using the contact information in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD.
(3) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Proposed amendment; notice of intent.
The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this notice of intent to publish a temporary order to schedule the synthetic opioids,
September 12, 2017.
Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
This notice of intent contained in this document is issued pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) intends to issue a temporary scheduling order (in the form of a temporary amendment) to add
Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into Schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).
Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1); 21 CFR part 1308. The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.
Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of his intention to temporarily place a substance into Schedule I of the CSA.
To find that placing a substance temporarily into Schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(c): The substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).
A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in Schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in Schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).
The recent identification of
Available data and information for
The recreational abuse of fentanyl-like substances continues to be a significant concern. These substances are distributed to users, often with unpredictable outcomes.
On October 1, 2014, the DEA implemented STARLiMS (a web-based, commercial laboratory information management system) to replace the System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) as its laboratory drug evidence data system of record. DEA laboratory data submitted after September 30, 2014, are reposited in STARLiMS. Data from STRIDE and STARLiMS were queried on June 19, 2017. STARLiMS registered four reports containing
The National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) is a national drug forensic laboratory reporting system that systematically collects results from drug chemistry analyses conducted by other federal, state, and local forensic laboratories across the country. Data from NFLIS was queried on June 20, 2017. NFLIS registered three reports containing
Evidence suggests that the pattern of abuse of fentanyl analogues, including
Reports collected by the DEA demonstrate
The population likely to abuse
Based on information received by the DEA, the misuse and abuse of
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3), based on the available data and information, summarized above, the continued uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, conduct of research and chemical analysis, possession, and abuse of
This notice of intent provides the 30-day notice pursuant to section 201(h)(1) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), of DEA's intent to issue a temporary scheduling order. In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h)(3) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3), the Administrator considered available data and information, herein set forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule
The temporary placement of
The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).
Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for a temporary scheduling action where such action is
Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this notice of intent. In the alternative, even assuming that this notice of intent might be subject to section 553 of the APA, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of section 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.
Although the DEA believes this notice of intent to issue a temporary scheduling order is not subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the APA, the DEA notes that in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator took into consideration comments submitted by the Assistant Secretary in response to notice that DEA transmitted to the Assistant Secretary pursuant to section 811(h)(4).
Further, the DEA believes that this notice of intent is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.
Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, the DEA hereby provides notice of its intent to temporarily amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(19)
(20)
(21) 2-methoxy-
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Proposed rule, limited reopening of the rulemaking record; notice of public hearings; close of comment period.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) proposes to amend the Agency's final rule on examinations of working places in metal and nonmetal mines that was published in January 2017. The proposed changes would require that an examination of the working place be conducted before work begins or as miners begin work in that place, and that the examination record include descriptions of adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly and the dates of corrective action for these conditions. The proposed rule would provide mine operators additional flexibility in managing their safety and health programs and reduce regulatory burdens without reducing the protections afforded miners.
MSHA is reopening the comment period to solicit comments on limited changes to the final rule published on January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7695), effective May 23, 2017, and delayed on May 22, 2017 (82 FR 23139), until October 2, 2017 (82 FR 23139).
Submit comments and informational materials, identified by RIN 1219-AB87 or Docket No. MSHA-2014-0030, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
MSHA will hold four public hearings on the proposed rule to provide the public with an opportunity to present oral statements, written comments, and other information on this rulemaking. The public hearings will begin at 9 a.m. and end after the last presenter speaks, and in any event not later than 5 p.m., on the following dates at the locations indicated:
The hearings will begin with an opening statement from MSHA, followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make oral presentations. Speakers and other attendees may present information to MSHA for inclusion in the rulemaking record. The hearings will be conducted in an informal manner. Formal rules of evidence or cross examination will not apply.
A verbatim transcript of the proceedings will be prepared and made a part of the rulemaking record. Copies of the transcript will be available to the public. The transcript may also be viewed on MSHA's Web site at
On January 23, 2017, MSHA published a final rule, Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines (“2017 rule”) in the
Effective working place examinations are a fundamental accident prevention tool used by operators of metal and nonmetal (MNM) mines; they allow operators to find and fix adverse conditions and violations of health and safety standards before they cause injury or death to miners.
After further review of the rulemaking record, MSHA is considering limited changes to the 2017 rule to address: (1) When working place examinations must begin, and (2) the adverse conditions and related corrective actions that must be included in the working place examinations record. Specifically, MSHA is proposing to amend the introductory text of §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) in the 2017 rule on when examinations must begin, and the record requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c); MSHA is not proposing to modify paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) regarding miner notification and corrective action requirements. Further, MSHA is not proposing to change the record retention requirements or the record availability requirements included in the 2017 rule.
The Agency believes that the proposed changes would be as protective as the existing rules. Also, the proposal would reduce the regulatory burden on mine operators compared to requirements in the 2017 rule and would be consistent with the Administration's initiatives to reduce and control regulatory costs.
The standards for examinations of working places in MNM mines at 30 CFR 56.18002 and 57.18002 were promulgated in 1979 and are the standards currently in effect. The currently effective standards permit the examination to be made at any time during the shift. Sections 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) require a competent person designated by the mine operator to examine each working place at least once each shift for conditions that may
On January 23, 2017, MSHA published a final rule (82 FR 7680) that amended §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) to require that the examination be conducted before miners begin work in that place so that conditions that may adversely affect miners' safety and health are identified before miners are exposed to those conditions and corrective action is promptly initiated.
MSHA is now proposing to modify the introductory text of §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) in the 2017 rule to require the competent person to examine each working place at least once each shift before work begins or as miners begin work in that place for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health. This proposed change to §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) would allow the competent person to conduct the examination before work begins or as miners begin their work in a place. To provide mine operators flexibility on scheduling working place examinations, MSHA's proposed change would allow miners to enter a working place at the same time that the competent person conducts the examination. As in the 2017 rule, MSHA's proposal would not require a specific time frame for the examination to be conducted. However, MSHA intends that the examination should be conducted in a time frame sufficient to assure any adverse conditions would be identified before miners are exposed. Under the proposal, the competent person would identify adverse conditions that can be corrected promptly, and promptly notify miners of those that cannot be corrected before miners are exposed. In that way, miners could avoid and not be exposed to those adverse conditions. The operator would still be responsible for correcting those conditions that can be corrected promptly. MSHA recognizes that mining is dynamic, conditions are always changing, and adverse conditions need to be identified and addressed throughout the shift, not just at the beginning. If adverse conditions are identified, miners should be notified before being exposed, or as soon as possible after work begins if the condition is discovered while they are working in an area.
MSHA believes this proposed change would be more protective than the standards in effect, which allow the examination to be made at any time during the shift. Also, under this proposal, since MSHA expects adverse conditions would be identified before miners are potentially exposed to them, the proposal is as protective as the 2017 rule.
Furthermore, in the 2017 rule, MSHA acknowledged that for mines with consecutive shifts or those that operate on a 24-hour, 365-day basis, it may be appropriate to conduct the examination for the next shift at the end of the previous shift. 82 FR 7683. The proposed change would continue to permit mine operators to conduct an examination on the previous shift. However, as MSHA stated in the 2017 rule, because conditions at mines can change, operators should examine at a time sufficiently close to the start of the next shift to minimize potential exposure to conditions that may adversely affect miners' safety or health.
The currently effective standards at §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) require, in part, that mine operators make a record that the working place examinations were conducted.
Under the 2017 rule, §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) require operators to make a record of the working place examination and include, among other information, a description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners. In the preamble to the 2017 rule, MSHA noted that the record must include a description of adverse conditions that are corrected immediately. 82 FR 7686. The preamble explained that recording all adverse conditions, even those that are corrected immediately, would be useful in identifying trends and areas that could benefit from an increased safety emphasis.
However, MSHA recognizes that it is the mine operator who is responsible for design of the mine's safety program and that having a recording exception for conditions that are corrected promptly would provide operators with increased incentives to correct these conditions promptly, which may improve miner safety and health. For this reason, MSHA is considering modifying §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) to require that the examination record include only those adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly.
MSHA also is considering a conforming change to modify §§ 56.18002(c) and 57.18002(c) of the 2017 rule, which requires the examination record to include, or be supplemented to include, the date of corrective action when any condition that may adversely affect safety or health is corrected. To be consistent with MSHA's proposed change to §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b), MSHA would require in §§ 56.18002(c) and 57.18002(c) that the record include, or be supplemented to include, the date of corrective action for an adverse condition that is not promptly corrected.
MSHA's proposal is based on the recognition that, consistent with industry best practices, prudent operators routinely correct many adverse conditions as the competent person is making the examination or as soon as possible after the completion of the examination, and that the corrective action may be taken either by the competent person or someone else. The Agency believes that the primary concern should be with respect to those adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly because they may expose miners to conditions that may potentially cause an accident, injury, or fatality. Consistent with the explanation in the preamble to the 2017 rule, MSHA interprets “promptly” to mean before miners are potentially exposed to adverse conditions.
Also, the proposed change to §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) would be consistent with MSHA's miner notification provisions under the 2017 rule at §§ 56.18002(a)(1) and 57.18002(a)(1). Those provisions require mine operators to promptly notify miners in affected areas of any conditions found that may adversely affect their safety or health. In the preamble to the 2017 rule, MSHA reiterated that, if an adverse condition is corrected before miners begin work, notification to miners in affected areas is not required because there are no miners that would be affected by the adverse condition. Similarly, under proposed paragraph (b), adverse conditions that are corrected promptly no longer present a danger to miners and a description of the adverse condition would not be required as part of the examination record under this proposed rule. MSHA believes that this change to §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) may improve safety over the existing standards by encouraging mine operators to correct adverse conditions as they are found before they potentially cause an accident, injury, or fatality.
Overall, MSHA believes that the proposed rule would be more protective of miners than the existing standards under §§ 56.18002 and 57.18002. The proposed rule encourages early identification and prompt correction of adverse conditions to protect miners. If corrected promptly, adverse conditions would not be required to be documented in the record. However, adverse conditions that are not
MSHA is soliciting comments only on the limited changes being proposed: (1) Working place examinations may begin as miners begin work, and (2) adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly and dates of their corrective action must be included in the working place examinations record. The Agency requests that commenters be as specific as possible and include any alternatives, existing practices and experiences, detailed rationales, supporting documentation, and benefits to miners. Comments will assist the Agency in considering changes to the 2017 rule and whether changes would reduce regulatory burdens on mine operators without reducing the protections afforded miners.
Executive Orders (E.O.) 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 13771 directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs by eliminating at least two existing regulations for each new regulation, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. This proposed rule is expected to be an EO 13771 deregulatory action. As discussed in this section, MSHA estimates that this proposed rule would result in annual cost savings of $27.6 million.
Under E.O. 12866, it must be determined whether a regulatory action is “significant” and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this E.O.
Based on its assessment of the costs and benefits, MSHA has determined that this proposed rule would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy and, therefore, would not be an economically significant regulatory action pursuant to section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. MSHA requests comments on all cost and benefit estimates presented in this preamble and on the data and assumptions the Agency used to develop estimates. This proposed rule would make changes to provisions that created costs in the 2017 rule, as described in the following sections.
MSHA estimated that the 2017 rule will result in $34.5 million in annual costs for the MNM industry. The Agency estimated that the total undiscounted cost of the final rule over 10 years will be $345.1 million; at a 3 percent discount rate, $294.4 million; and at a 7 percent discount rate, $242.4 million. In the final rule, MSHA estimated costs associated with conducting an examination before work begins, the additional time to make a record, and providing miners' representatives a copy of the record.
In this proposed rule, MSHA estimates the costs of changes to the 2017 rule that include: (1) An examination of a working place as miners begin work in that place, and (2) the time used to make a record only of adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly and the dates of corrective action for these conditions. For purposes of calculating the costs attributable to this proposed rule, MSHA updated the number of mines and used calendar year 2016 wage and employment data. MSHA also applied 2016 wage and employment data to the 2017 rule to establish a baseline to calculate cost savings.
The proposed rule would apply to all MNM mines in the United States. The baseline for costs and net benefits include costs identified in the preamble to the 2017 rule. The changes include updates to the 2016 data on wages, number of mines, and employment. Changes to the baseline that would exist without this proposed rule are not attributable to this proposal. The updates are included for purposes of calculating the cost savings attributable to this proposed rule.
In 2016, there were approximately 11,624 MNM mines employing 140,631 miners, excluding office workers, and 69,004 contractors working at MNM mines. Table 1 presents the number of MNM mines and employment by mine size.
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) estimated the value of the U.S. mining industry's MNM output in 2016 to be $74.6 billion.
The proposed rule would modify the 2017 rule's requirements in §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) that require the examination be conducted before miners begin work in that place. MSHA is proposing to modify these provisions to require the examination be conducted before work begins or as miners begin work in that place. This proposed change would reduce the cost of the 2017 rule. MSHA is also proposing to modify the 2017 rule's requirements in §§ 56.18001(b) and 57.18002(b) that the examination record include each adverse condition found. MSHA is proposing to modify these provisions to require that the examination record include only those adverse conditions that are not corrected promptly.
MSHA believes these changes to the 2017 rule would not reduce the protections afforded miners; therefore, benefits would remain unchanged, which were unquantified in the 2017 rule, since MSHA was unable to separate the benefits of the new requirements under the 2017 rule from those benefits attributable to conducting a workplace examination under the existing standard. Thus, net benefits for this proposed rule would be positive due to the cost savings.
The costs of this proposed rule are associated with conducting examinations of a working place as miners begin work in that place. In the preamble to the 2017 rule, MSHA concluded that MNM mine operators will use a variety of scheduling methods to conduct an examination of a working place before miners begin work (82 FR 7690). For the 2017 rule, MSHA estimated that it will cost approximately $26.9 million for mine operators examine each working place before miners begin work.
For the 2017 rule estimate, MSHA assumed that operators might use overtime, use different people to backfill for the time shifted to the examination, or experience rescheduling costs to comply with the final rule. The examination was already required prior to the 2017 rule and therefore not an additional cost for either the 2017 rule or this proposed rule. Under this proposed rule, mine operators would not be required to make the 2017 rule changes to the examination timing that were estimated to add $26.9 million for overtime, backfill, and rescheduling. The proposed change in the examination timing would allow mine operators to avoid the additional $26.9 million and therefore create a cost savings. MSHA requests comment on this estimate. MSHA updated the cost estimate for the number of mines and labor costs which results in an estimated annual cost savings of $27.6 million.
The 2017 rule also amended the standards currently in effect by specifying the contents of the examination record, which included a requirement that a record include a description of each adverse condition found. Under this proposed rule, MSHA would modify the required contents of the examination record by requiring a description of each adverse condition that is not corrected promptly. MSHA assumes that the cost related to the proposed change to the recordkeeping requirements would be de minimis. MSHA seeks comment on the Agency's assumption and solicits information and data on the number of instances adverse conditions are promptly corrected and on average how much time would be saved by not requiring these corrected conditions to be included in the record.
MSHA updated the number of mines and applied 2016 wage and employment data to the 2017 rule to establish a baseline to calculate cost savings. MSHA estimates that the competent person making the record of the examination of working places would earn $35.28 per hour (including benefits). In addition, the estimated wage rate of a clerical worker who makes a copy of the record is $24.44 per hour (including benefits). The wage rates are from the Bureau of Labor
• Mines with 1-19 employees operate 1.1 shift per day, 169 days per year;
• Mines with 20-500 employees operate 1.8 shifts per day, 285 days per year; and
• Mines with 500+ employees operate 2.2 shifts per day, 322 days per year.
MSHA notes that the Agency did not include an overhead labor cost in the economic analysis for this proposed rule. It is important to note that there is not one broadly accepted overhead rate and that the use of overhead to estimate the marginal costs of labor raises a number of issues that should be addressed before applying overhead costs to analyze the costs of any specific regulation. There are several approaches to look at the cost elements that fit the definition of
For E.O. 13771 deregulatory actions that revise or repeal recently issued rules, agencies generally should not estimate cost savings that exceed the costs previously projected for the relevant requirements, unless credible new evidence show that costs were previously underestimated.
If MSHA had included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal cost of labor, without further analyzing an appropriate quantitative adjustment, and adopted for these purposes an overhead rate of 17 percent on base wages, the overhead costs would increase cost savings from $27.6 million to $32.3 million at all discount rates. This increase in savings of $4.7 million is the same 17 percent overhead rate as all rule costs are labor costs and therefore change in direct proportion to the rates selected.
MSHA will continue to study overhead costs to ensure regulatory costs are appropriately attributed without double counting or showing savings for concepts not previously considered as costs.
Discounting is a technique used to apply the economic concept that the preference for the value of money decreases over time. In this analysis, MSHA provides cost totals at zero, 3, and 7 percent discount rates. The zero percent discount rate is referred to as the undiscounted rate. MSHA used the Excel Net Present Value (NPV) function to determine the present value of costs and computed an annualized cost from the present value using the Excel PMT function.
The following table shows the published 2017 rule costs, changes due to updating the base, and the resulting proposed rule cost savings (cost reductions have a negative sign and are a cost savings).
MSHA estimates that the total undiscounted costs of the proposed rule over a 10-year period would be approximately −$276 million, −$235.4 million at a 3 percent rate, and −$193.8 million at a 7 percent rate. Negative cost values are cost savings that result in a positive net benefit. The same annual cost savings occurs in each of the 10 years so the cost annualized over 10 years would be approximately −$27.60 million for all discount rates.
The proposed rule contains recordkeeping requirements and is not technology-forcing. MSHA concludes that the proposed rule would be technologically feasible.
MSHA established the economic feasibility of the 2017 rule using its traditional revenue screening test—whether the yearly impacts of a regulation are less than one percent of revenues—to establish presumptively that the 2017 rule was economically feasible for the mining community. This proposed rule creates a cost (savings) of −$27.6 million annually compared to the 2017 rule. Although the associated revenues decreased slightly from the 2017 rule estimate of $77.6 billion in 2015 to approximately $74.6 billion for 2016, the costs retained from the 2017 rule of approximately $7.9 million per year remains well less than one percent of revenues and the net decrease in costs is even more supportive of the Agency's conclusion. MSHA concludes that the proposed rule would be economically feasible for the MNM mining industry.
MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule to assess and take appropriate account of its potential impact on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations. MSHA has determined that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities but requested comments in Section IV. of this preamble.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), MSHA has analyzed the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Based on that analysis, MSHA certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency, therefore, is not required to develop an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. MSHA presents the factual basis for this certification below.
Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of a rule on small entities, MSHA must use the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) definition for a small entity, or after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish an alternative definition for the mining industry by publishing that definition in the
MSHA has also examined the impact of the proposed rule on mines with fewer than 20 employees, which MSHA and the mining community have traditionally referred to as “small mines.” These small mines differ from larger mines not only in the number of employees, but also in economies of scale in material produced, in the type and amount of production equipment, and in supply inventory. Therefore, the impact of MSHA's rules and the costs of complying with them will also tend to differ for these small mines. This analysis complies with the requirements of the RFA for an analysis of the impact on “small entities” using both SBA's definition for small entities in the mining industry and MSHA's traditional definition.
MSHA initially evaluates the impacts on small entities by comparing the estimated compliance costs of a rule for small entities in the sector affected by the rule to the estimated revenues for the affected sector. When this threshold analysis shows estimated compliance costs have been less than one percent of the estimated revenues, the Agency has concluded that it is generally appropriate to conclude that there is no significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Additionally, there is the possibility that a rule might have a positive economic impact. To properly apply MSHA's traditional criteria and consider the positive impact case, MSHA is adjusting its traditional threshold analysis criteria to consider the absolute value of one percent rather than only the adverse case. This slight change means when the absolute value of the estimated compliance costs exceed one percent of revenues, MSHA investigates whether further analysis is required. For small entities impacted by this proposed rule, MSHA estimates the revenue at $63.2 billion and costs at −$30.3 million. As a percentage, the absolute value of the impact is less than 0.05 percent; therefore, using the threshold analysis, MSHA concludes no further analysis is required and concludes the proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. MSHA requests comments on this conclusion.
The proposed changes due to this rulemaking are unlikely to change the number of collections or respondents in the currently approved collection 1219-0089. The minor recordkeeping change may reduce the burden very slightly but MSHA concludes that any small decrease in the time needed to make the record may not be measurable. MSHA requested comments on this issue in Section IV. of this preamble but is not
MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) requires agencies to assess the impact of Agency action on family well-being. MSHA has determined that this proposed rule will have no effect on family stability or safety, marital commitment, parental rights and authority, or income or poverty of families and children. Accordingly, MSHA certifies that this proposed rule would not impact family well-being.
Section 5 of E.O. 12630 requires Federal agencies to “identify the takings implications of proposed regulatory actions . . . .” MSHA has determined that this proposed rule does not include a regulatory or policy action with takings implications. Accordingly, E.O. 12630 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
Section 3 of E.O. 12988 contains requirements for Federal agencies promulgating new regulations or reviewing existing regulations to minimize litigation by eliminating drafting errors and ambiguity, providing a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, promoting simplification, and reducing burden. MSHA has reviewed this proposed rule and has determined that it would meet the applicable standards provided in E.O. 12988 to minimize litigation and undue burden on the Federal court system.
MSHA has determined that this proposed rule does not have federalism implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, E.O. 13132 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
MSHA has determined that this proposed rule does not have tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Accordingly, E.O. 13175 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to publish a statement of energy effects when a rule has a significant energy action that adversely affects energy supply, distribution, or use. In its 2017 rule, MSHA reviewed the rule for its energy effects. The impact on uranium mines is applicable in this case. MSHA data show only two active uranium mines in 2016. Because this proposed rule would have a net cost savings, MSHA has concluded that it would not be a significant energy action because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Accordingly, under this analysis, no further Agency action or analysis is required.
Metals, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, MSHA is proposing to amend chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as amended by the final rule published on January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7695), effective May 23, 2017, and delayed on May 22, 2017 (82 FR 23139), until October 2, 2017 (82 FR 23139), as follows:
30 U.S.C. 811.
(a) A competent person designated by the operator shall examine each working place at least once each shift before work begins or as miners begin work in that place for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health.
(b) * * * The record shall contain the name of the person conducting the examination; date of the examination; location of all areas examined; and description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners and is not corrected promptly.
(c) When a condition that may adversely affect safety or health is not corrected promptly, the examination record shall include, or be supplemented to include, the date of the corrective action.
30 U.S.C. 811.
(a) A competent person designated by the operator shall examine each working place at least once each shift before work begins or as miners begin work in that place for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health.
(b) * * * The record shall contain the name of the person conducting the
(c) When a condition that may adversely affect safety or health is not corrected promptly, the examination record shall include, or be supplemented to include, the date of the corrective action.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Proposed rule; delay of effective date.
On January 23, 2017, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) published a final rule in the
Comments must be received or postmarked by midnight Eastern Daylight Saving Time (DST) on September 26, 2017.
Submit comments and informational materials, identified by RIN 1219-AB87 or Docket No. MSHA-2014-0030, by one of the following methods:
Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
On January 23, 2017, MSHA published a final rule in the
At this time, the Agency is proposing to delay the rule's effective date beyond October 2, 2017, to March 2, 2018. As MSHA has reiterated to industry stakeholders, MSHA made a commitment to the industry to hold informational meetings around the country and to develop and distribute compliance assistance material prior to enforcing the rule. MSHA also committed to conducting compliance assistance visits at metal and nonmetal mines throughout the country. Further, extending the effective date would permit more time for MSHA to address issues raised by stakeholders during quarterly training calls and stakeholder meetings and compliance assistance visits. MSHA is considering concerns raised by stakeholders on certain provisions in the rule and how best to address them. MSHA intends to collaborate with and seek input from stakeholders regarding these issues. At the same time, MSHA is seeking comment on a proposed rule that may address some of these issues. The extension also would provide MSHA more time to train its inspectors to help assure consistency in MSHA enforcement. MSHA will make the Agency's inspector training materials available to the mining community to assist miners and mine operators in effectively implementing the rule, thus enhancing the safety of miners.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO
Any comments must arrive by October 12, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0332 at
Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3073,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.
On April 17, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittal for PCAPCD Rule 206 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On August 2, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittal for VCAPCD Rule 74.34 also met the completeness criteria.
We approved an earlier version of PCAPCD Rule 206 into the SIP on November 15, 1978 (43 FR 53035) for the portions of the district regulating the Mountain Counties Air Basin and Sacramento Valley Air Basin. We approved another earlier version of PCAPCD Rule 206 into the SIP on August 21, 1979 (46 FR 27115) for the portion of the district regulating the Lake Tahoe Air Basin. There are no previous versions of VCAPCD Rule 74.34 in the SIP.
NO
SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each major source of NO
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
2. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
3. “NO
4. “NO
5. “Standards of Performance for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units,” 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC.
6. “Standards of Performance for Other Solid Waste Incineration Units for Which Construction is Commenced After December 9, 2004, or for Which Modification or Reconstruction is Commenced on or After June 16, 2006,” 40 CFR part 60, subpart EEEE.
VCAPCD Rule 74.34 adopts emission limits, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for NO
The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agencies modify the rules.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until October 12, 2017. If we take final action to approve the submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the PCAPCD and VCAPCD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Delaware. This revision pertains to reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements under the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Delaware's submittal for RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS includes (1) certification that, for certain categories of sources, RACT controls approved by EPA into Delaware's SIP for previous ozone NAAQS are based on currently available technically and economically feasible controls and continue to represent RACT for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS implementation purposes; (2) the adoption of new or more stringent regulations or controls that represent RACT control levels for certain other categories of sources; and (3) a negative declaration that certain categories of sources do not exist in Delaware. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before October 12, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0656 at
Leslie Jones Doherty, (215) 814-3409, or by email at
On May 4, 2015, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) submitted a revision to its SIP that addresses the requirements of RACT under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions between volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
RACT is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.
Pursuant to section 184(b) of the CAA, the same requirements for sources of NO
Delaware has been subject to the CAA RACT requirements as a result of previous ozone designations. Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, Kent and New Castle Counties in Delaware were designated part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD severe ozone nonattainment area, and Sussex County was designated as a marginal ozone nonattainment area.
Since the entire State of Delaware has been part of the OTR, RACT was implemented in Sussex County as a moderate nonattainment area. Therefore, all three counties were subject to RACT requirements under the 1-hour ozone standard. Since the early 1990's, Delaware implemented numerous RACT controls throughout the State to meet the CAA RACT requirements under the 1-hour and the 1997 8-hour ozone standards.
Under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the entire State of Delaware (Kent, New Castle and Sussex Counties) was designated as a part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City moderate nonattainment area, and therefore continued to be subject to the CAA RACT requirements.
Under CAA section 109(d), EPA is required to periodically review and promulgate, as necessary, the ozone NAAQS to continue to protect human health and the environment. On March 27, 2008, EPA revised the 1997 8-hour ozone standard to a new 0.075 ppm level (73 FR 16436). On May 21, 2012, EPA finalized designations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30087). Under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, New Castle County of Delaware was designated as a part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE marginal nonattainment area, and Sussex County of Delaware was designated as a stand-alone marginal nonattainment area (77 FR 30088). However, due to its location in the OTR, the entire State of Delaware is required to address the CAA RACT requirements for a moderate nonattainment area by submitting to EPA a SIP revision that demonstrates how Delaware meets RACT requirements under the standard. Delaware is required to implement RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on all VOC sources covered by a CTG issued by EPA, as well as all other major stationary sources located within the State boundaries with the potential to
EPA has provided more substantive RACT requirements through final implementation rules for each ozone NAAQS as well as guidance. On March 6, 2015, EPA issued its final rule for implementing the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule).
On May 4, 2015 Delaware submitted a SIP revision to address all the requirements of RACT set forth by the CAA under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (the 2015 RACT Submission). Specifically, Delaware's 2015 RACT Submission includes: (1) A certification that for certain categories of sources previously adopted NO
Delaware Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 1124 (formerly Regulation 24) contains Delaware's VOC RACT controls regulations for all VOC sources greater than 50 tpy that were implemented and approved into the Delaware SIP under the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Delaware also submitted a negative declaration that the following VOC CTG source categories do not exist in Delaware: Manufacture of pneumatic rubber tires; wood furniture manufacturing operations; shipbuilding and ship repair operations (surface coating); and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials.
Delaware's 2015 RACT Submission also discusses Regulation 1141, Section 1.0, Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings and Regulation 1141, Section 2.0, Consumer Products. These regulations, both previously approved by EPA into the Delaware SIP, establish VOC content limits in various coating materials and consumer products. Although these rules will assist Delaware in its efforts to attain the ozone standard, they are “beyond RACT” levels as they apply to non-major stationary sources.
Delaware's 2015 RACT Submission asserts that Delaware Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 1112 (formerly Regulation 12) contains Delaware's NO
Delaware's Regulation 1112 provides presumptive NO
In addition, in the 2015 RACT Submission, Delaware states it has implemented specific NO
EPA has reviewed Delaware's 2015 RACT Submission and finds Delaware's certification of the RACT regulations for major sources of VOC and NO
With respect to the previous case by case RACT determinations submitted by Delaware and approved by EPA for the Delaware SIP, the CAA section 110(l) states “The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any applicable requirement of the CAA.” EPA finds that the removal of the emission limits for (1) the Polyhydrate Alcohol Catalyst Regenerative process SPI Polyols, Incorporated, (2) the sulfuric acid process and inter-stage absorption system at General Chemical Corporation and (3) the metallic nitrite process at General Chemical Corporation from the Delaware SIP will not interfere with attainment of any NAAQS or with RFP or any applicable requirement of the CAA because these sources have permanently shutdown and thus emissions have been completely eliminated. EPA finds the NO
In the 2015 RACT Submission, Delaware is certifying that Regulation 1124, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, and Regulation 1142, Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters at Petroleum Refineries, contain RACT levels of control for meeting the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS requirements for certain major sources of NO
In 2016, Delaware revised Regulations 1124 and 1142, with a State effective date of January 11, 2017, to remove the provisions identified by EPA in EPA's SSM SIP Call as being substantially inadequate and inconsistent with the CAA. Subsequently, on November 21, 2016, Delaware submitted a SIP revision to address EPA's SSM SIP Call for six of the seven Delaware regulations mentioned in the SSM SIP Call, including the portions affecting Regulation 1124 (subsection 1.4) and Regulation 1142 (subsection 2.3.1.6). Delaware's November 21, 2016 SSM SIP revision will be dealt with in a separate rulemaking action.
Challenges to EPA's SSM SIP Call are now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), in consolidated Case No. 15-1239 captioned
One alternative basis for EPA's proposed approval of Delaware's 2015 RACT Submission assumes that EPA will change its position and related SSM Guidance outlined in the SSM SIP Call in such a way that EPA would withdraw the SSM SIP Call as to Delaware Regulations 1124 and 1142.
Under the other alternative rationale, EPA assumes that EPA's position (and related guidance) outlined in the SSM SIP Call will not change in such a way that EPA would withdraw the SSM SIP Call as to Delaware Regulations 1124 and 1142. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the 2015 RACT Submission as addressing RACT requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS because EPA intends to propose approval and take final rulemaking action approving the revised versions of Regulations 1124 and 1142 as revised in Delaware's response to the SSM SIP Call. This basis for proposed approval of the 2015 RACT Submission is based upon EPA approving Delaware's revisions to Regulations 1124 and 1142 prior to finalizing our action on the 2015 RACT Submission.
EPA is taking public comment on our proposed alternatives discussed herein for approval for Delaware's 2015 RACT Submission for the NO
EPA is proposing to approve Delaware's 2015 RACT Submission on the basis that Delaware has met the RACT requirements under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS per sections 182(b), 182(f) and 184(b)(2) for the reasons explained in this notice, including our position relating to the SSM SIP Call and the related provisions within Regulations 1124 and 1142 presently in the Delaware SIP. EPA finds that Delaware's 2015 RACT Submission demonstrates that the State has adopted air pollution control strategies that represent RACT for the purposes of compliance with the 2008 8-hour ozone standard for all major stationary sources of VOC and NO
In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
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 proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• 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 proposed rule, Delaware's 2008 8-hour ozone RACT SIP revision 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.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to find that the Idaho State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for the annual particulate matter (PM
Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0856, at
Matthew Jentgen, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: 206-553-0340, email address:
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. Information is organized as follows:
On July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated a new 24-hour and a new annual NAAQS for PM
The CAA requires that states submit SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards, the so-called “infrastructure” requirements. To help states, the EPA issued guidance on September 13, 2013, addressing infrastructure SIP elements for certain NAAQS.
On December 23, 2015, the State of Idaho submitted certifications to the EPA that the Idaho SIP meets the infrastructure requirements for the 2012 PM
CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. CAA section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. These requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements, with their corresponding CAA subsection, are listed below:
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the applicable requirements of part D.
• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.
• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
The EPA's guidance clarified that two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to CAA section 172 and the various pollutant specific subparts 2-5 of part D. These requirements are: (i) Submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment new source review (NSR) or CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the EPA interprets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being triggered by a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C, title I of the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.
The EPA is taking action on the December 23, 2015 infrastructure submission from Idaho for purposes of the 2012 PM
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA.
The Idaho SIP incorporates by reference a number of federal regulations, including the federal NAAQS at 40 CFR part 50, revised as of July 1, 2015. The EPA most recently approved the incorporation by reference of these regulations at IDAPA 58.01.01.107 “Incorporations by Reference” on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22083). Idaho has incorporated by reference the 2012 PM
Idaho generally regulates emissions of PM
In addition to the permitting rules described above, Idaho has adopted rules to limit and control emissions resulting from open burning (IDAPA 58.01.01.600-624) and activities that generate visible emissions (IDAPA 58.01.01.625). Idaho has also promulgated rules addressing the sulfur content of fuels (IDAPA 58.01.01.725) and banking of emissions (IDAPA 58.01.01.460-461). Based on the above analysis, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2012 PM
In this action, we are not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing Idaho provisions with respect to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility. The EPA believes that a number of states may have SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance and the EPA is addressing such state regulations in a separate action.
In addition, we are not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing Idaho rules with respect to director's discretion or variance provisions. Some states may have such provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance and the EPA is addressing such regulations in a separate action via the SSM SIP Call (June 12, 2015, 80 FR 33840). We encourage any state having a director's discretion or variance provision that is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to the EPA upon request.
The Idaho submittal references the 2015 Idaho Annual Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan, approved by the EPA on October 28, 2015. The Idaho submittal also references the Web site where the Idaho DEQ provides the network plan, air quality monitoring summaries, a map of the monitoring network and real-time air monitoring data.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states have a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources, including a program to meet PSD and nonattainment NSR requirements.
The Idaho submittal also cites the annual incorporation by reference (IBR) rulemaking which updates Idaho's SIP to include federal changes to the NAAQS and PSD program. Idaho's submittal certifies that the annual IBR updates along with IDAPA sections
To generally meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with regard to the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources, a state is required to have PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2012 PM
We most recently approved revisions to Idaho's PSD program on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22083) and August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53290). Idaho's SIP-approved PSD program implements the 2012 PM
We note that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, in
To address the court's remand, the EPA promulgated a final rule for the “Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements” on August 24, 2016 (81 FR 58011). This rule sets requirements for major stationary sources in PM
In addition, on January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in
This decision also, at the EPA's request, vacated and remanded to the EPA for further consideration the portions of the 2010 PSD PM
The EPA amended its regulations to remove the vacated PM
The EPA has also promulgated revisions to federal PSD requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in response to a court remand and vacatur. Specifically, on June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in
In response to the
The EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision and the EPA's changes to federal PSD rules in response to the decision. At this juncture, the EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
At present, the EPA has determined the Idaho SIP is sufficient to satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously-approved by the EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved Idaho PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) for purposes of the 2012 PM
The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that the EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect our proposed approval of the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) as those elements relate to a comprehensive PSD program. In this action we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) as those elements relate to a comprehensive PSD program.
With regard to the minor NSR requirement of this element, the EPA has determined that Idaho's minor NSR permitting program regulates direct PM
Based on the foregoing, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 PM
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires state SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). Further, this section requires state SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality, or from interfering with measures required to protect visibility (i.e. measures to address regional haze) in any state (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)).
This action also does not address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which we will address in a future action. In this proposal, we are proposing to act on Idaho's submission relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
The EPA believes that, with regard to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility sub-element, the requirement may be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing regional haze. The EPA's reasoning is that the development of the regional haze SIPs was intended to occur in a collaborative environment among the states, and that through this process states would coordinate on emissions controls to protect visibility on an interstate basis.
The Idaho submittal references the Idaho Regional Haze SIP, submitted to the EPA on October 25, 2010, which addresses visibility impacts across states within the region. On June 9, 2011, we approved a SIP revision which provides Idaho DEQ authority to address regional haze and to implement best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements (76 FR 33651). Subsequently on June 22, 2011, we approved portions of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP, including the requirements for BART (76 FR 36329). Finally, on November 8, 2012, we approved the remainder of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP, including those portions that address CAA provisions that require states to set Reasonable Progress Goals for their Class I areas, and to develop a Long Term Strategy to achieve these goals (77 FR 66929).
The EPA is proposing to find that as a result of the prior approval of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP, the Idaho SIP contains adequate provisions to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility requirements with respect to the 2012 PM
Furthermore, IDAPA 58.01.01.209 provides an opportunity for appropriate
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide (i) necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or portion thereof), (ii) requirements that the state comply with the requirements respecting state boards under section 128 and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such SIP provision.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to the CAA, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
Additionally, the State is required to submit emissions data to the EPA for purposes of the National Emissions
Idaho's SIP and practices are adequate for the stationary source monitoring systems related to the 2012 PM
CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including adequate contingency plans to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
The Idaho air pollution emergency rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.550-562 were previously approved by the EPA on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217). Idaho's air pollution emergency rules include PM
CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph 110(a)(3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the Administrator that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements under the CAA.
There are two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) not governed by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but are rather due at the time of the nonattainment area plan requirements pursuant to section 172 and the various pollutant specific subparts 2-5 of part D. These requirements are: (i) Submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment NSR or CAA section 110(a)(2)(I).
CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to section 121. CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to meet applicable requirements of part C, title I of the CAA related to prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires the public be notified if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. The EPA calculates an air quality index for five major air pollutants regulated by the CAA: Ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. The EPA AIRNOW program provides this air quality index daily to the public, including health effects and actions members of the public can take to reduce air pollution. Idaho actively participates and submits information to the AIRNOW program, in addition to the EPA's Enviroflash Air Quality Alert program. Idaho DEQ also provides the daily air quality index to the public on the DEQ Web site at
Turning to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, we have evaluated this requirement in the context of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to permitting. The EPA most recently approved revisions to Idaho's PSD program on May 12, 2017 (82 FR 22083) and August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53290). Idaho's SIP-approved PSD program implements the 2012 PM
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, the EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus we find that there is no new applicable requirement relating to visibility triggered under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. Based on the above analysis, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2012 PM
CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the Administrator.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit, until such time as the SIP fee requirement is superseded by the EPA's approval of the state's title V operating permit program.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
The EPA is proposing to find that the Idaho SIP meets the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2012 PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves the state's law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by the state's law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• 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 the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because the action does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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 Idaho, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Request for Information (RFI).
Consistent with Executive Order 13781, “Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch,” and using the authority of the Secretary to reorganize the Department under section 4(a) of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is soliciting public comment on the proposed reorganization announced by Secretary Perdue on September 7, 2017. The proposed reorganizations follow a previous reorganization announced on May 11, 2017.
Comments and information are requested on or before October 7, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice. All submissions must refer to “Improving Customer Service” to ensure proper delivery.
•
•
Donald Bice, Telephone Number: (202) 720-3291.
USDA is committed to operating efficiently, effectively, and with integrity, and minimizing the burdens on individuals businesses, and communities for participation in and compliance with USDA programs. USDA works to support the American agricultural economy to strengthen rural communities; to protect and conserve our natural resources; and to provide a safe, sufficient, and nutritious food supply for the American people. The Department's wide range of programs and responsibilities touches the lives of every American every day.
Executive Order 13781, “Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch”, is intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch. The principles in the Executive Order provide the basis for taking actions to enhance and strengthen the delivery of USDA programs. The Department will continue to work within the Administration on the government-wide reform plan and additional reform efforts.
On September 7, 2017, Secretary Perdue announced his intent to take actions to strengthen customer service and improve efficiencies at USDA by taking the following actions:
• Merging the Center for Nutrition and Policy Promotion into the Food and Nutrition Service;
• Consolidating the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration into the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS);
• Realigning the Farm Service Agency (FSA) Warehouse function and the International Food Commodity Procurement program into AMS;
• Moving the Codex Alimentarius program from the Food Safety and Inspection Service into the Undersecretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs;
• Realigning the Office of Pesticide Management Policy out of the Agricultural Research Service and into the Office of the Chief Economist;
• Establishing the Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement through the merger of the Office of Advocacy and Outreach, the Office of Tribal Relations, the Center for Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and the Military Veterans Liaison;
• Creating an Office of Innovation within Rural Development; and
• Consolidating mission support activities, including information technology, finance, property, procurement, and human resources, at the mission area level. (
USDA is seeking public comment on the actions identified in the September 7, 2017, announcement.
USDA notes that this notice is issued solely for information and program-planning purposes. While responses to this notice do not bind USDA to any further actions, all submissions will be reviewed by the appropriate program office, and made publicly available on
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a supplement to an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact relative to an oral rabies vaccination field trial in New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Vermont, and West Virginia. Based on its finding of no significant impact, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.
Mr. Richard Chipman, Rabies Program Coordinator, Wildlife Services, APHIS, 59 Chennell Drive, Suite 7, Concord, NH 03301; (603) 223-9623. To obtain copies of the supplement to the environmental assessment and the finding of no significant impact, contact Ms. Beth Kabert, Environmental Coordinator, Wildlife Services, 140-C Locust Grove Road, Pittstown, NJ 08867; (908) 735-5654, fax (908) 735-0821, email:
The Wildlife Services (WS) program in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) cooperates with Federal agencies, State and local governments, and private individuals to research and implement the best methods of managing conflicts between wildlife and human health and safety, agriculture, property, and natural resources. Wildlife-borne diseases that can affect domestic animals and humans are among the types of conflicts that APHIS-WS addresses. Wildlife is the dominant reservoir of rabies in the United States.
On July 17, 2017, we published in the
We solicited comments on the EA for 30 days ending August 16, 2017. We did not receive any comments.
In this document, we are advising the public of our finding of no significant impact (FONSI) relative to the ORV field trial in New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Vermont, and West Virginia. The finding, which is based on the EA and the 2013, 2015, and 2017 supplements to the EA, reflects our determination that the distribution of this experimental wildlife rabies vaccine will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
The 2017 supplement to the EA and the FONSI may be viewed on the APHIS Web site at
The 2017 supplement to the EA and the FONSI have been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of bees and related articles into the United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before November 13, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0072, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations for the importation of bees and related articles, contact Dr. Colin Stewart, Senior Entomologist, Pest Permit Evaluations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2038, email:
Under the Honeybee Act (7 U.S.C. 281-286), the Secretary is authorized to prohibit or restrict the importation of honeybees and honeybee semen to prevent the introduction into the United States of diseases and parasites harmful to honeybees and of undesirable species such as the African honey bee. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The establishment of certain bee diseases, parasites, or undesirable species and subspecies of honeybees in
Regulations for the importation of honeybees and honeybee semen and regulations to prevent the introduction of exotic bee diseases and parasites through the importation of bees other than honeybees, certain beekeeping products, and used beekeeping equipment are contained in 7 CFR part 322, “Bees, Beekeeping Byproducts, and Beekeeping Equipment.” These regulations require the use of certain information collection activities, including an application for a permit, request for risk assessment, request for facility approval, written agreement to permit conditions, emergency action notification, appealing the denial of permit applications or revocation of permits, interstate transit documentation, packaging and labeling, recordkeeping for containment facilities, notices of arrival for shipments from approved regions, transit shipments, port of entry inspections, and notification of escaped organisms.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies,
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Rural Housing Service, Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Proposed collection; comments requested.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces Rural Development's intention to request a revision for a currently approved information collection in support of loan programs administered by the Rural Housing Service, Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities Service.
Comments on this notice must be received by November 13, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Karen R. Smith, Accountant, National Financial and Accounting Operations Center (NFAOC), Internal Control and Initiatives Staff, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 4300 Goodfellow Blvd., Bldg. 104 FC-365, St. Louis, MO 63120, Telephone: (314) 457-4295.
To administer these electronic loan collection methods, Rural Development collects the borrower's FI routing information (routing information includes the FI routing number and the borrower's account number). Rural Development uses Agency approved forms for collecting bank routing information for CIP, FedWire, and PAD.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, at (202) 692-0040.
Comments should be submitted to Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Avenue SW.,
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the South Dakota Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 3:00 p.m. (CDT) on Thursday, September 28, 2017, via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss next steps after the subtle racism briefing in March 2017.
Thursday, September 28, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. (CDT)
To be held via teleconference:
Evelyn Bohor,
Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-877-856-1956; Conference ID: 8652759. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-977-8339 and provide the FRS operator with the Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-877-856-1956, Conference ID: 8652759. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, October 30, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the New Jersey Department of State, grantee of FTZ 44, requesting subzone status for the facility of Ekornes Inc. (Ekornes), located in Somerset, New Jersey. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on September 7, 2017.
The proposed subzone (2.25 acres) is located at 615 Pierce Street, Somerset, New Jersey. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 44.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 23, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 6, 2017.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at
On March 27, 2017, Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, dba Mead Johnson
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On March 28, 2017, MSD International GMBH (Puerto Rico Branch) LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board within Subzone 7G, in Las Piedras, Puerto Rico.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department preliminarily determines that the application of facts available is warranted for mandatory respondent GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company (GODACO). In addition, the Department preliminarily determines that the application of facts available with an adverse inference is warranted for GODACO because it has not cooperated to the best of its ability. However, the Department preliminarily determines that GODACO qualifies for a separate rate for its exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR) August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016. The Department also preliminary determines that mandatory respondent Golden Quality Seafood Corporation (Golden Quality) does not qualify for a separate rate and is, therefore, considered a part of the Vietnam-Wide
Effective September 12, 2017.
Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202-482-2243.
On October 14, 2016, the Department initiated the 13th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets (fish fillets) from Vietnam for the period August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016.
The product covered by the order is frozen fish fillets, including regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not breaded or marinated, of the species
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the
The Department has preliminarily determined that Saigon-Mekong Fishery Co., Ltd. (SAMEFICO), and QVD
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Vietnam is an NME within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016:
Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because the Department preliminarily determined that Golden Quality is part of the Vietnam-wide entity, and GODACO's rate is based entirely on AFA, there are no calculations to disclose.
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For any individually examined respondent whose calculated weighted average dumping margin is above
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This preliminary determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable September 12, 2017.
Frances Veith at (202) 482-4295 (Federal Republic of Germany (Germany)), Omar Qureshi at (202) 482-5307 (India), Carrie Bethea at (202) 482-1491 (Italy), Annathea Cook at (202) 482-0250 (Republic of Korea (Korea)), Paul Stolz at (202) 482-4474 (People's Republic of China (PRC)), and Amanda Brings at (202) 482-3927 (Switzerland), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On May 9, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of imports of certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Germany, India, Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Switzerland.
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1)) of the Act permits the Department to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) the Department concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. The Department will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On September 1, 2017, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products; Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC; PTC Alliance Corp.; Webco Industries, Inc.; and Zekelman Industries, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners) submitted timely requests pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) to postpone the preliminary determinations in these LTFV investigations.
For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On March 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on large residential washers (LRWs) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2015, to January 31, 2016. Based on our analysis of the comments received and our verification findings, we made certain changes to the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for the respondent, LG Electronics, Inc. (LGE), is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.”
Applicable September 12, 2017.
David Goldberger or William Miller, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-3906, respectively.
The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise: LGE. On March 6, 2017, the Department published the
In June and July 2017, respectively, we received sales and cost case briefs from Whirlpool Corporation (the petitioner) and LGE.
The products covered by the order are all large residential washers and certain subassemblies thereof from Korea. The products are currently classifiable under subheadings 8450.20.0040 and 8450.20.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8450.11.0040, 8450.11.0080, 8450.90.2000, and 8450.90.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of these issues and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on comments received from interested parties regarding our
We are assigning the following weighted-average dumping margin to LGE:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this administrative review.
We have calculated a zero margin for LGE in the final results of this review; therefore, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all shipments of subject merchandise manufactured and exported by LGE, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, during the POR. The Department's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by LGE, for which the company did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for LGE will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review (
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of
This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), the Department is issuing antidumping duty orders on emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber) from Brazil, the Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Poland.
Applicable September 12, 2017.
Drew Jackson at (202) 482-4406, (Brazil); Carrie Bethea at (202) 482-1491, (Korea); Julia Hancock, (202) 482-1394 (Mexico); Stephen Bailey at (202) 482-0193, (Poland), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on July 19, 2017, the Department published affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland.
For Mexico, on July 17, 2017, we received comments from Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V. (Negromex), the sole mandatory respondent in the Mexico investigation, that we made ministerial errors in our final determination.
The products covered by these orders are cold-polymerized emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber. For a complete description of the scope of these orders,
In accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determinations in these investigations, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland. The ITC also notified the Department of its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of ESB rubber from Korea subject to the Department's critical circumstances finding.
As a result of the ITC's final determination, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 24, 2017, the date of publication of the preliminary determinations,
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
The Department will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the cash deposit rates listed below.
Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, the Department extended the four-month period to six months in each case.
Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, the Department will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after August 24, 2017, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determinations in the
With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of subject merchandise from Korea, the Department will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 26, 2016 (
The weighted-average antidumping duty margin percentages and cash deposit rates are as follows:
This notice constitutes the antidumping duty orders with respect to ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at
These orders are published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The products covered by these orders are cold-polymerized emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber. The scope of the orders includes, but is not limited to, ESB rubber in primary forms, bales, granules, crumbs, pellets, powders, plates, sheets, strip, etc. ESB rubber consists of non-pigmented rubbers and oil-extended non-pigmented rubbers, both of which contain at least one percent of organic acids from the emulsion polymerization process.
ESB rubber is produced and sold in accordance with a generally accepted set of product specifications issued by the International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers (IISRP). The scope of the investigations covers grades of ESB rubber included in the IISRP 1500 and 1700 series of synthetic rubbers. The 1500 grades are light in color and are often described as “Clear” or “White Rubber.” The 1700 grades are oil-extended and thus darker in color, and are often called “Brown Rubber.”
Specifically excluded from the scope of these orders are products which are manufactured by blending ESB rubber with other polymers, high styrene resin master batch, carbon black master batch (
The products subject to these orders are currently classifiable under subheadings 4002.19.0015 and 4002.19.0019 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). ESB rubber is described by Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Registry No. 9003-55-8. This CAS number also refers to other types of styrene butadiene rubber. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has completed its administrative review of the countervailing duty order (CVD) on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (solar products) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the June 10, 2014, through December 31, 2015, period of review (POR). We have determined that the mandatory respondent Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates (collectively, Trina Solar) received countervailable subsidies during the POR. The final net subsidy rates are listed below in the section, “Final Results of Administrative Review.” We are also rescinding the review for 22 companies for which all review requests were timely withdrawn or for which we have concluded that there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR.
Applicable September 12, 2017.
Joseph Traw, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-6079.
The Department published the
On June 8, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department extended the period for issuing the final results of this review by 60 days, to September 2, 2017. As September 2, 2017 is a Saturday and September 4, 2017 is Labor Day, the final results were extended until September 5, 2017.
The merchandise covered by this order are modules, laminates and/or panels consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including building integrated materials. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.8030, 8507.20.8040, 8507.20.8060, 8507.20.8090, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030 and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
All issues raised in interested parties' briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. A list of the issues raised by interested parties and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided in Appendix I to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Based on case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and all supporting documentation, we made changes from the
We are rescinding this administrative review for 22 companies
All companies for which we are rescinding this administrative review are listed in Appendix II to this notice. For these companies, countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the rates of the cash deposits for estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2).
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated a countervailable subsidy rate for the mandatory respondent, Trina Solar. For the non-selected companies subject to this review,
We will
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), we intend to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review, to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after June 10, 2014, through December 31, 2015, at the
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, we intend to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for each of the respective companies listed above. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction 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 terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that imports of carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from the Russian Federation (Russia) and the United Arab Emirates (the UAE) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of these investigations (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. Abinsk Electric Steel Works Ltd. (Abinsk) and JSC NLMK-Ural (NLMK Ural) are the mandatory respondents in the Russia investigation. Emirates Steel Industries PJSC (Emirates Steel) is the mandatory respondent in the UAE investigation. The estimated weighted average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determinations” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary determinations.
Applicable September 12, 2017.
Kaitlin Wojnar, 202-482-3857 (Russia), or Carrie Bethea at 202-482-1491 (UAE), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The Department published the notice of initiation of these investigations on April 26, 2017.
The products covered by these investigations are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter (wire rod). Interested parties filed comments regarding the scope of the investigations. On August 7, 2017, we issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum, which addressed these comments and established a briefing schedule for scope-related issues.
The Department is conducting these investigations in accordance with section 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, the Department preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available to assign an estimated weighted-average dumping margin to the mandatory respondents from Russia, Abinsk and NLMK Ural,
Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated, which shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
With respect to Russia, in the Petition,
On July 6, 2017, the petitioners filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of wire rod from Russia.
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of wire rod from Russia and the UAE, as described in the “scope of the investigations” section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
In addition, section 773(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. The Department preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise from Russia produced by Abinsk, NLMK Ural, and all other exporters and producers not individually examined. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall also apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise from the Russian exporters/producers identified in this paragraph that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.
The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
Because the mandatory respondents in these investigations did not provide the information requested and the Department preliminarily determines these respondents to have been uncooperative, the Department will not conduct verifications.
Pursuant to the schedule established in the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum, case briefs pertaining to the Department's preliminary scope determinations may be submitted no later than September 6, 2017.
Case briefs or other written comments pertaining to these preliminary determinations for Russia and UAE may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary determinations.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by these investigations are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (
The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093; 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Belarus is being, or likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Applicable September 12, 2017.
Rebecca Janz or Blaine Wiltse, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2972 or (202) 482-6345, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 26, 2017.
The product covered by this investigation is steel wire rod from Belarus. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Byelorussian Steel Works (BSW), the only mandatory respondent in this investigation and part of the Belarus-wide entity, failed to respond to sections C and D of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. Thus, the Department relied on the facts otherwise available on the record.
In the
The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated dumping margin exists:
In
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because the Department preliminarily applied adverse facts available (AFA) to the Belarus-wide entity in this investigation in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the applied AFA rate is based solely on information derived from the petition, there are no preliminary calculations to disclose.
Because the mandatory respondent in this investigation, BSW, did not provide information requested by the Department, and the Department preliminarily determines that BSW has been uncooperative, we will not conduct verification under section 782(i)(1) of the Act.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1) provide that the Department will issue the final determination within 75 days after the date of its preliminary determination. Accordingly, the Department will make its final determination no later than 75 days after the signature date of this preliminary determination, unless extended.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (
The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093; 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Announcement of rescheduled meeting of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of the: Advisory Panel Selection Committee (Closed); Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management Committee; Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) Committee; Snapper Grouper Committee; Personnel Committee (Closed); Mackerel Cobia Committee; and Executive Finance Committee. There will also be meetings of the full Council. The Council will also hold two formal public comment sessions and take action as necessary.
The meeting was originally scheduled for September 11-15, 2017, but has been postponed due to the threat of Hurricane Irma.
The Council meeting has been rescheduled for September 25-29, 2017. The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. on Monday, September 25, 2017 until 1 p.m. on Friday, September 29, 2017.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The original notice published in the
The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:
1. The Council will hold a special session to address management measures proposed for red snapper following introductions and approval of the June 2017 Council meeting minutes. The Council will receive presentations on new red snapper data for consideration and discuss options for
2. The Council is scheduled to take final action to approve Amendment 43 for Secretarial Review. The Council may also approve a request for Emergency Action relative to red snapper.
1. The Committee will review the structure of the Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management Advisory Panel and provide recommendations.
2. The Committee will review applications and provide recommendations for appointments to advisory panels.
1. The Committee will review, modify, and approve the Council's Essential Fish Habitat Policy Statement on Artificial Reefs and provide guidance on the draft Fishery Ecosystem Plan II Implementation Plan.
2. The Committee will receive an update on the Fishery Ecosystem Plan II Online System and a section update, an overview of the Habitat and Ecosystem Tools and Model development, discuss and provide guidance to staff.
1. The Committee will receive a report from the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) on the proposed Research Track Process for conducting stock assessments and provide guidance to staff.
2. The Committee will receive an update on the status of a joint Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Workshop between the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils and provide guidance to staff.
3. The Committee will also discuss guidance to the SEDAR Steering Committee as appropriate and provide direction to staff.
1. The Committee will receive updates from NOAA Fisheries on commercial catches versus quotas for species under ACLs and the status of amendments under formal Secretarial review.
2. The Committee will receive an overview of Vision Blueprint Regulatory Amendment 26 addressing recreational management actions and alternatives and Vision Blueprint Regulatory Amendment 27 addressing commercial management actions and alternatives, as identified in the 2016-20 Vision Blueprint for the Snapper Grouper Fishery. The Committee will modify the documents as necessary and provide guidance to staff.
3. The Committee will receive an update from Council staff on the Commercial Fishery Socio-economic Characterization/Portfolio analysis currently underway.
4. The Committee will review projections for red grouper, review management options and provide guidance to staff on development of an amendment to address management needs.
5. The Committee will discuss an amendment to address the Control Rule for Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC Control Rule Amendment) and possible adjustments to accountability measures for various management plans, discuss, and provide direction to staff.
6. The Committee will receive an update on the Wreckfish Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) review, including a report from a recent meeting of shareholders, and provide guidance to staff.
7. The Committee will address Atlantic coast-wide issues, including coast-wide plans to address climate change. This includes a review of state-by-state regulations for snapper grouper species in the Greater Atlantic Region and data collection and monitoring efforts. The Committee will discuss working with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to have them work with the states north of North Carolina to implement complementary regulations for snapper grouper species occurring in the Mid-Atlantic.
Public comment will be accepted on items on the Council agenda. The Council Chair, based on the number of individuals wishing to comment, will determine the amount of time provided to each commenter.
1. The Committee will conduct the performance review for the Executive Director.
1. The Committee will receive an update on commercial catches versus quotas for species managed under ACLs and an update on the status of amendments currently under Secretarial review.
2. The Committee will also receive an update on the status of a request for recalculation of the 2015 and 2016 recreational landings for Atlantic cobia, discuss and provide direction to staff.
3. The Committee will receive an update on development of the Interstate Atlantic Cobia Management Plan from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and updates from states on the 2017 Atlantic cobia season. The Committee will review public scoping comments on draft Amendment 31 to the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fishery Management Plan (FMP) addressing complementary management of Atlantic cobia with ASMFC or removal from the FMP. The Committee will provide guidance to staff.
4. The Committee will receive an overview of Atlantic king mackerel trip limits, discuss, and provide guidance to staff.
1. The Committee will receive a report from the August 2017 webinar meeting of the Executive Finance Committee and provide guidance as necessary.
2. The Committee will review the South Atlantic Regional Operations Agreement and the Council Follow-up and Priorities documents and provide guidance to staff.
3. The Committee will discuss options for an advisory panel/workgroup for the System Management Plan for the Council's managed areas and take action as necessary.
4. The Committee will discuss materials available for Council meetings and provide guidance to staff.
The Full Council will reconvene beginning on Thursday afternoon with a Call to Order, adoption of the agenda,
The Council will receive a Legal Briefing on Litigation from NOAA General Counsel (if needed) during Closed Session. The Council will receive the Executive Director's Report, an update on the Council's Citizen Science Program, and an overview of the economic value of South Atlantic fisheries. The Council will also receive reports from NOAA Fisheries on the status of commercial and recreational catches versus ACLs for species not covered during an earlier committee meeting, status of the South Atlantic For-Hire Amendment, status of Bycatch Collection Programs, landings of dolphin fish caught with pelagic longline gear by vessel permit type, and the status of commercial electronic logbook reporting. The Council will review any Exempted Fishing Permits received by NOAA Fisheries as necessary. The Council will receive Committee reports from the Advisory Panel Selection, Habitat and Ecosystem-Based Management, SEDAR, Snapper Grouper, Mackerel Cobia, and Executive Finance Committees, review recommendations, and take action as appropriate.
The Council will receive agency and liaison reports; and discuss other business and upcoming meetings.
Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS announces a meeting of the Permanent Advisory Committee (PAC) to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) on October 24-October 25, 2017. Meeting topics are provided under the
The meeting of the PAC will be held on October 24, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. HST (or until business is concluded) and October 25, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. HST (or until business is concluded).
The meeting will be held at the Outrigger Reef Waikiki Beach Resort, 2169 Kalia Road, Honolulu, Hawaii 96815—in the Diamond Head Terrace Meeting Room.
Emily Crigler, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; telephone: 808-725-5036; facsimile: 808-725-5215; email:
In accordance with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901
The PAC meeting topics may include the following: (1) Outcomes of the 2016 Annual Meeting and 2017 sessions of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, Northern Committee, and Technical and Compliance Committee; (2) conservation and management measures for bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, skipjack tuna and other species for 2017 and beyond; (3) potential U.S. proposals to WCPFC14; (4) input and advice from the PAC on issues that may arise at WCPFC14; (5) potential proposals from other WCPFC members; and (6) other issues.
The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Emily Crigler at (808) 725-5036 by October 6, 2017.
16 U.S.C. 6902.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting of the National Sea Grant Advisory Board (NSGAB).
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the NSGAB. NSGAB members will discuss and provide advice on the National Sea
The announced meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 16 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. ET and Tuesday, October 17 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ET.
The meeting will be held at the Embassy Suites by Hilton, 605 West Oglethorpe Avenue, Savannah, Georgia 31401.
For any questions concerning the meeting, please contact Mary Ann Garlic, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 11861, Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910, 301-734-1081,or via email at
The NSGAB expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of three (3) minutes. Written comments should be received by Mary Ann Garlic by Friday, October 13, 2017 to provide sufficient time for NSGAB review. Written comments received after the deadline will be distributed to the NSGAB, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-serve basis.
The NSGAB, which consists of a balanced representation from academia, industry, state government, and other relevant fields, was established in 1976 by Section 209 of the Sea Grant Improvement Act (Public Law 94-461, 33 U.S.C. 1128). The NSGAB advises the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the NSGCP with respect to operations under the Act, and such other matters as the Secretary refers to them for review and advice.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting (webinar).
The Groundfish Subcommittee of the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council's) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a meeting via webinar to review analyses informing 2019 and 2020 groundfish harvest specifications and other matters that will be considered at the November 14-20, 2017 Pacific Council meetings in Costa Mesa, California. The webinar meeting is open to the public.
The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee webinar will be held Thursday, September 28, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 10 a.m., and 1 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time) or until business for the day has been completed.
The SSC's Groundfish Subcommittee meeting will be held by webinar. To attend the webinar, (1) join the meeting by visiting this link
Mr. John DeVore, Staff Officer, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820-2413.
The purpose of the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee meeting is to review a new yelloweye rockfish rebuilding analysis, and review new data-limited estimates of overfishing limits (OFLs) for cowcod in the Monterey area, starry flounder, gopher rockfish off California, greenspotted rockfish north of 42°N. lat., blue and deacon rockfishes south of 34°27′ N. lat., blue and deacon rockfishes off Washington, and cabezon off Washington. Some of these data-limited OFLs may be reviewed and resolved by the SSC at the September 11-18, 2017 meeting in Boise, ID. If not, then the full suite of OFLs listed above will be reviewed by the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee at this September 28 webinar meeting. Additionally, the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee will review a paper addressing conditions placed on the west coast bottom trawl groundfish fishery for shortraker rockfish, silvergray rockfish, and California skate by the Marine Stewardship Council.
No management actions will be decided by the SSC's Groundfish Subcommittee. The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee members' role will be development of recommendations and reports for consideration by the SSC and Pacific Council at the November meeting in Costa Mesa, CA.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agendas 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 notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2411 at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and its advisory committees.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will meet October 2 through October 10, 2017.
The meetings will be held Monday, October 2 through Tuesday, October 10, 2017. See
The meeting will be held at the Anchorage Hilton Hotel, 500 W. 3rd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501.
David Witherell, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. in the Aleutian Room on Wednesday, October 4, continuing through Tuesday, October 10, 2017. The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will begin at 8 a.m. in the King Salmon/Iliamna Room on Monday, October 2 and continue through Wednesday, October 4, 2017. The Council's Advisory Panel (AP) will begin at 8 a.m. in the Dillingham/Katmai Room on Tuesday, October 3, and continue through Saturday, October 7, 2017. The IFQ Committee will meet October 2, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Room to be Determined); the Enforcement Committee will meet October 3, 2017, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. (Room TBD); the Legislative Committee will meet October 3, 2017, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. (Room TBD); and the Halibut Charter Management Committee will meet Tuesday, October 10, noon to 4 p.m. (Room TBD).
Council Plenary Session: The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues as well as an executive session. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified.
The Advisory Panel will address most of the same agenda issues as the Council except items 1-7.
The SSC agenda will include the following issues:
In addition to providing ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, the SSC functions as the Council's primary peer review panel for scientific information as described by the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(e), and the National Standard 2 guidelines (78 FR 43066). The peer review process is also deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Information Quality Act, including the OMB Peer Review Bulletin guidelines.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of public meeting.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), this notice sets forth the announcement of a public meeting of the Community Bank Advisory Council (CBAC or Council) of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau or CFPB). The notice also describes the functions of the Council.
The meeting date is Thursday, September 28, 2017, 3:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. eastern daylight time.
The meeting location is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Crystal Dully, Outreach and Engagement Associate, 202-435-9588,
Section 2 of the CBAC Charter provides: Pursuant to the executive and administrative powers conferred on the Bureau by section 1012 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the Director established the Community Bank Advisory Council under agency authority.
Section 3 of the CBAC Charter states: “The purpose of the Advisory Council is to advise the Bureau in the exercise of its functions under the federal consumer financial laws as they pertain to community banks with total assets of $10 billion or less.”
The Community Bank Advisory Council will discuss Know Before You Owe: Overdraft and financial empowerment initiatives.
Persons who need a reasonable accommodation to participate should contact
Written comments will be accepted from interested members of the public and should be sent to
The Council's agenda will be made available to the public on Wednesday September 13, 2017, via
A recording and transcript of this meeting will be available after the meeting on the CFPB's Web site
Air National Guard Bureau, Department of the Air Force.
Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Record of Decision (ROD).
On August 29, 2017, the United States Air Force signed the ROD for the Establishment and Modification of Oregon Military Training Airspace. The ROD states the Air Force decision to modify existing airspace and establish new airspace to support the Oregon Air National Guard's F-15 training operations and to implement practicable mitigations.
The decision was based on matters discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Proposed Establishment and Modification of Oregon Military Training Airspace; contributions from the public, tribes, and regulatory agencies; and other relevant factors. The FEIS was made available to the public on May 19, 2017 through a NOA in the
This NOA is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 1506.6) implementing the provisions of the NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Mr. Kevin Marek, NGB/A4, 3500 Fetchett Ave, JB Andrews, MD, 20762, ph: 240-612-8855.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 12, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 12, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Joanne Bogart, 202-205-7855.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; public comment request.
The Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on a revision of a currently approved collection of information that DOE is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a revision and three-year extension of its Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, OMB Control Number 1910-5150.
The proposed action will continue the collection of information on the status of financing program activities, expenditures, and results, to ensure that program funds are being used appropriately, effectively and expeditiously. No changes to the collection instrument are being proposed.
Comments regarding this revision to an approved information collection must be received on or before November 13, 2017. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in
Written comments may be sent to Sallie Glaize, EE-5W, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, Email:
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: James Carlisle, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: (202) 287-1724, Fax: (412) 386-5835, Email:
Additional information and reporting guidance concerning the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG) is available for review at the following Web site:
This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5150; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program Financing Programs; (3) Type of Review: Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection; (4) Purpose: To collect information on the status of Financing Program activities, expenditures, and results, to ensure that program funds are being used appropriately, effectively and expeditiously; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 108; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 175; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 525; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $21,000. Respondents, total responses, burden hours and the annual cost burden have all been significantly reduced because of the retirement of grants, fewer programs and a lessened burden on reporting and recordkeeping costs.
Title V, Subtitle E of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), Pub. L. 110-140 as amended (42 U.S.C. 17151
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Hudson Energy Services, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 26, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on September 1, 2017, Black Marlin Pipeline Company filed a request for waiver of requirements to file FERC Form No. 2-A and 3-Q, as required by 18 CFR 260.2 and 18 CFR 260.300.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Just Energy Pennsylvania Corp.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 26, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Just Energy Texas I Corp.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 26, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Environmental Protection Agency.
Reopening of comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reopening the public comment period on the “Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Availability of List Decisions.” In response to stakeholder requests, EPA is reopening the comment period October 12, 2017.
The comment period for the notice that was published on August 9, 2017 (82 FR 37214) is reopened. Comments must be submitted to EPA until October 12, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. FRL-9965-72-Region 2, to Aimee Boucher, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007, email
Aimee Boucher at (212) 637-3837 or at
On August 9, 2017, EPA published in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before November 13, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Section 90.176 requires each Private Land Mobile frequency coordinator to provide, within one business day, a listing of their frequency recommendations to all other frequency coordinators in their respective pool, and if requested, an engineering analysis.
Any method can be used to ensure this compliance with the “one business day requirement” and must provide, at a minimum, the name of the applicant; frequency or frequencies recommended; antenna locations and heights; and effective radiated power; the type(s) of emissions; the description of the service area; and the date and time of the recommendation. If a conflict in recommendations arises, the effected coordinators are jointly responsible for taking action to resolve the conflict, up to and including notifying the Commission that an application may have to be returned.
This requirement seeks to avoid situations where harmful interference is created because two or more coordinators recommend the same frequency in the same area at approximately the same time to different applicants.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before October 12, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before November 13, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email:
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
To implement these reforms and conduct competitive bidding for Mobility Fund Phase I support and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I support, the Commission adopted rules in sections 1.21004(a), 54.1004, 54.1005, 54.1006, 54.1007, and 54.1008 containing information collection requirements that would be used to determine whether a winning bidder of Mobility Fund Phase I support and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I support is qualified to receive such support. Section 1.21004(a) requires all winning bidders of universal service support to apply for the support by the applicable deadline. Sections 54.1005(b) and 54.1006 require a winning bidder to submit, using FCC Form 680, ownership information, proof of its status as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier, a description of its spectrum access, a detailed project description, any guarantee of performance that the Commission may require, and various certifications. Sections 54.1004(d)(3) and 54.1008(d) require a winning bidder to certify in its application that it has substantively engaged appropriate Tribal officials. In addition, sections 54.1007(a) and (b) require a winning bidder to obtain an irrevocable standby letter of credit, which the winning bidder must maintain until at least 120 days after the winning bidder receives its final distribution of support.
The Commission needs the information collection requirements to ensure that a winning bidder for universal support submits an application for support, which, in turn, will allow the Commission to determine whether the applicant is qualified to receive such support. The Commission also needs to use the information collected to protect the integrity of the universal service programs by requiring a winning bidder to maintain a letter of credit that will secure a return of universal service funds from a winning bidder that has defaulted on its obligations. Without such information, the Commission could not determine whether to provide the universal service support to the winning bidder or protect the government's interest in the funds it disburses in Mobility Fund Phase I and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before November 13, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission completed a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for some of the information collection requirements contained in this collection. The PIA was published in the
The Commission will use the information contained in FCC/WCB-1 to cover the personally identifiable information (PII) that is required as part of the Lifeline Program (“Lifeline”). As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission published FCC/WCB-1 “Lifeline Program” in the
Also, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission or to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC or Administrator) be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC's rules. We note that USAC must preserve the confidentiality of all data obtained from respondents; must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service programs; and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission.
On April 27, 2016, the Commission released an order reforming its low-income universal service support mechanisms. Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support; Connect America Fund, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 09-197, 10-90, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Report and Order, (
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before November 13, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections.
Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the mandatory Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with the Guidance on Response Programs for Unauthorized Access to Customer Information (FR 4100; OMB No. 7100-0309).
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by FR 4100, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, 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 information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposal prior to giving final approval.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 5, 2017.
1.
In connection with this application CBI Midco, Inc. and CBI Merger Sub, Inc., have applied to become bank holding companies.
1.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA or Agency or we) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH or Center), Office of Compliance (OC) and Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health (OIR) is announcing its Premarket Approval Application Critical to Quality (PMA CtQ) pilot program. Participation in the PMA CtQ pilot program is voluntary and the program aims to evaluate device design and manufacturing process quality information early on to assist FDA in its review of the PMA manufacturing section and post-approval inspections. This voluntary pilot program is part of the FDA's ongoing Case for Quality effort to apply innovative strategies that promote medical device quality and is a joint effort between the FDA's CDRH and Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA). The pilot program is intended to provide qualifying PMA applicants with the option to engage FDA on development of CtQ controls for their device and forego the standard PMA preapproval inspection. FDA would in turn, focus on the PMA applicant's implementation of the CtQ controls during a postmarket inspection.
FDA is seeking participation in the voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program starting from September 29, 2017. See the “Participation” section for instructions on how to submit a request to participate. This pilot program will run from September 29, 2017, to December 31, 2018. The voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program will accept the first nine participants with submissions that meet the acceptance criteria.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Bleta Vuniqi, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3463, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-5497,
CDRH believes that proactive engagement with PMA applicants and a focused inspectional approach will promote quality in device design and manufacturing. CDRH plans to initiate the voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program focusing on activities critical to product and process quality starting September 29, 2017. The Center intends to work collaboratively with PMA applicants identified to participate in the PMA CtQ pilot program to define characteristics of the PMA device that are critical to product quality and how these characteristics are controlled in design and manufacturing prior to the postmarket inspection. PMA applicants can expect discussions during the inspection to relate to those factors most likely to impact device quality by working with FDA, before PMA approval, on defining activities critical to product and process quality. Improvements in overall device quality may reduce device failures and recalls, and translate into more efficient utilization of resources for CDRH, ORA, and the device industry. Previously, CDRH's OC completed the implantable devices containing batteries Critical to Quality Inspection pilot which established a collaborative framework for determining specific operations, design considerations, and controls that most impact the quality and safety of these devices (Ref. 1). Post-inspection feedback from ORA and CDRH's OC indicated that FDA can improve its approach for medical device inspections by focusing on areas critical to quality of the device, which in turn will change the compliance focus to influence better device quality. In addition, feedback received from industry participants indicated that many of the risks for devices reside in product and process design and post-production activities.
Whether firms are appropriate candidates for participation in this voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program is determined based on the factors listed in Section A. Participation Criteria. Upon applicant's pre-PMA q-submission meeting request, FDA will identify appropriate candidates to participate in this voluntary pilot program. Due to resource constraints, we intend to limit this voluntary pilot program to a maximum of nine participants. FDA intends to work with each participating applicant to identify characteristics of its device and its manufacture that are critical to its quality, which may include specific device features or quality control practices. The identified CtQ characteristics and controls will help focus FDA's post-approval inspectional approach.
The aim of the voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program is to have the applicant discuss device design and manufacturing process quality information with FDA early on to assist FDA in its review of the PMA manufacturing section and post-approval inspections. The goal of this voluntary pilot program is to streamline the premarket approval process while assuring that a firm's quality system includes rigorous controls for features and characteristics considered critical to the safety and effectiveness of the device. FDA believes that focusing on these activities may also lead to fewer device failures, a decrease in device recalls, and improved device innovation and efficiencies. For participants in the voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program, FDA intends to forego conducting a preapproval inspection, which it would usually conduct, and instead conduct a more focused post-approval inspection. That post-approval inspection would focus on the design, manufacturing, and quality assurance practices identified by the applicant in its PMA. In addition, this voluntary pilot program is part of the FDA's ongoing Case for Quality effort to apply innovative strategies that promote medical device quality instead of focusing only on compliance with the Quality System regulation (Ref. 2). This voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program does not represent a new requirement; instead, it is an opportunity to promote quality in device manufacturing, timely review of the PMA manufacturing section and more effective use of inspectional resources, and an enhanced opportunity to engage with firms regarding device quality prior to marketing of the device. This voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program augments the FDA's traditional Quality System Inspection Technique (QSIT) inspectional approach, and does not replace it (Ref. 3).
Combination products, products regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, and companion diagnostic In Vitro Diagnostic devices that require coordination with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are not within the scope of this voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program.
Firms that are appropriate to participate in this voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program are those firms submitting an original PMA who follow the procedures set out in Section B and who also:
1. Submit a request for a pre-PMA q-submission meeting, and
a. Provide the recommended information identified in the guidance document, “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” dated February 18, 2014 (Ref. 4), along with a statement of interest for participation in this voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program in the applicant's cover letter.
b. Provide a list of PMA-related facilities responsible for the manufacture, processing, packing, or installation with the applicant's pre-PMA q-submission submission package.
c. If available, submit a draft list of critical characteristics for the device which is the subject of the PMA application.
2. As part of the PMA application, include the proposed list of critical characteristics as well as their associated controls for the device which is the subject of the PMA. The list should include characteristics where failure in meeting the characteristic would have a reasonable likelihood or a remote likelihood of causing a death or serious injury.
3. Have their PMA application accepted and filed for review by FDA (Ref. 5).
4. Have not had Quality System deficiencies identified in FDA's review of the manufacturing section of the applicant's PMA (Ref. 6).
5. Have had an FDA inspection of the PMA-related facilities conducted at least once within the last 5 years.
6. An FDA inspection of the PMA-related facilities has not been classified as Official Action Indicated or been subject to a judicial action (
Postmarket inspections under this proposed voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program will be conducted in accordance with FDA's general establishment inspection authority in section 704(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 374(a)). FDA intends for the investigator to follow the current medical device inspection model as outlined in the 2017 FDA Investigations Operations Manual (IOM) Chapter 5 and FDA Compliance Program 7383.001 “Medical Device Premarket Approval and Postmarket Inspections” dated March 5, 2012, with the following exceptions: (1) The inspection is conducted in the postmarket setting and (2) the postmarket inspection includes an evaluation of critical control measures for the production of the device are implemented (Ref. 8-10). Section 5.1.2 of the IOM provides the inspection may be directed for “obtaining specific information on new technologies, good commercial practices, or data for establishing food standards or other regulations.”
Additionally, FDA intends on soliciting feedback from ORA, industry participants, and CDRH's OC/OIR staff during the voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program. Feedback from participants will be gathered through meetings and questions proposed in Appendices A and B (Ref. 11).
The following captures FDA's expected process for the voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program:
1. A firm submits a pre-PMA q-submission meeting request at least 75-90 days in advance of submission of the PMA application following the recommendations outlined in the guidance document “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” (Ref. 4) dated February 18, 2014. Additional expectations, include:
a. Providing a statement in the pre-PMA q-submission to support being considered for participation in the voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program.
b. Providing a list of PMA-related facilities responsible for the manufacture, processing, packing, or installation for the device which is the subject of the PMA as part of the applicant's pre-PMA q-submission package.
c. If available, submitting a draft list of critical characteristics for the device which is the subject of the PMA application.
2. During the pre-PMA q-submission meeting, FDA clearly communicates the voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program expectations and discusses and provides the applicant's proposed draft list of critical characteristics for the PMA device and provide feedback.
3. Once a firm has expressed interest in participating in the voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program, CDRH determines whether:
a. all PMA-related facilities have been inspected within the last 5 years, and
b. all of the inspections of the PMA-related facilities have not been classified as Official Action Indicated and have not been subject to a judicial action (
4. The PMA application:
a. Is accepted and filed for review by FDA.
b. Includes as part of the manufacturing section the proposed list of device critical characteristics as well as their associated controls, which may include certain design, manufacturing, or quality assurance practices. The list of critical characteristics identified in 4(b) is based on risk to the patient or user, including whether failure in meeting the characteristic can have a reasonable likelihood or a remote likelihood of causing a death or serious injury.
c. Is accompanied by a streamlined process validation report to CDRH OC or OIR no later than day 45 within the PMA application process.
5. CDRH OC/OIR completes the following during review of the PMA application:
a. Checks the CtQ information for clarity, completeness, and relevance to the Quality System regulation within days 1-45, with the goal to have the list of device critical characteristics as well as their associated controls finalized by day 60 of the 180-day clock.
b. Reviews the manufacturing section of the PMA application within the first 30 days of the 180-day clock. If Quality System deficiencies are identified during this review, then the PMA application would no longer be appropriate for inclusion in this voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program. The reviewer would follow the current established procedures and place the PMA application on “hold” pending correction of the deficiencies.
c. Reviews the validation report identified in section B.4(c) within 30 calendar days of receipt. Any concerns raised by the validation report review may result in the issuance of a deficiency letter that will place the PMA on “hold” pending Good Manufacturing Practices corrections.
d. Provides an inspectional assignment to the investigator and makes necessary technical expertise available to the ORA. The critical characteristics and controls will help guide the investigator and appropriately focus their activities during the postmarket inspection. In addition, CDRH intends to include CtQ and control information in an inspectional assignment and contact the investigator(s) to discuss critical control measures and expectations prior to the inspection.
6. Following an approval decision, FDA conducts the postmarket inspection in accordance with the 2017 FDA IOM, Compliance Program 7382.845, and Compliance Program 7383.001 (Ref. 8-10) utilizing elements
7. Following completion of the inspection, participating FDA Offices and applicants provide the information/data needed to assess the voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program's impact on resource utilization and quality focus, utilizing the evaluation forms provided in Appendices A and B (Ref. 11).
During this voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program, CDRH staff intends to be available to answer questions or concerns that may arise. The voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program participants will be asked to comment on and discuss their experiences with the PMA CtQ pilot submission process. Comments and discussions may assist FDA in determining whether the goals of this voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program goal are clearly communicated and attainable.
FDA intends to accept requests for participation in the voluntary PMA CtQ pilot program from September 29, 2017, to December 31, 2018, or until such time as when a total of nine PMAs have been enrolled.
This notice refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.
The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is extending the comment period for the notice that appeared in the
FDA is extending the comment period on the notice published August 14, 2017 (82 FR 37866). Submit either electronic or written comments by September 20, 2017.
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 September 20, 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
James R. Hunter, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Controlled Substance Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 5150, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3156, email:
In the
The Agency has received requests for an extension of the comment period for the notice. Each request conveyed concern that the current 30-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the notice.
FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period for the notice until September 20, 2017. The Agency believes this extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Evaluation and Reporting of Age, Race, and Ethnicity Data in Medical Device Clinical Studies.” The purpose of this document is to outline FDA's recommendations and expectations for the evaluation and reporting of age, race, and ethnicity data in medical device clinical studies. The primary intent of these recommendations is to improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of data regarding the performance of medical devices within specific age, race, and ethnic groups.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a
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
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Katheryn O'Callaghan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5418, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6349; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
Section 907 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) (FDASIA) directed the Agency to publish and provide to Congress a report describing the extent to which clinical trial participation and safety and effectiveness data by demographic subgroups, including sex, age, race, and ethnicity, is included in applications submitted to FDA (Ref. 1). Section 907 also directed FDA to publish and provide to Congress an action plan outlining recommendations to improve the completeness and quality of analyses of data on demographic subgroups in summaries of product safety and effectiveness data and in labeling; on the inclusion of such data, or the lack of availability of such data, in labeling, and to improve the public availability of such data to patients health care providers and researchers, and to indicate the applicability of these recommendations to the types of medical products addressed in section 907. In the Action Plan, FDA committed to developing this guidance as part of the strategy to fulfill FDASIA requirements (Ref. 2).
This guidance outlines FDA's recommendations and expectations for patient enrollment, data analysis, and reporting of age, race, and ethnicity data in medical device clinical studies. Specific objectives of this guidance are to (1) encourage the collection and consideration of age, race, ethnicity, and associated covariates (
FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance that appeared in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Evaluation and Reporting of Age, Race, and Ethnicity data in Medical Device Clinical
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). These collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0332; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 822 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0449; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff office (see
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR must be received no later than November 13, 2017.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The intent of the NPDB is to improve the quality of health care by encouraging hospitals, State licensing boards, professional societies, and other entities providing health care services to identify and discipline those who engage in unprofessional behavior, and to restrict the ability of incompetent health care practitioners, providers, or suppliers to move from State to State without disclosure of previous damaging or incompetent performance. It also serves as a fraud and abuse clearinghouse for the reporting and disclosing of certain final adverse actions (excluding settlements in which no findings of liability have been made) taken against health care practitioners, providers, or suppliers by health plans, Federal agencies, and State agencies.
The reporting forms, request for information forms (query forms), and administrative forms (used to monitor compliance) are accessed, completed, and submitted to the NPDB
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
Government owned intellectual property covering imaging agents with improved renal clearance available for licensing and commercialization.
Licensing information and copies of the patent applications listed below may be obtained by emailing the indicated licensing contact at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood, Office of Technology Transfer and Development Office of Technology Transfer, 31 Center Drive, Room 4A29, MSC2479, Bethesda, MD 20892-2479; telephone: 301-402-5579. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing. A description of the technology available for licensing follows.
• Blood pool imaging.
• Lymphatic system imaging.
• In vivo data available.
• U.S. Patent Applications 14/675,364 filed March 31, 2015 and 15/587,948 filed May 5, 2017.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following 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 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 contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment has developed a set of infrastructure development measures in which recipients of cooperative agreements will report on various benchmarks on a semi-annual basis. The infrastructure development measures are designed to collect information at the state-level and site-level.
The projects were previously named State Adolescent Treatment Enhancement and Dissemination (SAT-ED) and State Youth Treatment Enhancement and Dissemination (SYT-ED) Programs and are now called State Adolescent And Transitional Aged Youth Treatment Enhancement and Dissemination Implementation (SYT-I) and Adolescent and Transitional Aged Youth Treatment Implementation (YT-I) Programs.
No changes have been made to the Biannual Infrastructure Development Measures Report. The only revision to the biannual progress report is due to the decrease in the number of respondents. The infrastructure development measures are based on the programmatic requirements conveyed in TI-15-004, Cooperative Agreements for SYT-I and TI-17-002, Cooperative Agreements for YT-I.
The purpose of this program is to provide funding to States/Territories/Tribes to improve treatment for adolescents and transitional age youth through the development of a learning laboratory with collaborating local community-based treatment provider sites. Through the shared experience between the State/Territory/Tribe and the local community-based treatment provider sites, an evidence-based practice (EBP) will be implemented, youth and families will be provided services, and a feedback loop will be developed to enable the State/Territory/Tribe and the sites to identify barriers and test solutions through a services component operating in real time. The expected outcomes of these cooperative agreements will include needed changes to State/Territorial/Tribal policies and procedures; development of financing structures that work in the current environment; and a blueprint for States/Territories/Tribes and providers that can be used throughout the State/Territory/Tribe to widen the use of effective substance use treatment EBPs. Additionally, adolescents (ages 12 to 18), transitional age youth (ages 18 to 24), and their families/primary caregivers who are provided services through grant funds will inform the process to improve systems issues.
Estimates for response burden were calculated based on the methodology (survey data collection) being used and are based on previous experience collecting similar data and results of the pilot study. For emailed biannual surveys, burden estimates of 12.0 hours were used for Project Directors and/or Program Managers and burden estimates of 7.2 hours were used for other project staff members. It is estimated that 11 Project Directors and/or Program Managers and 22 other staff members from Cohort 1 will respond to the emailed survey biannually (
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by October 12, 2017 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of approval of Intertek USA, Inc., Baytown, TX, as a commercial gauger.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc., Baytown, TX, has been approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of September 29, 2014.
As of September 29, 2014, Intertek USA, Inc., Baytown, TX, was reapproved as a Customs-approved commercial gauger. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2017.
Mr. Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 2612 West Main St., Baytown, TX 77520, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., Savannah, GA, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc., Savannah, GA, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of September 22, 2016.
As of September 22, 2016, Intertek USA, Inc., Savannah, GA, was reapproved as a Customs-approved commercial gauger and reaccredited as a Customs-accredited laboratory. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2019.
Mr. Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 312 Carolan St., Savannah, GA 31415, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation of Intertek USA, Inc., Yabucoa, PR, as a commercial laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc., Yabucoa, PR, has been accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of July 7, 2016.
As of July 7, 2016, Intertek USA, Inc., Yabucoa, PR, was reaccredited as a Customs-accredited laboratory. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for July 2019.
Mr. Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12, that Intertek USA, Inc., Road #901, Km. 2.7, Bo. Camino Nuevo, Yabucoa, PR 00767-0186, has been accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12. Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test this entity is accredited to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-3382-EM), dated August 28, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued August 28, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 28, 2017, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of Louisiana resulting from Tropical Storm Harvey beginning on August 27, 2017, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, William J. Doran III, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of Louisiana have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
Beauregard, Calcasieu, Cameron, Jefferson Davis, and Vermillion Parishes for emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Idaho (FEMA-4333-DR), dated August 27, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued August 27, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 27, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Idaho resulting from flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of May 6 to June 16, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Timothy B. Manner, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Idaho have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Blaine, Camas, Custer, Elmore, and Gooding Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Idaho are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4325-DR), dated August 1, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued August 21, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Nebraska is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 1, 2017.
Platte County for Public Assistance.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of determination.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, pursuant to law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the international land border of the United States near the city of Calexico in the state of California.
This determination takes effect on September 12, 2017.
The principal mission requirements of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) include border security and the detection and prevention of illegal entry into the United States. Border security is critical to the nation's national security. Recognizing the critical importance of border security, Congress has ordered DHS to achieve and maintain operational control of the international land border. Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, 2, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1701 note). Congress defined “operational control” as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband. Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, 2, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1701 note). Consistent with that mandate from Congress, the President's Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements directed executive departments and agencies to deploy all lawful means to secure the southern border. Executive Order 13767, § 1. To achieve this end, the President directed, among other things, that I take immediate steps to prevent all unlawful entries into the United States, to include the immediate construction of physical infrastructure to prevent illegal entry. Executive Order 13767, § 4(a).
Congress has provided the Secretary of Homeland Security with a number of authorities necessary to carry out DHS's border security mission. One of these authorities is found at section 102 of the
The United States Border Patrol's El Centro Sector is an area of high illegal entry. In fiscal year 2016 alone, the United States Border Patrol (“Border Patrol”) apprehended over 19,000 illegal aliens and seized approximately 2,900 pounds of marijuana and approximately 126 pounds of cocaine. Since the creation of DHS, and through the construction of border infrastructure and other operational improvements, the Border Patrol has been able to make significant gains in border security within the El Centro Sector; however, more work needs to be done. The El Centro Sector remains an area of high illegal entry for which there is an immediate need to construct border barriers and roads.
To begin to meet the need for enhanced border infrastructure in the El Centro Sector, DHS will take immediate action to replace existing primary fencing. Fence replacement in the El Centro Sector is among DHS's highest priority border security requirements. The fence replacement will take place along an approximately three mile segment of the border that starts at the Calexico West Land Port of Entry and extends westward. This approximately three mile segment of the border is referred to herein as the “Project Area” and is more specifically described in Section 2 below.
The replacement of primary fencing within the Project Area will further Border Patrol's ability to deter and prevent illegal crossings. The existing primary fencing was installed in the 1990s, using a design that is no longer optimal for Border Patrol operations. The existing fourteen foot, landing mat-style fencing will be replaced with an eighteen to twenty-five foot barrier that employs a more operationally effective design that is intended to meet Border Patrol's operational requirements. In addition, DHS will, where necessary, make improvements to an existing patrol road within the Project Area to ensure that it meets Border Patrol's operational standards. Replacing the existing primary fence with a new, more operationally effective design and improving the existing patrol road will improve Border Patrol's operational efficiency and, in turn, further deter and prevent illegal crossings.
I determine that the following area in the vicinity of the United States border, located in the State of California within the United States Border Patrol's El Centro Sector is an area of high illegal entry (the “Project Area”): Starting at the Calexico West Land Port of Entry and extending approximately three miles westward.
There is presently a need to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States to deter illegal crossings in the Project Area. In order to ensure the expeditious construction of the barriers and roads in the Project Area, I have determined that it is necessary that I exercise the authority that is vested in me by section 102(c) of the IIRIRA as amended.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 102(c) of IIRIRA, I hereby waive in their entirety, with respect to the construction of roads and physical barriers (including, but not limited to, accessing the Project Area, creating and using staging areas, the conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill, and site preparation, and installation and upkeep of physical barriers, roads, supporting elements, drainage, erosion controls, and safety features) in the Project Area, the following statutes, including all federal, state, or other laws, regulations and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject of, the following statutes, as amended: The National Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970) (42 U.S.C. 4321
I reserve the authority to make further waivers from time to time as I may determine to be necessary under section 102 of the IIRIRA, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 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: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Ivery W. Himes, Director, Office of Single Family Asset Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1672. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
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 Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 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: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Cheryl Walker, Director, Home
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
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.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), are proposing renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 13, 2017.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW., Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20240, Attention: Jean Sonneman; by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Subijoy Dutta by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BLM; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BLM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BLM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We are requesting that additions be made to control number 1004-0137 as a result of the rules on approval of operations, site security, and measurement of oil. We are also requesting removal of a historic IC activity (“Gas Flaring”) from control number 1004-0137 because the waste prevention rule removed the regulatory authority for that activity.
In addition to the rules and order listed above, we take note of a recent BLM rule on hydraulic fracturing and a recent federal district court ruling. On June 21, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming set aside a BLM rule on hydraulic fracturing (80 FR 16128 (March 26, 2015). See
The following table details the individual components and respective hour burden estimates of this information collection request:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of reinstatement.
In accordance with Title IV of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act, Crescent Point Energy and EnCana Oil & Gas USA Inc. timely filed a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas leases UTU74837 and UTU75675 for lands in Uintah County, Utah, along with all required rentals and royalties accruing from October 1, 2014, the date of termination. The Bureau of Land Management proposes to reinstate the leases.
Kent Hoffman, Deputy State Director, Lands and Minerals, Utah State Office, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101, phone 801-539-4063, Email:
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The lessee has agreed to new lease terms for rental and royalty. The rental for UTU74837 and UTU75675 will increase to $10 per acre and the royalty to 16
The following-described lands in Uintah County, Utah, include:
The area described contains 160 acres.
The area described contains 160 acres.
As the lessee has met all of the requirements for reinstatement of the leases set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), the BLM is proposing to reinstate the leases 30 days following publication of the Notice, with an effective date of Sept. 1, 2014, subject to the original terms and conditions of the leases and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.
The leases are subject to the new terms and conditions and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above, and an extension for 2 years from the date the leases are reinstated in accordance with 43 CFR 3108.2-3(e). Three lease notices are being added to UTU75675, (1) UT-LN-131: Sage Grouse Net Conservation Gain; (2) UT-LN-132: Sage Grouse Required Design Features; and (3) UT-LN-133: Greater Sage Grouse Buffer.
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188).
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Rockwell Automation, Inc. on September 6, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain industrial automation systems and components thereof including control systems, controllers, visualization hardware, motion and motor control systems, networking equipment, safety devices, and power supplies. The complaint names as respondents Can Electric Limited of China; Capnil (HK) Company Limited of Hong Kong; Fractioni (Hongkong) Ltd. of China; Fujian Dahong Trade Co., Ltd. of China; GreySolution Limited d/b/a Fibica of Hong Kong; Huang Wei Feng d/b/a A-O-M Industry of China; KBS Electronics Suzhou Co, Ltd., of China; PLC-VIP Shop d/b/a VIP Tech Limited of Hong Kong; Radwell International, Inc. d/b/a PLC Center of Willingboro, NJ; Shanghai EuoSource Electronic Co., Ltd. of China; ShenZhen T-Tide Trading Co., Ltd. of China; SoBuy Commercial (HK) Co. Limited of Hong Kong; Suzhou Yi Micro Optical Co., Ltd. d/b/a Suzhou Yiwei Guangxue Youxiangongsi d/b/a Easy Micro-optics Co. LTD. of China; Wenzhou Sparker Group Co. Ltd. d/b/a Sparker Instruments of China, and Yaspro Electronics (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3249”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on high pressure steel cylinders from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
August 4, 2017.
Celia Feldpausch (
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2017.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any additional information, please contact Ed Stely, Branch Chief, Tracing Operations and Records Management Branch, National Tracing Center Division, either by mail at 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, or by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
On August 28, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in the lawsuit entitled
The United States and State of Georgia filed this lawsuit under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). The complaint names Woco Pep Oil, Inc. as defendant. The complaint seeks injunctive relief necessary for the Defendant to achieve compliance with the CWA and RCRA, as well as the imposition of civil penalties for violations of the law. Under the proposed Consent Decree, the defendant agrees to pay a civil penalty of $24,000 to be divided evenly between the State and the United States. The Defendant further agrees under the proposed Consent Decree to perform injunctive relief which will bring it into compliance with the law and to perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (“SEP”). The SEP requires the Defendant to install advanced technology to improve leak detection at its facilities that exceeds the minimum standards set forth in applicable regulations.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decrees may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $16.50 for the Consent Decree (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On August 31, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed second modification to consent decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit under the Clean Air Act. The United States' complaint alleges that Bayer CropScience violated section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412(r), which addresses the prevention of accidental releases. The claims arise out of a 2008 explosion at the Methomyl production unit at Bayer CropScience's plant in Institute, West Virginia. The original consent decree, which was entered by the court on August 9, 2016, required the defendant, Bayer CropScience LP, to pay a civil penalty of $975,000, to perform injunctive relief to reduce the likelihood of future accidents at the Institute Plant and several other chemical processing plants, and to perform supplemental environmental projects valued collectively at $4.23 million. The proposed modification replaces one of the supplemental environmental projects, which entailed expanding a wastewater sump, with another project that entails purchasing emergency response equipment. As a result, the total cost of the supplemental environmental projects will decrease to $3.05 million.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed second modification to consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $6.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Hoist Operators' Physical Fitness” 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 October 12, 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-MSHA, 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
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Hoist Operators' Physical Fitness information collection requirements codified in regulations 30 CFR 56.19057 and 57.19057 that require the annual examination and certification of a hoist operator's fitness by a qualified, licensed physician that includes documentation and recordkeeping requirements. The safety of all metal and nonmetal miners riding hoist conveyances is largely dependent upon the attentiveness and physical capabilities of the hoist operator. Improper movements, over-speed, and over-travel of a hoisting conveyance can result in serious physical harm or death to all passengers. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 sections 101(a) and 103(h) 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
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 September 30, 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,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Earth Science Advisory Committee (ESAC). The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Monday, October 2, 2017, 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.
This meeting will be open to the public telephonically. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the USA toll free number 1-800-369-3189, passcode 9725782, followed by the # sign, to participate in this meeting by telephone.
KarShelia Henderson, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355, fax (202) 358-2779, or
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topic:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of a request for comments regarding a new information collection.
As part of the Federal Government-wide ongoing effort to streamline how agencies request feedback from the public on services (also called “service delivery”), we are proposing to renew a generic information collection request (generic ICR) entitled Generic Clearance for Collecting Qualitative Feedback on Agency Services (previously entitled Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery). This notice announces that we have submitted this generic ICR plan to OMB for renewed approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act and solicits comments on specific aspects of the collection plan.
OMB must receive written comments at the address below on or before October 12, 2017.
Send comments to Mr. Nicholas A. Fraser, desk officer for NARA, by mail to Office of Management and Budget; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC 20503; by fax to 202-395-5167; or by email to
To request additional information, please contact Tamee Fechhelm by telephone at 301-837-1694 or by fax at 301-837-0319.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13), we invite comments on: (a) Whether collecting this information is necessary for proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
A generic ICR is a request for OMB to approve a plan for conducting more than one information collection using very similar methods when (1) we can evaluate the need for and the overall practical utility of the data in advance, as part of the review of the proposed plan, but (2) we cannot determine the details of the specific individual collections until a later time. Most generic clearances cover collections that are voluntary, low-burden (based on a consideration of total burden, total respondents, or burden per respondent), and uncontroversial. This notice, for example, describes a general plan to gather views from the public through a series of customer satisfaction surveys in which we ask the public about certain agency activities or services and how well we are providing them. As part of this plan, we construct, distribute, and analyze the surveys in a similar manner, but customize each survey for the type of service it is measuring.
Because we seek public comment on the plan, we do not need to seek public comment on each specific information collection that falls within the plan when we later develop the individual information collection. This saves the Government time and burden, and it streamlines our ability to gather performance feedback. However, we still submit each specific information collection (
• The collection is voluntary;
• The collection is low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and is low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collection is non-controversial and does not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• It is targeted to solicit opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
As a general matter, information collections under this generic collection request will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when agencies no longer need them for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the
NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by October 12, 2017. Once NARA finishes appraising the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send to you these requested documents in which to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA) using one of the following means:
You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.
Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA), National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001, by phone at 301-837-1799, or by email at
NARA publishes notice in the
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing records retention periods and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the agency to dispose of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it creates or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is expressly limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
Agencies may not destroy Federal records without Archivist of the United States' approval. The Archivist approves destruction only after thoroughly considering the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.
In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records (or notes that the schedule has agency-wide applicability when schedules cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency); provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction); and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it also includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.
1. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (DAA-0145-2017-0024, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records related to hazardous waste, including site files, interagency agreements, and contracts.
2. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2017-0005, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to manage the status of members of the Continuity of Operations Program for the headquarters office of the Department of the Army staff.
3. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2017-0006, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that creates components of safety certificates for transportation and handling of hazardous materials.
4. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (DAA-0370-2017-0002, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master
5. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (DAA-0568-2017-0011, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records include law enforcement training program accreditations, student training files, and peer support program records.
6. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DAA-0567-2017-0004, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master file of an electronic information system used to manage travel documents, such as temporary passports, that allows individuals to obtain travel documents from country of origin to travel internationally.
7. Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (DAA-0566-2017-0004, 1 item, 1 temporary item). District office files related to enforcement actions carried out prior to 1955, by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which were not integrated into the immigrants' files.
8. Department of Justice, Justice Management Division (DAA-0060-2017-0028, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records summarizing adverse action and background investigations, and suitability appeal files.
9. National Indian Gaming Commission, Agency-wide (DAA-0600-2017-0011, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system containing Indian casino site visit data and casino applicant credentialing data.
10. Peace Corps, Office of the Director (DAA-0490-2017-0006, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Records of the Let Girls Learn Program including routine administrative support records and correspondence. Proposed for permanent retention are high level correspondence and policies associated with the program.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice.
NARA is giving notice that it has submitted to OMB for approval the information collection described in this notice. We invite you to comment on the proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
OMB must receive written comments at the address below on or before October 12, 2017.
Send comments to Mr. Nicholas A. Fraser, desk officer for NARA, by mail to Office of Management and Budget; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC 20503; by fax to 202-395-5167; or by email to
Direct requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collection and supporting statement to Tamee Fechhelm by phone at 301-837-1694 or by fax at 301-837-0319.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on information collections we propose to renew. We submit proposals to renew information collections first through a public comment period and then to OMB for review and approval pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
We invite comments on: (a) Whether collecting this information is necessary for proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of our estimate of the information collection's burden on respondents; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information we propose to collect; (d) ways to minimize the burden on respondents of collecting the information, 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. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources people need to provide the information, including time to review instructions, process and maintain the information, search data sources, and respond.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public
Submit comments by November 13, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0274 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0274 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from August 15, 2017 to August 28, 2017. The last biweekly notice was published on August 29, 2017.
Comments must be filed by October 12, 2017. A request for a hearing must be filed by November 13, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0189, facility name, unit numbers, plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0189, facility name, unit numbers, plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV [reactor pressure vessel] water inventory in Mode 4 (
The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected draining event, which is not a previously evaluated accident, by imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event. The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event. The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected draining event, which is not a previously evaluated accident, by requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of water injection and additional confirmations that containment and/or filtration would be available if needed. The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond to a draining event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no different than if those systems were unable to perform their function under the current TS requirements. The event of concern under the current requirements and the proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design and licensing bases.
Thus, based on the above, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. New requirements are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel, should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety and to add safety margin.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment would not take effect until the PNP Certified Fuel Handler Training and Retraining Program has been approved by the NRC, and PNP has permanently ceased operation and entered a permanently defueled condition. The proposed changes would revise the PNP TS by modifying the definitions, in TS Section 1.0, and administrative controls, in TS Section 5.0, to correspond to the permanently defueled condition. Additionally, certain portions of the administrative control sections are deleted because they are no longer applicable to a permanently defueled facility.
The proposed deletion and modification of provisions of the administrative controls do not directly affect the design of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) necessary for safe storage of spent nuclear fuel or the methods used for handling and storage of such fuel in the spent fuel pool (SFP). The proposed changes to the administrative controls are administrative in nature and do not affect any accidents applicable to the safe management of spent nuclear fuel or the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the reactor. Thus, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not increased.
In a permanently defueled condition, the only credible accidents are the fuel handling accident (FHA), the failure of tanks containing radioactive liquids, and a spent fuel cask drop accident. The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents is not increased, because extended operation in a permanently defueled condition will be the only operation allowed. This mode of operation is bounded by the existing analyses. Additionally, the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation are no longer credible in a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly reduces the scope of applicable accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment has no impact on facility systems, structures, and components (SSCs) affecting the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel, or on the methods of operation of such SSCs, or on the handling
The proposed amendment does not affect systems credited in the PNP accident analysis for a[n] FHA, or for mitigating accident releases from the failure of tanks containing radioactive liquids or from a spent fuel cask drop. The proposed changes will continue to require proper control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and activities.
The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms that could damage the remaining relevant safety barriers that support maintaining the plant in a permanently shutdown and defueled condition (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed amendment involves deleting and/or modifying certain TS requirements once the PNP has been permanently shutdown and defueled. As specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR 50 license for PNP will no longer authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel following submittal of the certifications required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1). Therefore, the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation are no longer credible.
The only remaining credible accidents are the fuel handling accident (FHA), the failure of tanks containing radioactive liquids, and a spent fuel cask drop accident. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses that impact these analyzed conditions.
The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the TS that are not related to the SSCs that are important to the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel. The requirements that are proposed to be revised or deleted from the PNP TS are not credited in the existing accident analysis for the remaining applicable postulated accidents, and as such, do not contribute to the margin of safety associated with the accident analysis. Postulated design basis accidents involving the reactor are no longer possible because the reactor will be permanently shutdown and defueled, and PNP will no longer be authorized to operate the reactor or retain or place fuel in the reactor vessel.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No physical changes to the facility will occur as a result of this proposed amendment. The proposed changes will not alter the physical design. The proposed change will revise the current TS 4.3.2 value for the SFP [spent fuel pool] level design to be consistent with the original design basis value and the applicable regulatory requirements. The proposed value will continue to ensure that inadvertent draining of the SFP will not result in the uncovering of spent fuel, as well as provide adequate shielding for personnel protection.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not alter the physical design, safety limits, or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the plant. Accordingly, the change does not introduce any new accident initiators, nor does it reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of any plant structure, system, or component to perform their safety function. The proposed change will revise the current TS 4.3.2 value for the SFP level design to be consistent with the original design basis value and the applicable regulatory requirements. The proposed value will continue to ensure that inadvertent draining of the SFP will not result in the uncovering of spent fuel, as well as provide adequate shielding for personnel protection.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change conforms to NRC regulatory guidance regarding the content of plant Technical Specifications. The proposed change does not alter the physical design, safety limits, or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the plant.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes replace existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit 2.1.4. Draining of RPV water inventory in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4 (
The proposed changes reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event. The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event.
The proposed changes reduce the consequences of an unexpected draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be operable at all times in OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 4 and 5. The current TS requirements do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be Operable in certain conditions in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 5. The change in requirement from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 4 and 5 does not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of water injection and additional confirmations that containment and/or filtration would be available if needed.
The proposed changes reduce or eliminate some requirements that were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a draining event in OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond to a draining event.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes replace existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit 2.1.4. The proposed changes will not alter the design function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed changes, some systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no different than if those systems were unable to perform their function under the current TS requirements.
The event of concern under the current requirements and the proposed changes is an unexpected draining event. The proposed changes do not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design and licensing bases.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes replace existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.4. New requirements are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water inventory could drain to the TAF in the reactor vessel should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety and to add safety margin.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The amendments would modify the Technical Specifications (TSs) by limiting the MODE of applicability for the Reactor Protection System (RPS), Startup, and Operating Rate of Change of Power—High, functional unit trip. Additionally, the proposed amendments add new Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.5 and relatedly modifies LCO 3.0.1 and LCO 3.0.2, to provide for placing inoperable equipment under administrative control for the purpose of conducting testing required to demonstrate OPERABILITY.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Limiting the MODE 1 applicability for RPS functional unit, Startup and Operating Rate of Change of Power—High, to Power Range Neutron Flux Power ≤15% of RATED THERMAL POWER, is an administrative change in nature and does not alter the manner in which the functional unit is operated or maintained. The proposed changes do not represent any physical
The proposed addition of new LCO 3.0.5 to the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS and related modification to [LCO 3.0.1 and] LCO 3.0.2 is consistent with the guidance provided in NUREG-1432, Volume 1 [ADAMS Accession No. ML12102A165] (Reference 6.1 [of the amendment request]) and thereby has been previously evaluated by the Commission with a determination that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Therefore, facility operation in accordance with the proposed license amendments would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Limiting the MODE 1 applicability for the RPS functional unit, Startup and Operating Rate of Change of Power—High, to Power Range Neutron Flux Power ≤15% of RATED THERMAL POWER, is an administrative change in nature and does not involve the addition of any plant equipment, methodology or analyses. The proposed changes do not alter the design, configuration, or method of operation of the subject RPS functional unit or of any other SSC. More specifically, the proposed changes neither alter the power rate-of-change trip function nor its ability to bypass and reset as required. The subject RPS functional unit remains capable of performing its design function.
The proposed addition of new LCO 3.0.5 to the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS and related modification to [LCO 3.0.1 and] LCO 3.0.2 is consistent with the guidance provided in NUREG-1432, Volume 1 (Reference 6.1 [of the amendment request]) and thereby has been previously evaluated by the Commission with a determination that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Limiting the MODE 1 applicability for RPS functional unit, Startup and Operating Rate of Change of Power—High, to Power Range Neutron Flux Power ≤15% of RATED THERMAL POWER is an administrative change in nature. The proposed changes neither involve changes to any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings nor do they adversely impact plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in safety analyses.
The proposed addition of new LCO 3.0.5 to the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS and related modification to [LCO 3.0.1 and] LCO 3.0.2 is consistent with the guidance provided in NUREG-1432, Volume 1 (Reference 6.1 [of the amendment request]) and thereby has been previously evaluated by the Commission with a determination that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS Action. Being in a TS Action is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on Actions as allowed by the proposed LCO 3.0.4 are no different than the consequences of an accident while relying on Actions for other reasons, such as equipment inoperability. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Entering into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS while in a TS Action, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified condition in the applicability of a TS while in a TS Action. The TS allow operation of the plant without the full complement of equipment through the Actions for not meeting the TS Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO). The risk associated with this allowance is managed by the imposition of Actions that must be performed within the prescribed completion times. The net effect of being in a TS Action on the margin of safety is not considered
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No, the proposed amendment would not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment removes conformance conflicts within the Technical Specifications that would occur when operating the reactor as permitted under TSs 2.2(4). The conflicts are removed from the TSs by adding exception statements. When the reactor is operated under the NRC approved conditions in TSs 2.2(4), steady state thermal hydraulic analysis shows that operation at less than 500 kW [kilowatt] with natural circulation results in a critical heat flux ratio and onset of flow instability ratio greater than 2. Transient analysis of reactivity insertion accidents shows that the fuel cladding temperature remains far below the safety limit. The limit of 10 kw was chosen since that was deemed adequate for any operational situation requiring natural circulation operation, such as testing of an unknown core loading.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No, the proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment removes conformance conflicts within the Technical Specifications that would occur when operating the reactor as permitted under TSs 2.2(4). The conflicts are removed from the TSs by adding exception statements. The accident analysis was discussed in the document, NIST Response to NRC Request for Information (TAC No. MD3410), August 19, 2008, ADAMS Accession Number ML082890338. The request from the NRC was: “. . . Provide justification for 500 kW power operations under natural convection flow by demonstrating that no credible accidents would result in exceeding the safety limit. . . ,” the following was the response by NIST. “This analysis shows that there is ample margin between the maximum clad temperature in any credible accident and the safety limit of 450 °C [degrees Centigrade].” The details of the analysis are presented in the above reference.
The intent with this amendment is to allow, without apparent TSs nonconformance, operation analyzed and evaluated by the NRC. This will allow the use of testing similar to that which was performed in the commissioning of NIST test reactor.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No, the proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. This amendment will allow testing when commissioning a core configuration that is unknown in the most conservative manner appropriate. It removes apparent TS conflicts that would force the licensee into situations that would be less conservative and with less margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The changes to Combined License (COL) Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 2.2.4-1 and Figure 2.2.4-1, and associated Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (USFAR) design information do not adversely impact previously evaluated accidents. The addition of the thermal relief valves to the feedwater lines does not adversely impact the ability to isolate the main and startup feedwater lines following a steam or
No safety-related structure, system, component (SSC) or function is adversely affected by this change. The change does not involve an interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific UFSAR are not affected. The proposed changes do not involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to postulated accident conditions, thus, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 2.2.4-1 and Figure 2.2.4-1, and associated UFSAR design information do not reduce the temperature of feedwater and do not increase feedwater flow during any operational mode such that it would result in a new or different kind of accident from accidents previously evaluated. Conclusions of existing analyses are not changed by this activity as existing feedwater isolation and control valves functions are not changed.
The proposed changes to add thermal relief valves to the main and startup feedwater lines do not adversely affect any safety-related equipment, and do not add any new interfaces to safety-related SSCs that adversely affect safety functions. No system or design function or equipment qualification is adversely affected by these changes as the changes do not modify any SSCs that prevent safety functions from being performed by the existing main feedwater and startup feedwater valves. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could adversely affect safety or safety-related equipment as feedwater isolation capabilities are not changed. Performance of overpressure relief supports the safety-related functions of the isolation and control valves in the main and startup feedwater lines when isolation is required.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 2.2.4-1 and Figure 2.2.4-1, and associated UFSAR design information add thermal relief valves to the main feedwater and startup feedwater lines. These valves are designed to the same codes and standards as the existing piping to which they are connected, including ASME Code Section III, Class C, seismic Category I. The proposed changes do not affect any other safety-related equipment or fission product barriers. The requested changes will not affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested changes. There are not any changes to operation of the main feedwater and startup feedwater isolation and control valves when isolation of the lines is required. Operation of the relief valves supports isolation capabilities for the main and feedwater isolation and control valves.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to Combined License (COL) Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Figures 2.2.1-1 and 2.3.6-1, Tables 2.3.6-1, 2.3.6-2 and 2.3.6-4, COL Appendix A, Technical Specification 3.4.14 and associated Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) design information to identify a new normal residual heat removal system (RNS) relief valve, RNS-PL-V020, do not adversely impact accidents previously evaluated in the safety analysis. Transients that are capable of overpressurizing the reactor coolant system (RCS) are categorized as either mass or heat input transients. The relief valves must be capable of passing flow greater than that required for the limiting low-temperature overpressure protection (LTOP) transients while maintaining RCS pressure less than the lowest pressure represented by the pressure/temperature limit curve, 110% of the design pressure of the RNS, or the acceptable RNS relief valve inlet pressure. The restrictions added to COL Appendix A, Technical Specification 3.4.14 to close chemical and volume control system (CVS) makeup line containment isolation valve, CVS-PL-V091, limit flow capacity when the RCS is aligned to the RNS to support LTOP functions and provide reliable operation of the RNS relief valves during mass and heat input transients. When CVS-PL-V091 is open, the RCS is depressurized and an RCS vent of ≥4.15 square inches is established. Transient conditions including mass input and heat input are not changed and probability of events is not increased as the added RNS relief valve, RNS-PL-V020, supports LTOP functions as required by Technical Specification 3.4.14. The current 3-inch RNS relief valve is sufficient to terminate identified transients; however, the added 1-inch RNS relief valve reduces chatter in the current valve during low flow scenarios.
Responses to mass and heat input transients are not changed as LTOP functions to prevent overpressurization of the RCS are not changed by this activity. The added RNS relief valve, RNS-PL-V020, is designed in accordance with the same requirements as the current RNS relief valve, RNS-PL-V021, but with a lower flow capacity and functions at a lower setpoint pressure. Overpressure protection provided by the RNS is not
No safety-related structure, system, component (SSC) or function is adversely affected by this change. The change does not involve an interface with any structure, system, or component (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific UFSAR are not affected. The proposed changes do not involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to postulated accident conditions, thus, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Conclusions of existing analyses are not changed by the proposed change as LTOP functions provided by both the current and added RNS relief valves continue to provide the assumed protection for LTOP events. RCS pressure is maintained within limits by the use of both RNS relief valves. The closure of CVS-PL-V091 limits flow and reduces the impact of mass and heat input transients when RNS relief valves are relied upon for overpressure protection.
The proposed change to add the smaller RNS relief valve, RNS-PL-V020, does not adversely affect safety-related equipment, and does not add any new interfaces to safety-related SSCs that adversely affect safety functions. The added RNS relief valve, functions in the same manner as the current RNS relief valve, but has a lower capacity and lifts at a lower pressure. The added RNS relief valve also discharges to the liquid radwaste system (WLS) containment sump. No system or design function or equipment qualification is adversely affected by these changes as the change does not modify any SSCs that prevent safety functions from being performed by the RNS and the current relief valve. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could adversely affect safety or safety-related equipment. Piping changes to accommodate the installation of the new valve do not create the potential for a new or different kind of accident as the piping requirements are consistent with those of the current relief valve, and subject to the same pipe rupture evaluation requirements. LTOP functions are not changed. The class break correction for valve RNS-PL-V061 does not impact accident analysis or create a new or different kind of accident as the function of the affected equipment and piping is not changed.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes do not affect safety-related equipment or fission product barriers. LTOP functions are not adversely impacted as both the current and added RNS relief valves continue to provide protection from overpressurization. The added RNS relief valve is designed in accordance with [American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)] Code Section III, Class 2, requirements consistent with the current RNS relief valve. Modified piping is constructed consistent with current design requirements for RNS piping. The addition of the valve adds safety margin in regards to transients as the new valve lifts at a lower set pressure than the current valve, causing flow rates to be lower through the RNS piping. Therefore, margin of safety is not reduced. The requested changes will not affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested changes. Transient conditions, including mass input and heat input, are not changed and margin of safety is not reduced as the added RNS relief valve supports LTOP functions in the same manner as the current RNS relief valve.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 15.4.6, Chemical and Volume Control System Malfunction that Results in a Decrease in the Boron Concentration in the Reactor Coolant, addresses inadvertent boron dilution events. The principal means of positive reactivity insertion to the core is the addition of unborated, primary-grade water from the demineralized water transfer and storage system (DWS) into the reactor coolant system (RCS) through the reactor makeup portion of the chemical and volume control system (CVS).
These events are primarily evaluated with one or more reactor coolant pumps (RCPs) in operation providing adequate mixing. The changes proposed by this amendment request do not involve operations where the RCPs are in operation. Therefore, there is no increase in the probability or consequences of inadvertent boron dilution events with RCPs operating.
UFSAR Subsection 15.4.6 also describes that when a reactor coolant pump is not operating, the demineralized water isolation valves are closed and an uncontrolled boron dilution transient cannot occur. The proposed amendment adds provisions to allow a specific CVS unborated water source flow path to be opened through the chemical mixing tank to the RCS pressurizer when RCPs are not in operation for the purpose of chemical addition to the pressurizer. The administrative control provisions proposed provide adequate assurance that any injection to the RCS pressurizer would only occur such that injected water is limited to
Since the proposed change does not lead to any positive reactivity insertion, there are no increased consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The administrative control provisions proposed provide adequate assurance that any injection to the pressurizer would only occur such that injected water is limited to boron concentrations greater than the required concentrations to meet the SDM. With no reduction in SDM, there would be no means of positive reactivity insertion to the core leading to an adverse reactivity event. Failure modes involving procedural controls and operator actions are considered in evaluating inadvertent boron dilution events. The possibility of a new or different kind of failure, malfunction, or sequence of events has been evaluated with these proposed changes; events are precluded with the proposed administrative controls and defense in depth features inherent in the AP1000 design.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The margin of safety is established by maintaining the required SDM during shutdown activities. The proposed changes to the UFSAR and Technical Specifications do not adversely affect the safety-related functions of the RCS or CVS in maintaining adequate SDM. Provisions are proposed for a specific CVS unborated water source flow path to be opened through the chemical mixing tank to the RCS pressurizer when RCPs are not in operation; however, this activity is performed under administrative controls that preclude the potential for a reduction in SDM.
The changes do not affect containment penetrations or any other safety-related equipment or fission product barriers. The requested changes will not affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested changes. The existing design and operation of the associated systems are adequate to preclude an inadvertent boron dilution from occurring when RCPs are not in operation.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazard consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
UFSAR Subsections 15.2.7, 15.5.1, and 15.5.2 describe analyses performed for an increase in reactor coolant inventory due to a loss of normal feedwater flow, and for malfunctions of the chemical and volume control system and the core makeup tanks. In each of these evaluated accidents, it is assumed that the operators are alerted to the event due to a high pressurizer water level and take subsequent action to open the reactor vessel head vent valves. When the head vent is opened, the pressurizer water level increase slows and eventually decreases.
Changing the required mass flow rate from 8.2 lbm/sec at a Reactor Coolant System (RCS) pressure of 1250 psia [pounds per square inch absolute] to 9.0 lbm/sec [pounds mass per second] at an RCS pressure of 2500 psia for the reactor vessel head vent (RVHV) flow path does not change the probability of these events occurring. The valves are used to mitigate the events. They are not an initiator of these accidents, or any other accident previously evaluated. Changing the required mass flow rate does not change the consequences of these accidents. The proposed flow rate change is made to be consistent with the latest AP1000 safety analysis. This change does not lead to an increase in the probability of a loss of coolant accident, nor does it cause the RVHV to exceed the capability of the normal makeup system. The changes described above continue to ensure the design is capable of providing adequate flow rate for emergency letdown and the prevention of long term pressurizer overfill.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes impact the acceptance criteria for RVHV mass flow rate. The required mass flow rate is changed from 8.2 lbm/sec at an RCS pressure of 1250 psia to 9.0 lbm/sec at an RCS pressure of 2500 psia to align with the events evaluated in the current safety analysis. The proposed changes do not result in a new accident initiator and do not impact a current accident initiator.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes impact the acceptance criteria for RVHV mass flow rate. The required mass flow rate is changed from 8.2 lbm/sec at an RCS pressure of 1250 psia to 9.0 lbm/sec at an RCS pressure of 2500 psia. The proposed changes are made to reflect the updated AP1000 plant safety analysis; the changes are conservative and bound the expected performance of the as-built equipment.
COL Appendix C (plant-specific Tier 1) is proposed to be updated to reflect the new mass flow rate through the RVHV line and the associated system pressure. COL Appendix C (plant-specific Tier 1) is updated to reflect the latest safety analysis, which credits an emergency letdown mass flow rate of 9.0 lbm/sec at an RCS pressure of 2500
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment has no effect on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator or precursors and does not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of the Emergency Response Organization to perform their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event.
Therefore, the proposed STPEGS [South Texas Project Electric Generating Station] Emergency Plan change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment does not impact any accident analysis. The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 21, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 28, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 10, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in the SE dated August 14, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 28, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
10 CFR 2.206 request; receipt.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is giving notice that by petition dated January 24, 2017, Mr. Paul Gunter on behalf of Beyond Nuclear, and representing numerous public interest groups (collectively, Beyond Nuclear,
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0188 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Merrilee Banic, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2771; email:
On January 24, 2017, (ADAMS Accession No. ML17025A180) the petitioners requested that the NRC take action with regard to licensees of plants that currently rely on potentially defective safety-related components and potentially falsified quality assurance documentation supplied by AREVA-Le Creusot Forge and its subcontractor, Japan Casting and Forging Corporation.
As a basis for this request, the petitioners provided the expert review of John Large & Associates identifying significant “irregularities” and “anomalies” in both the manufacturing process and quality assurance documentation of large reactor components manufactured by the AREVA-Le Creusot Forge for French reactors and reactors in other countries.
The request is being treated pursuant to section 2.206 of title 10 of the
The petitioners addressed the Petition Review Board in a public meeting on March 8, 2017; the transcript of that meeting (ADAMS Accession No. ML17081A418) is an additional supplement to the petition. The results of that meeting were considered in the Board's determination regarding the petitioners' request for enforcement action. The Director determined that the petitioners' request for enforcement action concerning potentially defective safety-related components met the criteria for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process, but that the request about potentially falsified quality assurance documentation would be referred to another NRC process for appropriate action. Because the allegation process provides an opportunity for the petitioners to address these concerns, the issue of potentially falsified quality assurance documentation will not be reviewed as part of this 2.206 petition. The NRC will take appropriate action on this petition within a reasonable time.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The September 18, 2017 comment due date applies to Docket Nos. MC2017-184 and CP2017-285; MC2017-185 and CP2017-286; MC2017-186 and CP2017-287; MC2017-187 and CP2017-288; MC2017-188 and CP2017-289.
The September 19, 2017 comment due date applies to Docket Nos. MC2017-189 and CP2017-290; MC2017-190 and CP2017-291; MC2017-191 and CP2017-292; MC2017-192 and CP2017-293; MC2017-193 and CP2017-294.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add Global Expedited Package Services 8 product to the Competitive Products List.
Donald W. Ross, (973) 477-4406.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642, on September 5, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of The United States Postal Service to add Global Expedited Package Services 8 to the Competitive Products List. Documents are available
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt Commentary .06 to Rule 6.91-O (Electronic Complex Order Trading) to enhance the price protections for Complex Orders executed on the Exchange. The proposed rule change is available on 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 aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to adopt Commentary .06 to Rule 6.91-O to enhance the price protections applicable to Electronic Complex Orders (or “ECOs”).
The Exchange currently provides price protection to ECOs, which is designed to prevent the execution of orders at prices that are priced a certain percentage away from the current market and, therefore, are potentially erroneous.
First, the Exchange proposes Commentary .06(a)(1) to Rule 6.91-O, pursuant to which, upon entry into the System, the Exchange would reject any incoming order for a complex strategy where all legs are to sell (buy) if it is entered at a price that is less (more) than the minimum (maximum) price, which is calculated as the sum of the ratio on each leg of the Complex Order multiplied by $0.01 (−$0.01) per leg (
For example, an order to sell 2 calls and sell 1 put would have a minimum net credit price of $0.03. If such an order were entered at a price of $0.02, it would not be executable, as a price of zero would have to be assigned to one of the legs of the order. As proposed, this order would be rejected.
As another example, if a market participant is entering the following “all sell” complex strategy for a debit:
If, for example, a market participant is entering the following “all buy” complex strategy:
The Exchange notes that the price check in proposed Commentary .06(a)(1) to Rule 6.91-O is materially identical to price protections available on at least one other options exchange, ISE.
Second, the Exchange proposes Commentary .06(a)(2) to Rule 6.91-O, pursuant to which, upon entry into the System, the Exchange would reject any incoming order for a vertical spread strategy (
For example, if a market participant is entering the following vertical call credit spread for a debit:
The Exchange notes that the price check in proposed Commentary .06(a)(2) to Rule 6.91-O is materially identical to price protections available on at least one other options exchange, ISE.
Finally, upon entry into the System, the Exchange proposes to reject any incoming order for a credit calendar spread strategy (
For example, if a market participant is entering the following calendar credit spread for a debit:
The Exchange notes that the price check in proposed Commentary .06(a)(3) to Rule 6.91-O is materially identical to price protections available on at least one other options exchange, ISE.
Regarding calendar spread orders, the Exchange also proposes to retain discretion to deactivate this price check in the interest of fair and orderly markets.
Further, the Exchange does not propose to apply the Reasonability Check on calendar orders entered on the Trading Floor, as such orders are subject to manual handling by individuals who will have evaluated the price of an order based on then-market conditions.
The Exchange notes that ECOs that are not rejected by the Reasonability Checks would still be subject to the Price Protection Filter.
The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date of the proposed rule change within 90 days of the effective date of this rule filing.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed Reasonability Checks would protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and orderly markets by mitigating potential risks associated with market participants entering Complex Orders at clearly unintended prices that are inconsistent with their strategies. Specifically, a Complex Order strategy where all legs are to sell (buy) will be rejected if it is entered at a price that is less (more) than the minimum (maximum) price. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to reject such orders upon entry as they are not executable. Allowing such orders to be entered would create investor confusion; as such orders would not receive an execution and would remain pending until canceled. Similarly, the
Regarding orders for calendar spreads, the Exchange recognizes that it may not be appropriate to apply the Reasonability Checks to calendar spreads in unusual market conditions, such as corporate actions that result in changes in price to the underlying security.
The Exchange's proposed Reasonability Checks are similar to similar protections offered on other options exchanges, including ISE. To the extent there are differences between the proposed Reasonability Checks, as described above (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed Reasonability Checks specify circumstances in which the Exchange would reject certain ECOs in the interest of protecting investors against the execution of erroneous orders or the execution of orders at erroneous prices. As such, the proposal does not impose any burden on competition. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed Reasonability Checks may foster more competition. Specifically, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. The Exchange's proposed rule change would enhance its ability to compete with other exchanges that already offer similar reasonability checks. Thus, the Exchange believes that this type of competition amongst exchanges is beneficial to the market place as a whole as it can result in enhanced processes, functionality, and technologies. The Exchange further believes that because the proposed rule change would be applicable to all OTP Holders and OTP Firms, it would not impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, September 13, 2017, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.
The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (EDT) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 9:00 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
On August 14, 2017, the Commission published notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10399), indicating that the meeting is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting. No earlier notice of this Meeting was practicable.
The agenda for the meeting includes matters relating to rules and regulations affecting small and emerging companies under the federal securities laws.
For further information, please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
On December 30, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
On February 23, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
On September 1, 2017, NYSE Arca withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2016-176).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt Commentary .06 to Rule 980NY (Electronic Complex Order Trading) to enhance the price protections for Complex Orders executed on the Exchange. The proposed rule change is available on 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 aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to adopt Commentary .06 to Rule 980NY to enhance the price protections applicable to Electronic Complex Orders (or “ECOs”).
The Exchange currently provides price protection to ECOs, which is designed to prevent the execution of orders at prices that are priced a certain percentage away from the current market and, therefore, are potentially erroneous.
First, the Exchange proposes Commentary .06(a)(1) to Rule 980NY, pursuant to which, upon entry into the System, the Exchange would reject any incoming order for a complex strategy where all legs are to sell (buy) if it is entered at a price that is less (more) than the minimum (maximum) price, which is calculated as the sum of the ratio on each leg of the Complex Order multiplied by $0.01 (−$0.01) per leg (
For example, an order to sell 2 calls and sell 1 put would have a minimum net credit price of $0.03. If such an order were entered at a price of $0.02, it would not be executable, as a price of zero would have to be assigned to one of the legs of the order. As proposed, this order would be rejected.
As another example, if a market participant is entering the following “all sell” complex strategy for a debit:
If, for example, a market participant is entering the following “all buy” complex strategy:
The Exchange notes that the price check in proposed Commentary .06(a)(1) to Rule 980NY is materially identical to price protections available on at least one other options exchange, ISE.
Second, the Exchange proposes Commentary .06(a)(2) to Rule 980NY, pursuant to which, upon entry into the System, the Exchange would reject any incoming order for a vertical spread strategy (
For example, if a market participant is entering the following vertical call credit spread for a debit:
The Exchange notes that the price check in proposed Commentary .06(a)(2) to Rule 980NY is materially identical to price protections available on at least one other options exchange, ISE.
Finally, upon entry into the System, the Exchange proposes to reject any incoming order for a credit calendar spread strategy (
For example, if a market participant is entering the following calendar credit spread for a debit:
The Exchange notes that the price check in proposed Commentary .06(a)(3) to Rule 980NY is materially identical to price protections available on at least one other options exchange, ISE.
Regarding calendar spread orders, the Exchange also proposes to retain discretion to deactivate this price check in the interest of fair and orderly markets.
Further, the Exchange does not propose to apply the Reasonability Check on calendar orders entered on the Trading Floor, as such orders are subject to manual handling by individuals who will have evaluated the price of an order based on then-market conditions.
The Exchange notes that ECOs that are not rejected by the Reasonability Checks would still be subject to the Price Protection Filter.
The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date of the proposed rule change within 90 days of the effective date of this rule filing.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed Reasonability Checks would protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and orderly markets by mitigating potential risks associated with market participants entering Complex Orders at clearly unintended prices that are inconsistent with their strategies. Specifically, a Complex Order strategy where all legs are to sell (buy) will be rejected if it is entered at a price that is less (more) than the minimum (maximum) price. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to reject such orders upon entry as they are not executable. Allowing such orders to be entered would create investor confusion; as such orders would not receive an execution and would remain pending until canceled. Similarly, the Exchange believes that rejecting orders for vertical spread strategies—as well as calendar spread strategies—that are entered at a negative price also protects investors from executing orders that were likely entered in error.
Regarding orders for calendar spreads, the Exchange recognizes that it may not be appropriate to apply the Reasonability Checks to calendar spreads in unusual market conditions, such as corporate actions that result in changes in price to the underlying security.
The Exchange's proposed Reasonability Checks are similar to similar protections offered on other options exchanges, including ISE. To the extent there are differences between the proposed Reasonability Checks, as described above (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed Reasonability Checks specify circumstances in which the Exchange would reject certain ECOs in the interest of protecting investors against the execution of erroneous orders or the execution of orders at erroneous prices. As such, the proposal does not impose any burden on competition. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed Reasonability Checks may foster more competition. Specifically, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. The Exchange's proposed rule change would enhance its ability to compete with other exchanges that already offer similar reasonability checks. Thus, the Exchange believes that this type of competition amongst exchanges is beneficial to the market place as a whole as it can result in enhanced processes, functionality, and technologies. The Exchange further believes that because the proposed rule change would be applicable to all OTP [sic] Holders and OTP [sic] Firms, it would not impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. The requested order would permit certain registered open-end investment companies to acquire shares of certain registered open-end investment companies, registered closed-end investment companies, business development companies, as defined in section 2(a)(48) of the Act (“BDCs”), and registered unit investment trusts (collectively, “Underlying Funds”) that are within and outside the same group of investment companies as the acquiring investment companies, in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1) of the Act.
Active Weighting Funds ETF Trust (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust that will be registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, and Active Weighting Advisors LLC (the “Initial Advisor”), a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware that is, or will be, registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The application was filed on August 31, 2016, and amended on January 13, 2017, and May 25, 2017. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this notice.
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 applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 2, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, 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, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, 490 Royal Lake Drive, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701.
Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6879, or Robert H. 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 an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order to permit (a) each Fund
2. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Such terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over an Underlying Fund that is not in the same “group of investment companies” as the Fund of Funds through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act.
3. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15c1-6 states that any broker-dealer trying to sell to or buy from a customer a security in a primary or secondary distribution in which the broker-dealer is participating or is otherwise financially interested must give the customer written notification of the broker-dealer's participation or interest at or before completion of the transaction. The Commission estimates that 394 respondents collect information annually under Rule 15c1-6 and that each respondent would spend approximately 10 hours annually complying with the collection of information requirement (approximately 3,940 hours in aggregate).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Mississippi, dated September 1, 2017.
Issued on 09/01/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 152830.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Mississippi, Louisiana.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Mark Tobey: Threading Light,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Addison Gallery of American Art at Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts, from on or about November 4, 2017, until on or about March 11, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Bosch to Bloemaert: Early Netherlandish Drawings from the Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, District of Columbia, from on or about October 8, 2017, until on or about January 7, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Issuance of Record of Decision.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has decided to adopt proposed reservoir land management plans (RLMPs) for the 138,321.4 acres of TVA-managed public land on eight reservoirs in Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee: Chickamauga, Fort Loudoun, Great Falls, Kentucky, Nickajack, Normandy, Wheeler and Wilson. TVA is also revising its Comprehensive Valleywide Land Plan (CVLP) to incorporate the information included in the eight RLMPs.
Kelly Baxter, Land Planning Specialist, Natural Resources, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT-11D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499; telephone (865) 632-2444; or email
This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and TVA's procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. TVA manages public lands to protect the integrated operation of TVA reservoir and power systems, to provide for appropriate public use and enjoyment of the reservoir system, and to provide for continuing economic growth in the Tennessee Valley region. Shortly after its creation in 1933, TVA began a dam and reservoir construction program that required the purchase of approximately 1.3 million acres of land for the creation of 46 reservoirs within the Tennessee Valley region. Most of these lands are now located underneath the water of the reservoir system or have since been sold by TVA or transferred to other state or federal agencies. Today, approximately 293,000 acres of land along TVA reservoirs are managed by TVA for the benefit of the public.
Reservoir land planning is a systematic method of identifying and evaluating the most suitable uses of reservoir lands under TVA stewardship and RLMPs guide future decision-making and the management of reservoir lands in a manner consistent with TVA policies. The updated RLMPs are needed to consider changes to land uses over time, to make land planning decisions on these eight reservoirs consistent with the TVA Land Policy and the CVLP, and to incorporate TVA's goals for managing natural resources on public lands.
On July 21, 2017, TVA issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that considered the eight proposed RLMPs and the associated changes to the CVLP land use allocation target ranges. The eight RLMPs reviewed in the Final EIS address management of approximately 138,221 acres of TVA-managed public lands surrounding Chickamauga, Fort Loudoun, Great Falls, Kentucky, Nickajack, Normandy, Wheeler, and Wilson Reservoirs.
On August 23, 2017, the TVA Board of Directors (TVA Board) approved the Multiple RLMPs and updates to the CVLP, implementing the preferred alternative (Proposed Land Use Alternative) identified in the Final EIS. Under the RLMPs adopted by the TVA Board, TVA-managed land on the eight reservoirs has been allocated into broad land use categories or “zones”, including Project Operations (Zone 2), Sensitive Resource Management (Zone 3), Natural Resource Conservation (Zone 4), Industrial (Zone 5), Developed Recreation (Zone 6) and Shoreline Access (Zone 7). These allocations guide the types of activities that will be considered on each parcel of land in the future. Non-TVA Shoreland (Zone 1) is applied to reservoir lands where TVA has land rights such as flowage easements. In the Final EIS, TVA considered potential environmental impacts of the eight RLMPs and the land use allocations of reservoir parcels.
In proposing the land use zones, TVA considered previous land use allocations and current land uses, existing land rights (easements, leases, etc.), public needs, the presence of sensitive environmental resources, and TVA policies and guidelines, including the TVA Land Policy and Shoreline Management Policy. Of the eight reservoirs, seven have land use plans that were developed using different methodology and land use categories. Two reservoirs (Fort Loudoun and Normandy) were planned using TVA's Forecast System in the 1960s or 1970s; four reservoirs (Chickamauga, Kentucky, Nickajack, and Wheeler) were planned in the 1980s and 1990s under the Multiple Use Tract Allocation methodology. A land plan has never been developed for Great Falls Reservoir, and only a portion of Wilson Reservoir has been planned previously. Further, previous land planning methodologies did not assign land use designations to all TVA-managed land on the reservoir. In developing the eight RLMPs, TVA applied the Single Use Parcel Allocation methodology which allocates all TVA reservoir land to the seven allocation land use zones identified above. With the approval of these RLMPs, all TVA land plans are now based on the same allocation methodology, ensuring that future management policies can be consistently applied across the Tennessee Valley region, as intended under TVA's 2011 Natural Resource Plan.
In its Natural Resource Plan, TVA established the CVLP to guide allowable uses of TVA-managed properties on 46 reservoirs. The CVLP identifies target ranges for the different types of land use zone allocations for TVA reservoir lands in the Tennessee Valley region and helps TVA to balance competing land use demands. When establishing the CVLP target ranges for the land use zones in 2011, TVA based the ranges on parcel allocation conversions from existing plans as well as “rapid lands assessments,” which were initial allocation designations of reservoir parcels conducted in order to establish an initial CVLP target range. Since 2011, TVA has conducted thorough, systematic assessments of parcels on the eight reservoirs and found in many cases that the initial allocation estimates did not accurately reflect actual land uses on parcels, the presence of sensitive resources, or existing land rights or restrictions for parcels. TVA incorporated these allocation corrections into the proposed RLMPs, which resulted in the need to make minor revisions to the CVLP target ranges. Thus, as part of this planning effort, TVA considered changes to the CVLP target ranges according to the zone allocations identified in the RLMPs. No other decisions in the Natural Resource Plan were revised during this planning effort.
In the Final EIS, TVA considered the Proposed Land Use Plan Alternative and the No Action Alternative for managing
Because of the differences with past and present land planning methodologies, it was necessary to convert the land use designations to one of the seven land use zones to represent the No Action Alternative to facilitate the comparison of the two alternatives. Designations from existing RLMPs and the Forecast System and the committed land that was not assigned a land use designation on all reservoirs were converted to the equivalent land use zone. The conversions are estimates of the appropriate zone allocation based on best available information at that time.
Under the No Action Alternative, TVA would not implement new RLMPs for the eight reservoirs and would continue to rely on previous land planning decisions or current management of parcels. TVA would continue to manage TVA land on Fort Loudoun and Normandy reservoirs as designated under the Forecast System and would continue to manage lands on Chickamauga, Kentucky, Nickajack, and Wheeler reservoirs in accordance with existing RLMPs for those reservoirs. Lands on Great Falls and portions of Wilson were not previously planned and, therefore, would be subject to management in accordance with existing commitments and land use agreements as well as applicable TVA policies. Reservoir lands would not be managed according to TVA's current land use planning zones and would not be in complete alignment with current TVA policies. The target allocation ranges of the CVLP identified in TVA's Natural Resource Plan would not be revised.
Under the Proposed Land Use Plan Alternative, TVA would implement the eight RLMPs detailed in the Final EIS to guide future management on these reservoirs. The TVA managed land would be allocated to land use zones according to current land usage, existing land rights, existing land use agreements, existing and newly collected data, public needs, the presence of sensitive resources, and TVA policies. Generally, land allocations in the eight RLMPs reflect actual uses of parcels, the presence of known sensitive resources, or existing land rights or restrictions for parcels. As such, the changes in allocations are minor.
The approved RLMPs result in changes of zone allocations to 25,558 acres of land, roughly 18 percent of the 138,321.4 acres of TVA-managed reservoir lands (approximately 7 percent of the allocations were made to reflect existing land use agreements and commitments and approximately 11 percent were made for other reasons). Under the eight RLMPs, the total number of acres of TVA lands allocated to Sensitive Resource Management (Zone 3) and Natural Resource Conservation (Zone 4) is slightly lower than previous allocations; the RLMPs reduce Zone 3 lands by 2,289.8 acres and Zone 4 lands by 3,300.3 acres. In turn, the amount of land allocated for Project Operations (Zone 2), Industrial (Zone 5), Developed Recreation (Zone 6), and Shoreline Access (Zone 7) is slightly higher under the RLMPs; an additional 1,622.1 acres are allocated for Zone 2, 1,303.3 acres for Zone 5, 1,644.0 acres for Zone 6, and 1,090.1 acres for Zone 7.
Because of new allocations in the RLMPs, the target allocation ranges of the CVLP are revised under the Proposed Land Use Plan Alternative as follows: The range for Project Operations (Zone 2) is raised from 5 to 7 percent (current) to 7 to 10 percent; Sensitive Resource Management (Zone 3) is adjusted from 16 to 18 percent to 14 to 18 percent; Natural Resource Conservation (Zone 4) is reduced from 58 to 65 percent to 56 to 63 percent; Industrial (Zone 5), is adjusted from 1 to 2 percent to 1 to 3 percent; and Shoreline Access (Zone 7) is adjusted from 5 percent to 5 to 6 percent. There are no changes to the allocation range for Developed Recreation (Zone 6).
In the Final EIS, TVA found that under the No Action Alternative, the total number of acres of TVA land on the eight reservoirs that would be equivalently designated to Project Operations (Zone 2), Industrial (Zone 5) and Developed Recreation (Zone 6) is less than under the Proposed Land Use Alternative. However, proposed land use allocations under the Proposed Land Use Alternative primarily reflect the existing conditions and suitable uses of land and as such, the actual on-the-ground difference between the two alternatives is minor. No significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are expected to occur to any resource under either alternative. Under both alternatives, TVA would conduct site-specific environmental reviews of proposed projects on reservoir lands to identify potential impacts to resources, including sensitive resources such as species federally listed as endangered or threatened, cultural resources and wetlands.
In contrast to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Land Use Alternative was developed using a systematic and comprehensive planning approach to the management, retention, and disposal of reservoir lands managed by TVA. It brings consistency to the land planning process across the eight reservoirs that enables TVA to identify the most suitable use of TVA public lands in furtherance of TVA's responsibilities under the TVA Act. The Proposed Land Use Plan Alternative, then, would result in the benefits of comprehensive land planning across the entire range of lands associated with the eight reservoirs.
The Proposed Land Use Plan Alternative, approved by the TVA Board, is the environmentally preferable alternative because the land use allocations under this alternative are the result of thorough research and implementation of TVA's land planning process. This alternative best reflects existing uses and conditions of TVA-managed land and the proposed land use allocations would result in the widest range of beneficial uses without degrading the environment or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
TVA published a Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS in the
The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published in the
TVA received 44 comment submissions on the Draft EIS and provided responses in the Final EIS. Most comments pertained to the proposed land use allocations of specific parcels of TVA land. In response to numerous substantive comments, TVA made revisions and corrections to the EIS. After considering the public's feedback on the Draft EIS and further internal deliberation, TVA made minor modifications to its Proposed Land Use Plan Alternative. The land use allocations were changed for 4 parcels and parcel boundaries were changed for 41 parcels. Allocation and/or acreage changes were made to reflect new information or changes in land use agreements or changes in back-lying property ownership, to correct errors or omissions, or in response to public comments.
The NOA for the Final EIS was published in the
On August 23, 2017, the TVA Board approved the eight RLMPs and the revision of the CVLP, thereby adopting the Proposed Land Use Plan Alternative of the Final EIS. TVA believes the implementation of this plan provides suitable opportunities for balancing competing land use demands for natural and sensitive resource conservation while providing public lands for recreational enjoyment as well as supporting recreation and economic development goals. This decision incorporates mitigation measures that would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the environment.
Because this is a programmatic review, specific measures to reduce potential environmental impacts on a site-specific level were not identified. Prior to approving any use of land on the eight reservoirs, TVA would conduct an appropriate level of site-specific environmental review to determine the potential environmental effects of the proposed use. TVA's review process for potential actions on these lands is designed to identify ways to avoid and/or minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. Based on the findings of any site-specific environmental review, TVA may require the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, including best management practices, as conditions of approval for land use on the TVA-managed lands.
When considering future development of reservoir lands, TVA would also comply with other applicable environmental requirements, including the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and applicable Executive Orders, and ensure that proper agency coordination and permitting requirements are met. In addition, all activities will be conducted in accordance with the stipulations defined in the programmatic agreement (PA) between TVA and the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) of Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee, the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation, and federally recognized Indian tribes, that was established for implementation of the Natural Resources Plan in 2011. Under the agreement, TVA will consult with the appropriate SHPO and consulting parties when reviewing plans submitted to TVA.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice and request for applications.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is establishing a new two-year charter term and accepting applications from qualified individuals interested in serving as a member of the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC). The TEPAC is a trade advisory committee that provides general policy advice to the United States Trade Representative on trade policy matters that have a significant impact on the environment.
USTR will accept nominations on a rolling basis for membership on the TEPAC for the two-year charter term beginning on September 30, 2017, and expiring on September 29, 2019.
Stewart Young, Deputy Assistant Trade Representative for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement,
Section 135(c)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2155(c)(1)), authorizes the President to establish individual general trade policy advisory committees for industry, labor, agriculture, services, investment, defense, small business, and other interests, as appropriate, to provide general policy advice. The President delegated that authority to the United States Trade Representative in Executive Order 11846, section 4(d), issued on March 27, 1975. In addition, we anticipate that the President will issue an Executive Order specifically concerning the TEPAC, which will continue its charter for two years. Advisory committees established by the Trade Representative are subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Pursuant to these authorities, the United States Trade Representative intends to establish a new two-year charter term for the TEPAC, which will begin on September 30, 2017 and end on September 29, 2019. The TEPAC is a trade advisory committee established to provide general policy advice to the United States Trade Representative on trade policy matters that have a significant impact on the environment. More specifically, the TEPAC provides general policy advice on issues including: (1) Negotiating objectives and bargaining positions before entering into trade agreements; (2) the environmental impact of the implementation of trade agreements; (3) matters concerning the operation of any trade agreement once entered into; and (4) other matters arising in connection with the development, implementation, and administration of the trade policy of the United States.
The TEPAC meets as needed, at the call of the United States Trade Representative or his/her designee, or two-thirds of the TEPAC members, depending on various factors such as the level of activity of trade negotiations
The TEPAC is composed of not more than 35 members, including, but not limited to, representatives from environmental interest groups, industry (including the environmental technology and environmental services industries), agriculture, academia, consumer groups, services, non-governmental organizations, and others with expertise in trade and environment matters. The United States Trade Representative appoints all TEPAC members for a term of four-years or until the TEPAC charter expires, and they serve at his/her discretion. Individuals can be reappointed for any number of terms. The United States Trade Representative makes appointments without regard to political affiliation and with an interest in ensuring balance in terms of sectors, demographics, and other factors relevant to the USTR's needs. USTR intends for the TEPAC to be broadly representative of key sectors and groups of the economy with an interest in trade and environmental policy issues.
TEPAC members serve without either compensation or reimbursement of expenses. Members are responsible for all expenses they incur to attend meetings or otherwise participate in TEPAC activities.
The United States Trade Representative appoints TEPAC members to represent their sponsoring U.S. entity's interests on trade and the environment, and thus USTR's foremost consideration for applicants is their ability to carry out the goals of section 135(c) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Other criteria include the applicant's knowledge of and expertise in international trade issues as relevant to the work of the TEPAC and USTR. USTR anticipates that almost all TEPAC members will serve in a representative capacity with a limited number serving in an individual capacity as subject matter experts. These members, known as special government employees, are subject to conflict of interest rules and will have to complete a financial disclosure report.
USTR is soliciting nominations for membership on the TEPAC. To apply for membership, an applicant must meet the following eligibility criteria:
1. The applicant must be a U.S. citizen.
2. The applicant cannot be a full-time employee of a U.S. governmental entity.
3. If serving in an individual capacity, the applicant cannot be a federally registered lobbyist.
4. The applicant cannot be registered with the U.S. Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
5. The applicant must be able to obtain and maintain a security clearance.
6. For representative members, who will comprise the overwhelming majority of the TEPAC, the applicant must represent a U.S. organization whose members (or funders) have a demonstrated interest in issues relevant to trade and the environment or have personal experience or expertise in trade and the environment. For eligibility purposes, a “U.S. organization” is an organization established under the laws of the United States, that is controlled by U.S. citizens, by another U.S. organization (or organizations), or by a U.S. entity (or entities), determined based on its board of directors (or comparable governing body), membership, and funding sources, as applicable. To qualify as a U.S. organization, more than 50 percent of the board of directors (or comparable governing body) and more than 50 percent of the membership of the organization to be represented must be U.S. citizens, U.S. organizations, or U.S. entities. Additionally, at least 50 percent of the organization's annual revenue must be attributable to nongovernmental U.S. sources.
7. For members who will serve in an individual capacity, the applicant must possess subject matter expertise regarding international trade and environmental issues.
In order to be considered for TEPAC membership, interested persons should submit the following to Stewart Young at
• Name, title, affiliation, and contact information of the individual requesting consideration.
• If applicable, a sponsor letter on the organization's letterhead containing a brief description of the manner in which international trade affects the organization and why USTR should consider the applicant for membership.
• The applicant's personal resume or comprehensive biography.
• An affirmative statement that the applicant and the organization he or she represents meet all eligibility requirements.
USTR will consider applicants who meet the eligibility criteria based on the following factors: Ability to represent the sponsoring U.S. entity's or U.S. organization's and its subsector's interests on trade and environmental matters; knowledge of and experience in trade and environmental matters relevant to the work of the TEPAC and USTR; and ensuring that the TEPAC is balanced in terms of points of view, demographics, geography, and entity or organization size.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice; correction.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) published a document in the
Constance Hamilton, Acting Assistant United States Trade Representative for African Affairs, (202) 395-9514 or
In the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in the USTR in Proclamation 7350, U.S. note 7(a) to subchapter II of chapter 98 of the HTS, is modified by inserting “Togo” in alphabetical sequence in the list of countries, and U.S. notes 1 and 2(d) to subchapter XIX of chapter 98 of the HTS are modified to add in numerical
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by FHWA and other Federal agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of U.S.C. 139(I)(1). The actions relate to a proposed highway project, State Route (SR) 162 (Pellissippi Parkway Extension) Improvements, from SR 33 (Old Knoxville Highway) to US 321/SR 73 (Lamar Alexander Parkway) in Blount County, Tennessee. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(I)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before February 9, 2018. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
For FHWA: Ms. Theresa Claxton; Planning and Program Management Team Leader; Federal Highway Administration; Tennessee Division Office; 404 BNA Drive, Building 200, Suite 508; Nashville, Tennessee 37217; Telephone (615) 781-5770; email:
Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of Tennessee: SR 162 (Pellissippi Parkway) Improvements, Blount County, Tennessee. The proposed action will extend and construct a new 4.38-mile section of SR 162 (Pellissippi Parkway) from the current terminus of Pellissippi Parkway/I-140 at SR 33 (Old Knoxville Highway) to US 321/SR 73 (Lamar Alexander Parkway). The Selected Alternative (Preferred Alternative) proposes a four-lane divided highway with two travel lanes in each direction. Portions of the corridor include diamond interchanges to connect the new roadway with SR 33 and US 11/Sevierville Road, and a trumpet interchange to terminate the new roadway at US 321/SR 73.
The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project, approved on September 10, 2015; in the FHWA Record of Decision (ROD) issued on August 31, 2017; and in other documents in the FHWA project records. The FEIS, ROD, and other documents in the FHWA project records are available by contacting the FHWA or TDOT at the addresses provided above. The FHWA FEIS and ROD can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1), as amended by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Pub. L. No. 114-94.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 this notice announces the Department of Transportation's (Department) intention to reinstate an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number as related to the
Written comments should be submitted by November 13, 2017.
You may submit comments (identified by DOT Docket Number OST-2011-0170) through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Daeleen Chesley, (202) 366-6792,
Although code-sharing and wet-lease arrangements can offer significant consumer benefits, they can also be misleading unless consumers know the identity of the airline operating the flight. The growth in the use of code-sharing and wet-leasing, particularly in international air transportation, led the Department to adopt specific regulations requiring the disclosure of code-sharing arrangements and long-term wet leases on March 15, 1999 (14 CFR part 257). More specifically, the rule requires carriers to provide information about their code-share relationships in written or electronic schedule information provided by carriers to the public (
In 2010, to further enhance these consumer protections, Congress enacted by Public Law 111-216, sec. 210 (August 1, 2010), which was codified as 49 U.S.C. 41712(c). Among other things, the statute requires ticket agents and air carriers (U.S. and foreign) to disclose in oral communication or in written or electronic communications (including on the internet), prior to the purchase of a ticket, the name of the air carrier providing the air transportation and, if the flight has more than one segment, the name of each air carrier providing the air transportation for each flight segment. The statute also requires ticket agents and air carriers (U.S. and foreign) that sell tickets on an Internet Web site to disclose the required information on the first display of their Web site following a consumer's search of a requested itinerary in a format that is easily visible.
In a recent final rule, Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections III (81 FR 76800, November 3, 2016), the Department clarified its code-share disclosure regulation to ensure that carriers and ticket agents disclose code-share arrangements in schedules, advertisements, and communications with consumers. The rule amended the Department's code-share disclosure regulation to codify the statutory requirement that carriers and ticket agents must in a format that is easily visible to a viewer disclose any code-share arrangements on the first display of the Web site following itinerary search results; clarify that the requirement for code-share disclosures in flight itinerary search results and flight schedule displays includes information provided by airlines via mobile Web sites and applications; clarify the format in which that information must be displayed; and specify that verbal code-share disclosures should be made the first time a flight involving a code-share arrangement is offered to consumers or inquired about by consumers during telephone or in person conversations.
As most of these provisions are implementing the statutory requirement
In addition to costs for additional agent time during some calls and in-person bookings, some respondents may have a slight increase in their training costs, as they modify their trainings to note that code-share information must be shared when the flight is first presented to the consumer.
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 if the collection of information does not display a valid OMB Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
This notice addresses the information collection requirements set forth in the Department's regulation requiring disclosure of code-share and wet-leases, 14 CFR 257. The reinstated OMB control number will be applicable to all the provisions set forth in this notice. The title, a description of the respondents, and an estimate of the annual recordkeeping and periodic reporting burden are set forth below:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
On September 6, 2017, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below:
RIAK RENGU, Malek Reuben (a.k.a. REUBEN, Malek; a.k.a. RUBEN, Malek), Juba, South Sudan; DOB 01 Jan 1960; POB Yei, South Sudan; nationality South Sudan; Gender Male; Passport S00001537 (South Sudan); alt. Passport B0810167 (Sudan); Personal ID Card M6000000000817 (South Sudan); Deputy Chief of Defense Force and Inspector General of the Sudan People's Liberation Army; First Lieutenant General (individual) [SOUTH SUDAN].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of Executive Order 13664 of April 3, 2014, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan” (E.O. 13664) for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, in or in relation to South Sudan: (1) Actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of South Sudan; and (2) actions or policies that have the purpose or effect of expanding or extending the conflict in South Sudan or obstructing reconciliation or peace talks or processes.
LUETH, Michael Makuei (a.k.a. LUETH, Michael Makwei; a.k.a. MAKUEI, Michael; a.k.a. MAKUEI, Michael Makuei Lueth), Juba, South Sudan; DOB 1947; POB Bor, South Sudan; alt. POB Bor, Sudan; nationality South Sudan; alt. nationality Sudan; alt. nationality Kenya; Gender Male; Minister of Information and Broadcasting; Minister of Information, Broadcasting, Telecommunication and Postal Services; Government Spokesperson (individual) [SOUTH SUDAN].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of Executive Order 13664 of April 3, 2014, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan” (E.O. 13664) for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, in or in relation to South Sudan: (1) Actions or policies that have the purpose or effect of expanding or extending the conflict in South Sudan or obstructing reconciliation or peace talks or processes; (2) obstruction of the activities of international peacekeeping, diplomatic, or humanitarian missions in South Sudan, or of the delivery or distribution of, or access to, humanitarian assistance; and (3) attacks against United Nations missions, international security presences, or other peacekeeping operations;
AWAN, Paul Malong (a.k.a. ANEI, Paul Malong Awan; a.k.a. MALONG, Bol; a.k.a. MALONG, Paul; a.k.a. MALONG, Paul Awan), Warawar, Aweil County, Northern Bahr el-Ghazal, South Sudan; Juba, South Sudan; Kampala, Uganda; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; P.O. Box 73699, Nairobi 00200, Kenya; DOB 02 Jan 1962; alt. DOB 04 Dec 1960; alt. DOB 12 Apr 1960; alt. DOB 30 Jan 1960; POB Malualkon, Sudan; alt. POB Malualkon, South Sudan; alt. POB Warawar, Sudan; alt. POB Warawar, South Sudan; nationality South Sudan; alt. nationality Uganda; Gender Male; Passport S00004370 (South Sudan); alt. Passport D00001369 (South Sudan); alt. Passport 003606 (Sudan); alt. Passport 00606 (Sudan); alt. Passport B002606 (Sudan); Former Sudan People's Liberation Army Chief of General Staff (individual) [SOUTH SUDAN].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of Executive Order 13664 of April 3, 2014, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan” (E.O. 13664) for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, in or in relation to South Sudan: (A) Actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of South Sudan; (B) actions or policies that have the purpose or effect of expanding or extending the conflict in South Sudan or obstructing reconciliation or peace talks or processes; and (C) obstruction of the activities of international peacekeeping, diplomatic, or humanitarian missions in South Sudan, or of the delivery or distribution of, or access to, humanitarian assistance.
ALL ENERGY INVESTMENTS LTD, Juba, South Sudan [SOUTH SUDAN].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iv)(B) of Executive Order 13664 of April 3, 2014, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan” (E.O. 13664) for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, RIAK RENGU, Malek Reuben, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13664.
A+ ENGINEERING, ELECTRONICS & MEDIA PRINTING CO. LTD., Tongping, Juba, Central Equatorial State, South Sudan; Tax ID No. 1100214326 (South Sudan); Commercial Registry Number 11045 (South Sudan) [SOUTH SUDAN]SUDAN].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iv)(B) of Executive Order 13664 of April 3, 2014, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan” (E.O. 13664) for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, RIAK RENGU, Malek Reuben, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13664.
MAK INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CO LTD (a.k.a. MAK INTERNATIONAL SERVICE CO LTD; a.k.a. “MAK INTERNATIONAL”), Juba, South Sudan [SOUTH SUDAN].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iv)(B) of Executive Order 13664 of April 3, 2014, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan” (E.O. 13664) for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, RIAK RENGU, Malek Reuben, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13664.
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint is announcing the price of the 2017 American Liberty 225th Anniversary Silver Four-Medal Set. Each set will be priced at $199.95.
Katrina McDow, Marketing Specialist, Numismatic and Bullion Directorate; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-8495.
31 U.S.C. 5111(a)(2).
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of public availability of the FY 2015 Service Contract Inventories.
In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, Department of Veterans Affairs is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2015 Service Contract Inventory Analysis Report and FY 2016 proposed analysis. The FY 2015 analysis report discusses the methodology, analysis, and special interest functions studied from the FY 2015 inventory, as well actions, planned and taken, to address any identified weaknesses or challenges. The inventory information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The report and inventory were developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010, and updated on December 19, 2011, by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at
Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Dr. Sheila Darrell, Director of Procurement Policy and Warrant Management Service, in the Office of Acquisition and Logistics (OA&L) Policy Division (003A2A) at (202) 632-5261 or
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on June 15, 2017, for publication.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), Federal Reserve System.
Final rule.
The Board is adopting a final rule to promote U.S. financial stability by improving the resolvability and resilience of systemically important U.S. banking organizations and systemically important foreign banking organizations pursuant to section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). Under the final rule, any U.S. top-tier bank holding company identified by the Board as a global systemically important banking organization (GSIB), the subsidiaries of any U.S. GSIB (other than national banks, federal savings associations, state nonmember banks, and state savings associations), and the U.S. operations of any foreign GSIB (other than national banks, federal savings associations, state nonmember banks, and state savings associations) would be subjected to restrictions regarding the terms of their non-cleared qualified financial contracts (QFCs). First, a covered entity generally is required to ensure that QFCs to which it is party provide that any default rights and restrictions on the transfer of the QFCs are limited to the same extent as they would be under the Dodd-Frank Act and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Second, a covered entity generally is prohibited from being party to QFCs that would allow a QFC counterparty to exercise default rights against the covered entity, directly or indirectly, based on the entry into a resolution proceeding under the Dodd-Frank Act or Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or any other resolution proceeding, of an affiliate of the covered entity. The final rule also amends certain definitions in the Board's capital and liquidity rules; these amendments are intended to ensure that the regulatory capital and liquidity treatment of QFCs to which a covered entity is party is not affected by the final rule's restrictions on such QFCs. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) are expected to issue final rules that would subject GSIB subsidiaries for which the OCC and FDIC are the appropriate Federal banking agency to requirements substantively identical to those in this final rule.
The final rule is effective on November 13, 2017.
Anna Harrington, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst (202) 452-6406, or Sean Campbell, Associate Director, (202) 452-3760, Division of Supervision and Regulation; or Will Giles, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-3351, or Lucy Chang, Senior Attorney, (202) 475-6331, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869.
In May 2016, the Board invited comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking (“proposal” or “proposed rule”) to impose restrictions on the qualified financial contracts (QFCs)—such as derivatives contracts and repurchase agreements—of U.S. global systemically important banking organizations (GSIBs) and the U.S. operations of global systemically important foreign banking organizations or “foreign GSIBs” (collectively, “covered entities”).
This final rule, which is part of a set of actions by the Board to address the “too-big-to-fail” problem, addresses one of the ways in which the severe distress or failure of a major financial firm can destabilize the U.S. financial system. Protecting the financial stability of the United States by helping to address this too-big-to-fail problem is a core objective of the Dodd-Frank Act,
This final rule represents a further step to increase the resolvability and resilience of U.S. GSIBs and foreign GSIBs that operate in the United States. The final rule complements the Board's final rulemaking on total loss-absorbing capacity, long-term debt, and clean holding company requirements for GSIBs (TLAC final rule)
The largest financial firms are interconnected with other financial firms through large volumes of financial contracts of various types, including derivatives transactions. The severe distress or failure of one entity within a large financial firm can trigger disruptive terminations of these contracts, as the counterparties of both the failed entity and other entities within the same firm exercise their contractual rights to terminate the contracts and liquidate collateral. These terminations, especially if counterparties lose confidence in the GSIB quickly and in large numbers, can destabilize the financial system and potentially spark a financial crisis through several channels. They can destabilize the failed entity's otherwise solvent affiliates, causing them to fail and thereby destabilizing the entire organization, as well as potentially causing their counterparties to fail in a chain reaction that can ripple through the system. They also may result in fire sales of large volumes of financial assets, such as the collateral that secures the contracts, which can in turn weaken and cause stress for other firms by lowering the value of similar assets that they hold.
For example, the triggering of default rights by counterparties of Lehman Brothers (Lehman) in 2008 was a key driver of the destabilization that resulted from its failure.
This final rule responds to the threat to financial stability posed by such default rights in two ways. First, the final rule reduces the risk that courts in foreign jurisdictions would disregard statutory provisions that would stay the rights of a failed firm's counterparties to terminate their contracts when the firm enters a resolution proceeding under one of the special resolution frameworks for failed financial firms created by Congress under the FDI Act and the Dodd-Frank Act. Second, the final rule facilitates the resolution of a large financial entity under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and other resolution frameworks by ensuring that the counterparties of solvent affiliates of the failed entity cannot unravel their contracts with the solvent affiliate based solely on the failed entity's resolution.
The Board is issuing this final rule under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as its safety and soundness and other relevant authorities.
The enhanced prudential standards in this final rule are intended to prevent or mitigate risks to the financial stability of the United States that could arise from the material financial distress or failure of a GSIB. In particular, the final rule's requirements are intended to improve the resolvability and resilience of U.S. GSIBs under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, or, with reference to insured depository institutions that are GSIB subsidiaries, the FDI Act, and reduce the potential that resolution of the firm will be disorderly and lead to disruptive asset sales and liquidations.
The final rule should also improve the resilience of the U.S. operations of foreign GSIBs, and thereby increase the likelihood that a failed foreign GSIB with U.S. operations would be successfully resolved by its home jurisdiction authorities without the severe distress or failure of the foreign GSIB's U.S. operating entities and with limited effect on the financial stability of the United States.
The Board has tailored this final rule to apply only to those banking organizations whose disorderly failure or severe distress would be likely to pose the greatest risk to U.S. financial stability: The U.S. GSIBs and the U.S. operations of foreign GSIBs. The Board believes that limiting the application of this final rule in this way sensibly balances the costs and benefits of the rule by effectively managing systemic risk while at the same time limiting the burden of compliance by not requiring non-GSIB firms with total assets in excess of $50 billion to comply with any part of this final rule.
QFCs play a role in economically valuable financial intermediation when markets are functioning normally. But they are also a major source of financial interconnectedness, which can pose a threat to financial stability in times of market stress. The final rule focuses on a context in which that threat is especially great: The severe distress or failure of a GSIB that is party to large volumes of QFCs, which are likely to include QFCs with counterparties that are themselves systemically important.
By contract, a party to a QFC generally has the right to take certain actions if its counterparty defaults on the QFC (that is, if it fails to meet certain contractual obligations). Common default rights include the right to suspend performance of the non-defaulting party's obligations, the right to terminate or accelerate the contract, the right to set off amounts owed between the parties, and the right to seize and liquidate the defaulting party's collateral. In general, default rights allow a party to a QFC to reduce the credit risk associated with the QFC by granting it the right to exit the QFC and thereby reduce its exposure to its counterparty upon the occurrence of a specified condition, such as its counterparty's entry into a resolution proceeding.
Where the defaulting party is a GSIB entity, the private benefit of allowing counterparties of GSIBs to take certain actions must be weighed against the harm that these actions may cause by contributing to the severe distress or disorderly failure of a GSIB and increasing the threat to the stability of the U.S. financial system as a whole. For example, if a significant number of QFC counterparties exercise their default rights precipitously and in a manner that would impede an orderly resolution of a GSIB, all QFC counterparties and the financial system may potentially be worse off and less stable.
This may occur through several channels. First, the exits may drain liquidity from a troubled GSIB, forcing the GSIB to rapidly sell off assets at depressed prices, both because the sales must be done within a short timeframe and because the elevated supply may push prices down. These asset fire sales may cause or deepen balance-sheet insolvency at the GSIB, causing a GSIB to fail more suddenly and reducing the amount that its other creditors can recover, thereby imposing losses on those creditors and threatening their solvency. The GSIB may also respond to a QFC run by withdrawing liquidity that it had offered to other firms, forcing them to engage in fire sales. Alternatively, if the GSIB's QFC counterparty itself liquidates the QFC collateral at fire sale prices, the effect will again be to weaken the GSIB's balance sheet as the GSIB marks those assets down to the new fire sale induced price level.
The asset fire sales discussed above can also spread contagion throughout the financial system by increasing volatility and by lowering the value of similar assets held by other firms, potentially causing these firms to suffer mark-to-market losses, diminished market confidence in their own solvency, margin calls, and creditor runs (which could lead to further fire sales, worsening the contagion). Finally, the early terminations of derivatives upon which the surviving entities of the failed GSIB relied to hedge their risks could leave those entities with major risks unhedged, increasing the entities' potential losses going forward.
Where there are significant simultaneous terminations and these effects occur contemporaneously, such as upon the failure or severe distress of a GSIB that is party to a large volume of QFCs, they may pose a substantial risk to financial stability. In short, QFC continuity is important for the orderly resolution of a GSIB because it helps to ensure that the GSIB entities remain viable and to avoid instability caused by asset fire sales.
Consequently, the Board and the FDIC have identified the exercise of certain default rights in financial contracts as a potential obstacle to orderly resolution in the context of resolution plans filed pursuant to section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act
Importantly, this final rule does not affect all types of default rights. Moreover, the final rule is concerned only with default rights that run
Many complex GSIBs have developed resolution strategies that rely on a single-point-of-entry (SPOE) resolution strategy. In an SPOE resolution of a GSIB, only a single legal entity—the GSIB's top-tier bank holding company—would enter a resolution proceeding. The losses that led to the GSIB's failure would be passed up from the operating subsidiaries that incurred the losses to the holding company and would then be imposed on the equity holders and unsecured creditors of the holding company through the resolution process.
The Board's TLAC rule is intended to help, though not exclusively, to lay the foundation necessary for the SPOE resolution of a GSIB by requiring the top-tier holding companies of U.S. GSIBs and the U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign GSIBs to maintain sufficient amounts of loss-absorbing capacity that could be used for resolution and to adopt a “clean holding company” structure, under which certain financial activities that could pose obstacles to orderly resolution would be impermissible for the holding company and could only be conducted by its operating subsidiaries.
However, the U.S. Bankruptcy Code largely exempts QFC
The U.S. Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay also does not prevent the exercise of cross-default rights against an affiliate of the party entering resolution. The stay generally applies only to actions taken against the party entering resolution or the bankruptcy estate,
Title II empowers the FDIC to transfer the QFCs to a bridge financial company or some other financial company that is not in a resolution proceeding and should therefore be capable of performing under the QFCs.
Title II addresses cross-default rights through a similar procedure. It empowers the FDIC to enforce contracts of subsidiaries or affiliates of the failed covered financial company that are “guaranteed or otherwise supported by or linked to the covered financial company, notwithstanding any contractual right to cause the termination, liquidation, or acceleration of such contracts based solely on the insolvency, financial condition, or receivership of” the failed company, so long as, if such contracts are guaranteed or otherwise supported by the covered financial company, the FDIC takes certain steps to protect the QFC counterparties' interests by the end of the business day following the company's entry into OLA resolution.
These stay-and-transfer provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are intended to mitigate the threat posed by QFC default rights. At the same time, the provisions allow appropriate protections for QFC counterparties of the failed financial
The proposal was intended to increase GSIB resolvability and resiliency by addressing two QFC-related issues. First, the proposal sought to address the risk that a court in a foreign jurisdiction may decline to enforce the QFC stay-and-transfer provisions of Title II and the FDI Act discussed above. Second, the proposal sought to address the potential disruption that may occur if a counterparty to a QFC with an affiliate of a GSIB entity that goes into resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or the FDI Act exercises cross-default rights.
In the proposal, “qualified financial contract” or “QFC” was defined to have the same meaning as in section 210(c)(8)(D) of the Dodd-Frank Act,
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) was established in 2009 to coordinate the work of national financial authorities and international standard-setting bodies and to develop and promote the implementation of effective regulatory, supervisory, and other financial sector policies to advance financial stability. The FSB brings together national authorities responsible for financial stability in 24 countries and jurisdictions, as well as international financial institutions, sector-specific international groupings of regulators and supervisors, and committees of central bank experts.
The Board did not propose to prohibit a covered entity from entering into QFCs that allow its counterparties to exercise direct default rights against the covered entity. Under the proposal, a covered entity also could, to the extent not inconsistent with Title II or the FDI Act, enter into a QFC that grants its counterparty the right to terminate the QFC if the covered entity fails to perform its obligations under the QFC.
A number of commenters, including GSIBs that would be subject to the requirements of the proposal, expressed strong support for the proposed rule as a well-considered effort to reduce systemic risk with minimal burden and as one of the last important steps to ensure a more efficient and orderly resolution process for all covered entities and thereby to protect the stability of the U.S. financial system. Other commenters, however, expressed concern with the proposed rule. These commenters generally argued that the proposal should not restrict contractual rights of GSIB counterparties and contended that the proposal shifts the costs of resolving the covered entities to non-defaulting counterparties. Some commenters argued that the proposal would not assuredly mitigate systemic risk, as the requirements could result in increased market and credit risk for QFC counterparties of a GSIB. Commenters also argued that it would be more appropriate for Congress to impose the proposal's restrictions on contractual rights through the legislative process rather than for the Board to do so through a regulation.
As described above, the proposal applied to “covered entities,” which was defined to mean all U.S. GSIBs and their subsidiaries, as well as the U.S. operations (subsidiaries, branches, and agencies) of GSIBs that are foreign banking organizations. The proposal generally defined “subsidiary” as an entity controlled by a GSIB under the Bank Holding Company Act (BHC Act). Commenters urged the Board to move to a financial consolidation standard to define the subsidiaries of covered entities, arguing that the concept of control under the BHC Act includes entities (1) that are not under the operational control of the GSIB and over whom the GSIB does not have the practical ability to require remediation and (2) which are unlikely to raise the types of concerns for the orderly resolution of GSIBs targeted by the proposal. For similar reasons, these commenters argued that, for purposes of the requirement that a covered entity conform existing QFCs if a covered entity enters into a new QFC with a counterparty or its affiliate, a counterparty's “affiliate” should also be defined by reference to financial consolidation rather than BHC Act control.
Commenters also expressed concern that the definition of “covered QFCs” under the proposal was overly broad. The proposal required a covered QFC to explicitly provide that it is subject to the stay-and-transfer provisions of Title II and the FDI Act and prohibited a covered entity from being a party to a QFC that would allow the exercise of cross-default rights. Commenters argued that the final rule should exclude QFCs that do not contain any contractual transfer restrictions, direct default rights, or cross-default rights, as these QFCs do not give rise to the risk that counterparties will exercise their contractual rights in a manner that is inconsistent with the provisions of the U.S. Special Resolution Regimes. Commenters also urged the Board to exclude QFCs governed by U.S. law from the requirement that QFCs explicitly “opt in” to the U.S. Special Resolution Regimes since it is already sufficiently clear that such QFCs are subject to the stay-and-transfer provisions of Title II and the FDI Act. With respect to the proposal's prohibition against provisions that would allow the exercise of cross-default rights in covered QFCs of a GSIB, commenters argued that the final rule should clarify that QFCs that do not contain such cross-default rights or transfer restrictions regarding related credit enhancements are not within the scope of the prohibition.
Commenters also requested that certain types of contracts that may include transfer or default rights subject to the proposal's requirements (
As noted above, the proposal would have deemed compliant covered QFCs amended by the existing Universal Protocol (which allows for creditor protections in addition to those otherwise permitted by the proposed rule). Commenters generally supported this aspect of the proposal, although they requested express clarification that adherence to the existing Universal Protocol would satisfy all of the requirements of the final rule. Commenters urged that the final rule should also provide a safe harbor for a future ISDA protocol that would be substantially similar to the existing Universal Protocol except that it would seek to address the specific needs of buy-side market participants, such as
Commenters expressed support for the exemption in the proposal for cleared QFCs but requested that this exemption be broadened to extend to the client leg of a cleared back-to-back transaction and also to exclude any contract cleared, processed, or settled on a financial market utility (FMU) as well as any QFC conducted according to the rules of an FMU. Commenters also requested an exemption for QFCs with sovereign entities and central banks. Commenters further requested a longer period of time for covered entities to conform covered QFCs with certain types of counterparties to comply with the requirements of the final rule. Commenters also requested that the Board coordinate with other regulatory agencies, consider comments submitted to the OCC regarding its proposal and from entities not regulated by the Board, and finalize a rule with conformance periods consistent with the OCC's final rule. In addition, commenters requested confirmation that modifications to contracts to comply with this rule would not trigger other regulatory requirements (
The Board is adopting this final rule to improve the resolvability and resilience of GSIBs and thereby reduce threats to financial stability. The Board has made a number of changes to the proposal in response to concerns raised by commenters, as further described below.
The final rule is intended to facilitate the orderly resolution of the most systemically important banking firms—the GSIBs—by limiting the ability of the firms' counterparties to terminate QFCs upon the entry of the GSIB or one or more of its affiliates into resolution. The rule requires the inclusion of contractual restrictions on the exercise of certain default rights in those QFCs. In particular, the final rule requires the QFCs of covered entities to contain contractual provisions that opt into the stay-and-transfer treatment of the FDI Act and the Dodd-Frank Act to reduce the risk that the stay-and-transfer treatment would be challenged by a QFC counterparty or a court in a foreign jurisdiction. The final rule also prohibits covered entities from entering into QFCs that contain cross-default rights, subject to certain creditor protection exceptions that would not be expected to interfere with an orderly resolution.
The final rule also facilitates the implementation of the Universal Protocol, which can extend, through contractual agreement, the application of the resolution frameworks of the FDI Act and the Dodd-Frank Act to all QFCs entered into by a GSIB and its subsidiaries, including QFCs entered into by covered entities outside of the United States, and establishes restrictions on cross-default rights that are similar to those in the final rule. The final rule is necessary to implement the Universal Protocol provisions regarding the resolution of a GSIB under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, as these provisions do not become effective until implemented by U.S. regulations. To support further adherence to the Universal Protocol, the final rule creates a safe harbor allowing covered entities to sign up to the Universal Protocol and thereby amend their QFCs pursuant to the Universal Protocol as an alternative to implementing the restrictions of the final rule on a counterparty-by-counterparty basis. In addition, the final rule provides that covered QFCs amended pursuant to adherence of a covered entity to a new protocol (the “U.S. Protocol”) would be deemed to conform to the requirements of the final rule. The U.S. Protocol may differ from the Universal Protocol in the certain respects discussed below, but otherwise must be substantively identical to the Universal Protocol.
The final rule requires covered entities to conform certain covered QFCs to the requirements of the final rule on the first day of the first calendar quarter that begins a year after issuance of the final rule (first compliance date) and phases in conformance requirements with respect to all covered QFCs over a two-year period depending on the type of counterparty. As explained below, a covered entity generally is required to conform pre-existing QFCs only if the covered entity or an affiliate of the covered entity enters into a new QFC with the same counterparty or a consolidated affiliate of the counterparty on or after the first compliance date.
The final rule continues to apply to “covered entities,” which generally are U.S. GSIBs and their subsidiaries and the U.S. operations of foreign GSIBs. “Subsidiary” continues to be defined in the final rule by reference to BHC Act control. Because the FDIC and OCC are expected to finalize substantively identical final rules to that of the Board, the definition of “covered entity” in the final rule excludes state savings associations and state nonmember banks (FSIs), which are supervised by the FDIC, and GSIB subsidiaries (
The final rule, like the proposal, defines “qualified financial contract” or “QFC” to have the same meaning as in section 210(c)(8)(D) of the Dodd-Frank Act
The final rule also makes clear that a covered entity must conform existing
Under the final rule, covered entities are required to ensure that covered QFCs include contractual terms explicitly providing that any default rights or restrictions on the transfer of the QFC are limited to the same extent as they would be pursuant to the U.S. Special Resolution Regimes.
Under the final rule, a covered entity is prohibited from entering into covered QFCs that would allow the exercise of cross-default rights—that is, default rights related, directly or indirectly, to the entry into resolution of an affiliate of the direct party—against it.
The final rule does not prohibit covered entities from entering into QFCs that provide their counterparties with direct default rights against the covered entity. Under the final rule, a covered entity may be party to a QFC that, to the extent not inconsistent with Title II or the FDI Act, provides the counterparty with the right to terminate the QFC if the covered entity fails to perform its obligations under the QFC.
As an alternative to bringing their covered QFCs into compliance with the requirements of the final rule, the final rule allows covered entities to comply with the rule by adhering to the Universal Protocol.
The final rule also allows the Board, at the request of a covered entity, to approve as compliant with the final rule covered QFCs with creditor protections other than those that would otherwise be permitted under section 252.84 of the final rule.
The final rule also amends certain definitions in the Board's capital and liquidity rules to help ensure that the regulatory capital and liquidity treatment of QFCs to which a covered entity is party is not affected by the proposed restrictions on such QFCs. Specifically, the final rule amends the definition of “qualifying master netting agreement” in the Board's regulatory capital and liquidity rules and similarly amends the definitions of the terms “collateral agreement,” “eligible margin loan,” and “repo-style transaction” in the Board's regulatory capital rules.
In developing this final rule, the Board consulted with the FDIC, the OCC, and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (Council).
The OCC is expected to finalize a rulemaking that would subject national banks, Federal savings associations, Federal branches, and Federal agencies of GSIBs to requirements substantively identical to those proposed here for covered entities. Similarly, the FDIC is expected to finalize a rulemaking that would subject state nonmember bank and state savings association subsidiaries of GSIBs to requirements substantively identical to those proposed here for covered entities. The Board has consulted with the OCC and FDIC in the development of their respective final rules. The banking agencies have endeavored to harmonize their respective rules to the extent possible and to provide specificity and clarity in the final rule to minimize the possibility of conflicting interpretations or uncertainty in their application. Moreover, the banking agencies intend to consult with each other and coordinate as needed regarding implementation of the final rule.
The proposed rule applied to “covered entities,” which included (a) any U.S. GSIB top-tier bank holding company, (b) any subsidiary of such a bank holding company that is not a “covered bank,” and (c) the U.S. operations of any foreign GSIB, with the exception of any “covered bank.” In the proposal, the term “covered bank” was defined to include certain entities, such as certain national banks, that are supervised by the OCC. Covered banks would have been exempt from the requirements of the proposal because the OCC was expected to issue a proposed rule that would impose substantively identical requirements on covered banks.
Under the proposal, covered entities included the entities identified as U.S. GSIB top-tier holding companies under the Board's GSIB surcharge rule
A few commenters urged the Board not to expand the scope of covered entity to include non-GSIBs, arguing that such an expansion would exceed the Board's statutory authority under the Dodd-Frank Act. The Board is not including non-GSIBs as covered entities in its final rule.
A number of commenters urged the Board to move to a financial consolidation standard to define a “subsidiary” of a covered entity instead of BHC Act control.
Commenters urged that, regardless of whether a financial consolidation standard is adopted for the purpose of defining “subsidiary,” the final rule should exclude from the definition of “covered entity” entities over which the covered entity does not exercise operational control, such as merchant banking portfolio companies, section 2(h)(2) companies, joint ventures, sponsored funds as distinct from their sponsors or investment advisors, securitization vehicles, entities in which the covered entity holds only a minority interest and does not exert a controlling influence, and subsidiaries held pursuant to provisions for debt previously contracted in good faith (DPC subsidiaries).
In terms of foreign GSIBs, certain commenters argued that foreign banking organization (FBO) subsidiaries for which the FBO has been given special relief by Board order not to hold the subsidiary under an intermediate holding company should not be included in the definition of covered entity, even if such entities would be consolidated under financial consolidation principles.
Under the final rule, a “covered entity” is generally (a) any U.S. GSIB top-tier bank holding company; (b) any subsidiary of such a company that is not a national bank, Federal savings association, Federal branch, Federal agency, or FSI; and (c) the U.S. operations of any foreign GSIB that is not a national bank, Federal savings association, Federal branch, Federal agency, or FSI, with certain specified exceptions.
Accordingly, the methodology provides a tool for identifying those banking organizations whose failure or material distress would pose especially large risks to the financial stability of the United States. Improving the orderly resolution and resolvability of such firms, including by reducing risks associated with their QFCs, would be an important step toward achieving the goals of the Dodd-Frank Act. The final rule's focus on GSIBs is also in keeping with the Dodd-Frank Act's mandate that more stringent prudential standards be applied to the most systemically important bank holding companies.
Under the GSIB surcharge rule's methodology, there are currently eight U.S. GSIBs: Bank of America Corporation, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley Inc., State Street Corporation, and Wells Fargo & Company. This list may change in the future in light of changes to the relevant attributes of the current U.S. GSIBs and of other large U.S. bank holding companies.
“Subsidiary” in the final rule continues to be defined by reference to BHC Act control, as does the definition of “affiliate.”
The final rule excludes from the scope of covered entity DPC subsidiaries and merchant banking portfolio companies, as requested by certain commenters. The final rule also excludes portfolio companies held under section 4(k)(4)(I) of the BHC Act, which is an investment authority for insurance companies that is similar to merchant banking authority; portfolio companies held under the Small Business Investment Act of 1956; and certain companies engaged in the business of making public welfare investments.
In November 2016, the FSB and the BCBS published an updated list of banking organizations that are GSIBs under the assessment methodology. The list includes the eight U.S. GSIBs and the following 22 foreign banking organizations: Agricultural Bank of China, Bank of China, Barclays, BNP Paribas, China Construction Bank, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Groupe BPCE, Groupe Crédit Agricole, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited, HSBC, ING Bank, Mitsubishi UFJ FG, Mizuho FG, Nordea, Royal Bank of Scotland, Santander, Société Générale, Standard Chartered, Sumitomo Mitsui FG, UBS, and Unicredit Group.
As discussed above, the Board's GSIB surcharge rule identifies the most systemically important banking organizations on the basis of their attributes in the categories of size, interconnectedness, cross-jurisdictional activity, substitutability, and complexity. While the GSIB surcharge rule applies only to U.S. bank holding companies, its methodology is equally well-suited to evaluating the systemic importance of foreign banking organizations. The global methodology generally evaluates the same attributes and would identify the same set of GSIBs as the Board's methodology. Moreover, the use of the GSIB surcharge rule to identify both foreign GSIBs and U.S. GSIBs promotes a level playing field between U.S. and foreign banking organizations.
The proposal would have required a top-tier foreign banking organization that is, or controls, a covered company under the Board's resolution plan rule (Regulation QQ) to submit by January 1 of each calendar year a notice of whether its home country supervisor (or other appropriate home country authority) has adopted standards consistent with the global methodology; whether the foreign banking organization prepares or reports the indicators used by the global methodology to identify GSIBs; and, if it does, whether the foreign banking organization has determined that it has the characteristics of a GSIB.
As with U.S. GSIBs, the final rule's focus on those foreign banking organizations that qualify as GSIBs is in keeping with the Dodd-Frank Act's mandate that more stringent prudential standards be applied to the most systemically important banking organizations.
The final rule does not exempt U.S. branches and agencies of foreign GSIBs or U.S. subsidiaries of foreign GSIBs that are not held under an IHC pursuant to a Board order, as requested by certain commenters. The exemptions by Board order were provided in the context of another rule, and the same considerations do not apply in the context of this final rule as these subsidiaries could impact the resolvability of the U.S. operations of a foreign GSIB.
The application of the rule's requirements to a “covered QFC” was one of the most commented upon aspects of the proposal. Certain commenters argued that the definition of QFC in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act was overly broad and imprecise and could include agreements that market participants may not expect to be subject to the stay-and-transfer provisions of the U.S. Special Resolution Regimes. More generally, commenters argued that the proposed definition of QFC was too broad and would capture contracts that do not present any obstacles to an orderly resolution. Commenters urged the Board to exclude a variety of types of QFCs from the requirements of the final rule. In particular, a number of commenters urged the Board to exclude QFCs that do not contain any transfer restrictions or default rights, because these types of QFCs do not give rise to the risk that counterparties will exercise their contractual rights in a manner that is inconsistent with the provisions of the U.S. Special Resolution Regimes. Commenters named several examples of contracts that fall into this category, including cash market securities transactions, certain spot FX transactions (including securities conversion transactions), retail brokerage agreements, retirement/IRA account agreements, margin agreements, options agreements, FX forward master agreements, and delivery versus payment client agreements. Commenters contended that these types of QFCs number in the millions at some firms and that remediating these contracts to include the express provisions required by the final rule would require an enormous client outreach effort that would be extremely burdensome and costly while providing no meaningful resolution benefits. For example, commenters pointed out that for certain types of transaction, such as cash securities transactions, FX spot transactions, and retail QFCs, such a requirement could require an overhaul of existing market practice and documentation that affects hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of transactions occurring on a daily basis and significant education of the general market.
Commenters also urged the Board to exclude QFCs that do not contain any default or cross-default rights but that may contain transfer restrictions. Commenters contended that examples of these types of agreements included investment advisory account agreements with retail customers, which contain transfer restrictions as required by section 205(a)(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, but no direct default or cross-default rights; underwriting agreements;
Commenters also argued for the exclusion of a number of other types of contracts from the definition of covered QFC in the final rule. In particular, a number of commenters urged the Board to exclude contracts issued in the capital markets or related to a capital market issuance, like warrants or a certificate representing a call option, typically on a security or a basket of securities. Although warrants issued in capital markets may contain direct default and cross-default rights as well as transfer restrictions, commenters argued that remediation of outstanding warrant agreements would be difficult, if not impossible, since remediation would require the affirmative vote of a substantial number of separate voting groups of holders to amend the terms of the instruments and that obtaining such consent could be expensive due to “hold-out” premiums. Commenters also
Commenters also urged the exclusion of contracts for the purchase of commodities in the ordinary course of business (
The final rule applies to any “covered QFC,” which generally is defined as any “in-scope QFC” that a covered entity enters into, executes, or to which the covered entity otherwise becomes a party.
In response to concerns raised by commenters, the final rule exempts QFCs that have no transfer restrictions or default rights, as these QFCs have no provisions that the rule is intended to address. The final rule effects this exemption by limiting the scope of QFCs potentially subject to the rule to those QFCs that explicitly restrict the transfer of a QFC from a covered entity or explicitly provide default rights that may be exercised against a covered entity (in-scope QFCs).
The final rule provides that a covered entity is not required to conform certain investment advisory contracts described by commenters (
The final rule also provides the Board with authority to exempt one or more covered entities from conforming certain contracts or types of contracts to the final rule after considering, in addition to any other factor the Board deems relevant, the burden the exemption would relieve and the potential impact of the exemption on the resolvability of the covered entity or its affiliates.
Commenters argued that requiring remediation of existing QFCs of a person if the GSIB entered into a new QFC with an affiliate of the person would make compliance with the proposed rule overly burdensome.
The final rule's definition of “covered QFC” has been modified to address the concerns raised by commenters. In particular, the final rule provides that a covered QFC includes a QFC that the covered entity entered, executed, or otherwise became a party to before January 1, 2019, if the covered entity or any affiliate that is a covered entity or excluded bank also enters, executes, or otherwise becomes a party to a QFC with the same person or a consolidated affiliate of the same person on or after January 1, 2019.
The definition of “covered QFC” is intended to limit the restrictions of the final rule to those financial transactions whose disorderly unwind has substantial potential to frustrate the orderly resolution of a GSIB, as discussed above. By adopting the Dodd-Frank Act's definition of QFC, with the modifications described above, the final rule generally extends stay-and-transfer protections to the same types of transactions as Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act. In this way, the final rule enhances the prospects for an orderly resolution in bankruptcy and under the U.S. Special Resolution Regimes.
Some commenters requested clarification that transactions between a covered entity client and its clearing member (as opposed to transactions where the covered entity is the clearing member) would be subject to the rule's requirements, since this would be consistent with the Universal Protocol. As explained in this section, the exemption in the final rule regarding CCPs does not depend on whether the covered entity is a clearing member or a client. A covered QFC—generally a QFC to which a covered entity is a party—is exempted from the requirements of the final rule if a CCP is also a party.
A few commenters requested that the Board modify the definition of “central counterparty,” which was defined to mean “a counterparty (for example, a clearing house) that facilitates trades between counterparties in one or more financial markets by either guaranteeing trades or novating trades” in the proposal.
Commenters also urged the Board to exclude from the requirements of the final rule all QFCs that are cleared, processed, or settled through the facilities of an FMU, as defined in section 803(6) of the Dodd-Frank Act,
The issues that the final rule is intended to address with respect to non-cleared QFCs may also exist in the context of centrally cleared QFCs. However, clearing through a CCP provides unique benefits to the financial system while presenting unique issues related to the cancellation of cleared contracts. Accordingly, the Board continues to believe it is appropriate to exclude centrally cleared QFCs, in light of differences between cleared and non-cleared QFCs with respect to contractual arrangements, counterparty credit risk, default management, and supervision. The Board has not extended the exclusion for CCPs to the client-facing leg of a cleared transaction because bilateral trades between a GSIB and a non-CCP counterparty are the types of transactions that the final rule intends to address and because nothing in the final rule would prohibit a covered entity clearing member and a client from agreeing to terminate or novate a trade to balance the clearing member's exposure. The final rule continues to define central counterparty as a counterparty that facilitates trades between counterparties in one or more financial markets by either guaranteeing trades or novating trades, which is a broad definition that should be familiar to market participants as it is used in the regulatory capital rules.
The final rule also makes clear that, if one or more FMUs are the only counterparties to a covered QFC, the covered entity is not required to conform the covered QFC to the final rule.
The final rule does not explicitly exclude futures and cleared swaps agreements with a futures commission merchant, as requested by a commenter. The nature and scope of the requested exclusion is unclear, and, therefore, it is unclear whether the exclusion would be necessary, on the one hand, or overbroad, on the other hand. However, the final rule makes a number of other clarifications and exemptions that may help address the commenter's concern regarding FCM agreements.
Foreign GSIBs have master agreements that permit transactions to be entered into both at a U.S. branch or U.S. agency of the foreign GSIB and at a non-U.S. location of the foreign GSIB (such as a foreign branch). Notwithstanding the proposal's general treatment of a master agreement and all QFCs thereunder as a single QFC, the proposal would have excluded QFCs under such a “multi-branch master agreement” that are not booked at a covered entity and for which no payment or delivery may be made at a covered entity.
Commenters expressed support for this exclusion, but requested that the requirement exclude from the definition of covered QFC those transactions under master agreements where payment and deliveries may be made by or to the U.S. branch or agency so long as the transactions or assets are not booked in the U.S. branch or agency. These commenters argued that the ability to make payments or delivery alone does not make a QFC sufficiently closely connected to the United States to raise the concerns about resolution that the rule is intended to address. Commenters also argued that the requirement to include new contractual terms in a QFC where payment or delivery may occur in the United States would require foreign GSIBs to amend many additional QFCs booked abroad, many of which must also be amended to comply with contractual stay requirements of the foreign GSIBs' home country regulatory regimes. Commenters argued that amending such QFCs under multi-branch master agreements that are not booked in the United States would require some foreign GSIBs to amend thousands of contracts at significant cost and would impose a disproportionate burden on foreign GSIBs as compared to U.S. GSIBs. These commenters argued this would impose a significant burden on non-U.S. covered entities with no benefit to U.S. financial stability, as these QFCs would not be expected to be subject to a U.S. resolution regime.
One commenter also recommended that multi-branch master agreements be treated as a single QFC, rather than requiring the application of different requirements to different transactions thereunder, so as to align the rule's requirements with current industry-standard documentation and to avoid additional implementation hurdles and costs. The commenter recommended that the entirety of a multi-branch master agreement and underlying transactions be a covered QFC if a new QFC with the counterparty or its consolidated affiliates is booked to the U.S. branch or agency after the compliance date or if a new QFC is entered into with an affiliate of the U.S. branch or agency that is also subject to the requirements.
The final rule has been modified from the proposal to address the concerns raised by commenters. In particular, the final rule provides that, with respect to a U.S. branch or U.S. agency of a foreign GSIB, a foreign GSIB multi-branch master agreement that is a covered QFC solely because the master agreement permits agreements or transactions that are QFCs to be entered into at one or more U.S. branches or U.S. agencies of the foreign GSIB will be considered a covered QFC for purposes of this subpart only with respect to such agreements or transactions booked at such U.S. branches and U.S. agencies.
The final rule does not, as requested by one commenter, deem the entirety of a multi-branch master agreement to be a covered QFC if a new QFC with the counterparty (or its consolidated affiliate) is booked to the covered entity or its affiliate. Many commenters supported excluding transactions from multi-branch master netting agreements that are not closely connected to the United States. In contrast to the proposal and these comments, the modification requested by this commenter would require transactions that are not booked in the United States or otherwise connected to the United States to be conformed to the requirements of the final rule. The commenter's concerns regarding costs associated with potentially breaking netting sets may nonetheless be addressed through adherence to the Universal Protocol or the U.S. Protocol, which are discussed below.
The Board continues to believe that covering QFCs with sovereigns and central banks under the final rule is an important requirement and has not modified the final rule to address the requests made by commenters. Excluding QFCs with sovereigns and central banks would be inconsistent with Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act and the FDI Act. Moreover, the mass termination of such QFCs has the potential to undermine the resolution of a GSIB and the financial stability of the United States. The final rule provides covered entities two years to conform covered QFCs with central banks and sovereigns (as well as certain other counterparties, as discussed below). This additional time should provide covered entities sufficient time to develop separate conformance mechanisms for sovereigns and central banks, if necessary.
As discussed above, a party to a QFC generally has a number of rights that it can exercise if its counterparty defaults on the QFC by failing to meet certain contractual obligations. These rights are generally, but not always, contractual in nature. One common default right is a setoff right: The right to reduce the total amount that the non-defaulting party must pay by the amount that its defaulting counterparty owes. A second common default right is the right to liquidate pledged collateral and use the proceeds to pay the defaulting party's net obligation to the non-defaulting party. Other common rights include the ability to suspend or delay the non-defaulting party's performance under the contract or to accelerate the obligations of the defaulting party. Finally, the non-defaulting party typically has the right to terminate the QFC, meaning that the parties would not make payments that would have been required under the QFC in the future. The phrase “default right” in the proposed rule was broadly defined to include these common rights as well as “any similar rights.”
However, the proposed definition of default right excluded two rights that are typically associated with the business-as-usual functioning of a QFC. First, same-day netting that occurs during the life of the QFC in order to reduce the number and amount of payments each party owes the other was excluded from the definition of “default right.”
However, certain QFCs are also commonly subject to rights that would increase the amount of collateral or margin that the defaulting party (or a guarantor) must provide upon an event of default. The financial impact of such default rights on a covered entity could be similar to the impact of the liquidation and acceleration rights discussed above. Therefore, the proposed definition of “default right” included such rights (with the exception discussed in the previous paragraph for margin requirements based solely on the value of collateral or the amount of an economic exposure).
Finally, contractual rights to terminate without the need to show cause, including rights to terminate on demand and rights to terminate at contractually specified intervals, were excluded from the definition of “default right” under the proposal for purposes of the proposed rule's restrictions on cross-default rights.
Commenters expressed support for a number of aspects of the definition of default rights. For example, a number of commenters supported the proposed exclusion from the definition of “default right” of contractual rights to terminate without the need to show cause, noting that such rights exist for a variety of reasons and that reliance on these rights is unlikely to result in a fire sale of assets during a GSIB resolution. At least one commenter requested that this exclusion be expanded to include force majeure events. Commenters also expressed support for the exclusion for what commenters referred to as “business-as-usual” payments associated with a QFC. However, these commenters requested clarification that certain “business-as-usual” actions would not be included in the definition of default right, such as payment netting, posting and return of collateral, procedures for the substitution of collateral and modification to the terms of the QFC, and also requested clarification that the definition of “default right” would not include off-setting transactions to third parties by the non-defaulting counterparty. One commenter urged that, if the Board's goal is to provide that a party cannot enforce a provision that requires more margin because of a credit downgrade but may demand more margin for market price changes, the rule should state so explicitly. Another commenter
The final rule retains the same definition of “default right” as that of the proposal.
“Business-as-usual” rights regarding changes in collateral or margin would not be included within the definition of default right to the extent that the right or operation of a contractual provision arises solely from either a change in the value of collateral or margin or a change in the amount of an economic exposure. In response to commenters' requests for clarification, this exception includes changes in margin due to changes in market price, but does not include changes due to counterparty credit risk (
Regarding transactions with third parties, the final rule, like the proposal, does not require covered entities to address default rights in QFCs solely between parties that are not covered entities (
The proposed rule generally would have required a covered QFC to explicitly provide both (a) that the transfer of the QFC (and any interest or obligation in or under it and any property securing it) from the covered entity to a transferee would be effective to the same extent as it would be under the U.S. Special Resolution Regimes if the covered QFC were governed by the laws of the United States or of a state of the United States and (b) that default rights with respect to the covered QFC that could be exercised against a covered entity could be exercised to no greater extent than they could be exercised under the U.S. Special Resolution Regimes if the covered QFC were governed by the laws of the United States or of a state of the United States.
A number of commenters noted that the wording of these requirements in proposed section 252.83(b) was confusing and could be read to be inconsistent with the intent of the section. In response to comments, the final rule makes clearer that the substantive restrictions apply only in the event the covered entity (or, in the case of the requirement regarding default rights, its affiliate) becomes subject to a proceeding under a U.S. Special Resolution Regime.
A number of commenters argued that QFCs should be exempt from the requirements of proposed section 252.83 if the QFC is governed by U.S. law. An example of such a QFC provided by commenters includes the standard form repurchase and securities lending agreement published by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. These commenters argued that counterparties to such agreements are already required to observe the stay-and-transfer provisions of the FDI Act and Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, as mandatory provisions of U.S. federal law, and that requiring an amendment of these types of QFCs to include the express provisions required under section 252.83 would be redundant and would not provide any material resolution benefit, but would significantly increase the remediation burden on covered entities.
Other commenters proposed a three-prong test of “nexus with the United States” for purposes of recognizing an exclusion from the express acknowledgment of the requirements of proposed section 252.83. In particular, these commenters argued that the presence of two factors, in addition to the contract being governed by U.S law, would provide greater certainty that courts would apply the stay-and-transfer provisions of the FDI Act and Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act: (1) If a contract is entered into between entities organized in the United States; and (2) to the extent the GSIB's obligations under the QFC are collateralized, if the collateral is held with a U.S. custodian or depository pursuant to an account agreement governed by U.S. law.
The requirements of the final rule seek to provide certainty that all covered QFCs would be treated the same way in the context of a resolution of a covered entity under the Dodd-Frank Act or the FDI Act. The stay-and-transfer provisions of the U.S. Special Resolution Regimes should be enforced with respect to all contracts of any U.S. GSIB entity that enters resolution under a U.S. Special Resolution Regime, as well as all transactions of the subsidiaries of such an entity. Nonetheless, it is possible that a court in a foreign jurisdiction would decline to enforce those provisions. In general, the requirement that the effect of the statutory stay-and-transfer provisions be incorporated directly into the QFC contractually helps to ensure that a court in a foreign jurisdiction would enforce the effect of those provisions, regardless of whether the court would otherwise have decided to enforce the U.S. statutory provisions.
In response to comments, the final rule exempts from the requirements of section 252.83 a covered QFC that meets two requirements.
This section of the final rule is consistent with efforts by regulators in other jurisdictions to address similar risks by requiring that financial firms within their jurisdictions ensure that the effect of the similar provisions under these foreign jurisdictions' respective special resolution regimes would be enforced by courts in other jurisdictions, including the United States. For example, the U.K.'s Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) recently required certain financial firms to ensure that their counterparties to newly created obligations agree to be subject to stays on early termination that are similar to those that would apply upon a U.K. firm's entry into resolution if the financial arrangements were governed by U.K. law.
Commenters also argued that it would be more appropriate for Congress to act to obtain cross-border recognition of U.S. Special Resolution Regimes, rather than for the Board to do so through this final rule. The Board believes it is appropriate to adopt this final rule in order to promote U.S. financial stability by improving the resolvability and resilience of U.S. GSIBs and foreign GSIBs pursuant to section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Because of the current risk that the stay-and-transfer provisions of U.S. Special Resolution Regimes may not be recognized under the laws of other jurisdictions, section 252.83 of the final rule requires similar contractual recognition to help ensure that courts in foreign jurisdictions will recognize these provisions.
This requirement would advance the goal of the final rule of removing QFC-related obstacles to the orderly resolution of a GSIB. As discussed above, restrictions on the exercise of QFC default rights are an important prerequisite for an orderly GSIB resolution. Congress recognized the importance of such restrictions when it enacted the stay-and-transfer provisions of the U.S. Special Resolution Regimes. As demonstrated by the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the modern financial system is global in scope, and covered entities are party to large volumes of QFCs with connections to foreign
First, the final rule distinguishes between a credit enhancement and a “direct QFC,” defined as any QFC that is not a credit enhancement.
One commenter requested that the exception be broadened to include transfers that would result in the supported party being unable, without further action, to satisfy the requirements of any law applicable to the supported party. As an example of a type of transfer that the commenter intended to be included within the broadened exception, the commenter stated that the supported party would be able to prevent the transfer if it would result in less favorable tax treatment. The exception would seem to also include filing requirements that may arise as a result of transfer or other requirements that could be satisfied with minimal “action” by, or cost to, the supported party. More generally, the scope of the laws that supported parties deem themselves to satisfy and the method of such satisfaction is unclear and potentially very broad.
The final rule retains the exception as proposed. The requested exception would add uncertainty as to whether transfers may be made during the stay period and potentially subsume the transfer prohibition.
One commenter expressed strong support for these provisions.
A number of commenters representing counterparties to covered entities objected to section 252.84 of the proposal and requested the elimination of this provision. These commenters expressed concern about limitations on counterparties' exercise of default rights during insolvency proceedings and argued that rights should not be taken away from contracting parties other than where limitation of such rights is necessary for public policy reasons and the resolution process is controlled by a regulatory authority with particular expertise in the resolution of the type of entity subject to the proceedings. Certain commenters argued that eliminating cross-default termination rights undermines the ability of QFC counterparties to effectively manage and mitigate their exposure to market and credit risk to a GSIB and interferes with market forces. One commenter similarly argued that, unless the Board takes appropriate measures to strengthen the financial condition and creditworthiness of a failing GSIB during and after the temporary stay, the stay will only expose QFC counterparties to an additional 48 hours of credit risk exposure without achieving the orderly resolution goals of the rule. Another commenter argued that non-defaulting counterparties should not be prevented from filing proofs of claim or other pleadings in a bankruptcy case during the stay period, since bankruptcy deadlines might pass and leave the counterparty unable to collect the unsecured creditor dividend. Commenters contended that restrictions on cross-default rights may lead to pro-cyclical behavior with asset managers moving funds away from covered entities as soon as those entities show signs of distress, and perhaps even in normal situations, and would disadvantage non-GSIB parties (
Some commenters argued that, if these rights must be restricted by law, Congress should impose such restrictions and that the requirements of the proposed rule circumvented the legislative process by creating a de facto amendment to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code that forecloses countless QFC counterparties from exercising their rights of cross-default protection under section 362 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Some of these commenters argued that parties cannot by contract alter the U.S. Bankruptcy Code's provisions, such as the administrative priority of a claim in bankruptcy, and one commenter suggested that non-covered entity counterparties may challenge the legality of contractual stays on the exercise of default rights if a GSIB becomes distressed. Certain commenters also questioned the Board's ability to rely on section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act in imposing these requirements and argued that making SPOE resolution possible under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code was not an appropriate justification for this rule. Other commenters, however, argued that the provisions of the proposed rule were necessary to address systemic risks posed by the exemption for QFCs in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
As an alternative to eliminating these requirements, these commenters expressed the view that, if the Board moves forward with these provisions, the final rule should include at least those minimum creditor protections established by the Universal Protocol. Certain commenters also argued that this provision was overly broad in that it covered not only U.S. federal resolution and insolvency proceedings but also state and foreign resolution and insolvency proceedings.
Some commenters argued that the Board should eliminate the stay on default rights that are related “indirectly” to an affiliate of the direct party becoming subject to insolvency proceedings, claiming it is unclear what constitutes a right related “indirectly” to insolvency and noting that any default right exercised by a counterparty after an affiliate of that counterparty enters resolution could arguably be motivated by the affiliate's entry into resolution.
A primary purpose of these restrictions is to facilitate the resolution of a GSIB outside of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, including under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As discussed above, the potential for mass exercises of QFC default rights is one reason why a GSIB's failure could cause severe damage to financial stability. In the context of an SPOE resolution, if the GSIB parent's entry into resolution led to the mass exercise of cross-default rights by the subsidiaries' QFC counterparties, then the subsidiaries could themselves fail or experience financial distress. Moreover, the mass exercise of QFC default rights could entail asset fire sales, which likely would affect other financial companies and undermine financial stability. Similar disruptive results can occur with an MPOE resolution of a GSIB affiliate if an otherwise performing GSIB entity is subject to having its QFCs terminated or accelerated as a result of the default of its affiliate.
In an SPOE resolution, this damage can be avoided if actions of the following two types are prevented: The exercise of direct default rights against the top-tier holding company that has entered resolution, and the exercise of cross-default rights against the operating subsidiaries based on their parent's entry into resolution. (Direct default rights against the subsidiaries would not be exercisable, because the subsidiaries would not enter resolution.) In an MPOE resolution, this damage occurs from exercise of default rights against a performing entity based on the failure of an affiliate.
Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act's stay-and-transfer provisions would address both direct default rights and cross-default rights. But, as explained above, no similar statutory provisions would apply to a resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The final rule attempts to address these obstacles to orderly resolution by extending the stay-and-transfer provisions to any type of resolution of a covered entity. Similarly, the final rule would facilitate a transfer of the GSIB parent's interests in its subsidiaries, along with any credit enhancements it provides for those subsidiaries, to a solvent financial company by prohibiting covered entities from having QFCs that would allow the QFC counterparty to prevent such a transfer or to use it as a ground for exercising default rights.
The final rule also is intended to facilitate other approaches to GSIB resolution. For example, it would facilitate a similar resolution strategy in which a U.S. depository institution subsidiary of a GSIB enters resolution under the FDI Act while its subsidiaries continue to meet their financial obligations outside of resolution.
The final rule is intended to enhance the potential for orderly resolution of a GSIB under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the FDI Act, or a similar resolution regime. The risks to an orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code include separate resolution or insolvency proceedings, including proceedings in non-U.S. jurisdictions. Therefore, by staying default rights arising from affiliates entering such proceedings, the final rule would advance the Dodd-Frank Act's goal of making orderly GSIB resolution workable under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Likewise, the final rule retains the prohibition against contractual provisions that permit the exercise of default rights that are indirectly related to the resolution of an affiliate. QFCs may include a number of default rights triggered by an event that is not the resolution of an affiliate but is caused by the resolution, such as a credit rating downgrade in response to the resolution. A primary purpose of the final rule is to prevent early terminations caused by the resolution of an affiliate. A regulation that specifies each type of early termination provision that should be stayed would be over-inclusive, under-inclusive, and easy to evade. Similarly, a stay of default rights that are only directly related to the resolution of an affiliate could increase the likelihood of litigation to determine if the relationship between the default right and the affiliate resolution was sufficient to be considered “directly” related. The final rule attempts to decrease such uncertainty and litigation risk by including default rights that are related (
Moreover, the final rule does not affect parties' rights under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As explained above, the regulation does not prohibit a covered QFC from permitting the exercise of default rights against a covered entity that has entered bankruptcy proceedings.
The final rule should also benefit the counterparties of a subsidiary of a failed GSIB by preventing the severe distress or disorderly failure of the subsidiary and allowing it to continue to meet its obligations. While it may be in the individual interest of any given counterparty to exercise any available rights to run on a subsidiary of a failed GSIB, the mass exercise of such rights could harm the counterparties' collective interest by causing an otherwise-solvent subsidiary to fail. Therefore, like the automatic stay in bankruptcy, which serves to maximize creditors' ultimate recoveries by preventing a disorderly liquidation of the debtor, the final rule seeks to mitigate this collective action problem to the benefit of the failed firm's creditors and counterparties by preventing a disorderly resolution. And because many creditors and counterparties of GSIBs are themselves systemically important financial firms, improving outcomes for those creditors and counterparties should further protect the financial stability of the United States.
First, in order to ensure that the proposed prohibitions would apply only to cross-default rights (and not direct default rights), the final rule provides that a covered QFC may permit the exercise of default rights based on the direct party's entry into a resolution proceeding.
One commenter requested the Board revise this provision to clarify that default rights based on a covered entity or an affiliate entering resolution under the FDI Act or Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act are not prohibited but instead are merely subject to the terms of such regimes. The commenter requested the Board clarify that such default rights are permitted so long as they are subject to the provisions of the FDI Act or Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act as required under section 225.83. The final rule eliminates this proposed exemption for special resolution regimes because the rule separately addresses cross-defaults arising from the FDI Act and because foreign special resolution regimes, along with efforts in other jurisdictions to contractually recognize stays of default rights under those regimes, should reduce the risk that such a regime should pose to the orderly resolution of a GSIB under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or other ordinary insolvency proceedings.
The final rule also allows covered QFCs to permit the exercise of default rights based on the failure of the direct party, a covered affiliate support provider, or a transferee that assumes a credit enhancement to satisfy its payment or delivery obligations under the direct QFC or credit enhancement.
As explained in the proposal, the exceptions in the final rule for the creditor protections described above are intended to help ensure that the final rule permits a covered entity's QFC
These exceptions also help to ensure that a covered entity's QFC counterparty would not risk the delay and expense associated with becoming involved in a bankruptcy proceeding, since, unlike a typical creditor of an entity that enters bankruptcy, the QFC counterparty would retain its ability under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code's safe harbors to exercise direct default rights. This should further reduce the counterparty's incentive to run. Reducing incentives to run in the period leading up to resolution promotes orderly resolution, since a QFC creditor run (such as a mass withdrawal of repo funding) could lead to a disorderly resolution and pose a threat to financial stability.
Where a covered QFC is supported by a covered affiliate credit enhancement,
Under the final rule, contractual provisions may permit the exercise of default rights at the end of the stay period if the covered affiliate credit enhancement has not been transferred away from the covered affiliate support provider and that support provider becomes subject to a resolution proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
QFCs may also permit the exercise of default rights at the end of the stay period if the original credit support provider does not remain, and no transferee becomes, obligated to the same (or substantially similar) extent as the original credit support provider was obligated immediately prior to entering a resolution proceeding (including a Chapter 11 proceeding) with respect to (a) the covered affiliate credit enhancement, (b) all other covered affiliate credit enhancements provided by the credit support provider on any other covered QFCs between the same parties, and (c) all credit enhancements provided by the credit support provider between the direct party and affiliates of the direct party's QFC counterparty.
Finally, if the covered affiliate credit enhancement is transferred to a transferee, the QFC may permit the non-defaulting counterparty to exercise default rights at the end of the stay period unless either (a) all of the covered affiliate support provider's ownership interests in the direct party are also transferred to the transferee or (b) reasonable assurance is provided that substantially all of the covered affiliate support provider's assets (or the net proceeds from the sale of those assets) will be transferred or sold to the transferee in a timely manner.
Commenters generally expressed strong support for these exclusions but also requested that these exclusions be broadened in a number of ways. Certain commenters urged the Board to broaden the exclusions to permit, after trigger of the stay-and-transfer provisions, the exercise of default rights by a counterparty against a direct counterparty or covered support provider with respect to any default right under the QFC (other than a default right explicitly based on the failure of an affiliate) and not just with respect to defaults resulting from payment or delivery failure or the direct party becoming subject to certain resolution or insolvency proceedings (
The final rule does not include the additional creditor protections of the Universal Protocol or other creditor protections requested by commenters. As explained in the proposal and below, the additional creditor protections of the Universal Protocol do not appear to materially diminish the prospects for an orderly resolution of a GSIB because the Universal Protocol includes a number of desirable features that the final rule otherwise lacks.
One commenter also argued that transfer should be limited to a bridge bank under the FDI Act or a bridge financial company under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act to ensure that the transferee is more likely to be able to satisfy the obligations of a credit support provider and is subject to regulatory oversight. Section 252.84 of the final rule permits QFCs to include provisions allowing a counterparty to exercise its default rights against a direct party that enters resolution under the FDI Act or Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, other than the limited case contemplated by section 252.84(h) of the final rule. The Board is not adopting the proposed additional creditor protection because it would defeat in large part the purpose of section 252.84 and potentially create confusion regarding the requirements and purposes of sections 252.83 and 252.84 of the final rule.
A few commenters expressed concern that the additional creditor protections applied only to QFCs supported by a credit enhancement provided by a “covered affiliate support provider” (
One commenter requested clarification that the creditors of a non-U.S. credit support provider are permitted to exercise any and all rights against that non-U.S. credit support provider that they could exercise under the non-U.S. resolution regime applicable to that non-U.S. credit support provider. In general, covered entities may be entities organized or operating in the United States or, with respect to U.S. GSIBs, abroad. The final rule, like the proposal, is limited to QFCs to which a covered entity is a party. Section 252.84 of the final rule generally prohibits QFCs to which a covered entity is a party from allowing the exercise of cross-default rights of the covered QFC, regardless of whether the affiliate entering resolution and/or the credit support provider is organized or operates in the United States.
Another commenter expressed concern that the proposed section 252.84(g)(3) (section 252.84(f)(3) of the final rule) would provide a right without a remedy because, if the covered affiliate credit support provider is no longer obligated and no transferee has taken on the obligation, the non-covered entity counterparty may have only a breach of contract claim against an entity that has transferred all of its assets to a third party. The creditor protections of section 252.84, if triggered, permit contractual provisions allowing the exercise of existing default rights against the direct party to the covered QFC, as well as any existing rights against the credit enhancement provider.
Another commenter suggested revising section 252.84(g) (section 252.84(f) of the final rule) to clarify that, for a covered direct QFC supported by a covered affiliate credit enhancement, the covered direct QFC and the covered affiliate credit enhancement may permit the exercise of a default right after the stay period that is related, directly or indirectly, to the covered affiliate support provider entering into resolution proceedings. This reading is incorrect and revising the rule as requested would largely defeat the purpose of section 252.84 of the final rule by merely delaying QFC termination en masse.
Some commenters also requested specific provisions related to physical commodity contracts, including a provision that would allow regulators to override a stay if necessary to avoid disruption of the supply or prevent exacerbation of price movements in a commodity or a provision that would allow the exercise of default rights of counterparties delivering or taking delivery of physical commodities if a covered entity defaults on any physical delivery obligation to any counterparty. As noted above, QFCs may permit a counterparty to exercise its default rights immediately, even during the stay period, if the covered entity fails to pay or perform on the covered QFC with the counterparty (or another contract between the same parties that gives rise to a default under the covered QFC).
A few commenters requested guidance on how to satisfy the burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence so that they may avoid seeking such clarity through litigation. Other commenters urged that this standard was not appropriate and should be eliminated. In particular, a number of commenters expressed concern that the burden of proof requirements, which are more stringent than the burden of proof requirements for typical contractual disputes adjudicated in a court, unduly hamper the creditor protections of counterparties and impose a burden directly on non-covered entities, who should be able to exercise default rights if it is commercially reasonable in the context. One commenter contended that this burden, combined with the stay on default rights related “indirectly” to an affiliate entering insolvency proceedings, effectively prohibits counterparties from exercising any default rights during the stay period. These commenters argued that it is inappropriate for the Board in a rulemaking to alter the burden of proof for contractual disputes. One commenter suggested that, in a scenario involving a master agreement with some transactions out of the money and others in the money, the defaulting GSIB will have a lower burden of proof for demonstrating that it is owed money than for demonstrating that it owes money, should the non-GSIB counterparty exercise its termination rights. Certain commenters suggested instead that the final rule shift the burden and instead adopt a rebuttable presumption that the non-defaulting counterparty's exercise of default rights is permitted under the QFC unless the defaulting covered entity demonstrates otherwise. One commenter requested that the burden of proof not apply to the exercise of direct default rights.
The final rule retains the proposed burden of proof requirements. The requirement is based on a primary goal of the final rule—to avoid the disorderly termination of QFCs in response to the failure of an affiliate of a GSIB. The requirement accomplishes this goal by making clear that a party that exercises a default right when an affiliate of its direct party enters receivership of insolvency proceedings is unlikely to prevail in court unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the exercise of the default right against a covered entity is not related to the insolvency or resolution proceeding. The requirement therefore should discourage the impermissible exercise of default rights without prohibiting the exercise of all default rights. Moreover, the burden of proof requirement should not discourage the exercise of default rights after or in response to a failure to satisfy a creditor protection provision (
This proposal would have applied to a covered QFC regardless of whether the covered entity or the covered entity's direct counterparty is acting as a principal or as an agent. Sections 252.83 and 252.84 of the proposal did not distinguish between agents and principals with respect to default rights or transfer restrictions applicable to covered QFCs. Under the proposal, section 252.83 would have limited default rights and transfer restrictions that the principal and its agent may have against a covered entity consistent with the U.S. Special Resolution Regimes.
Commenters argued that the provisions of sections 252.83 and 252.84 that relate to transactions entered into by the covered entity as agent should exclude QFCs where the covered entity or its affiliate does not have any liability (including contingent liability) under or in connection with the contract, or any payment or delivery obligations with respect thereto. Commenters also argued that the proposed agent provisions should not apply to circumstances where the covered entity acts as agent for a counterparty whose transactions are excluded from the requirements of the rule.
Commenters contended that the requirement to conform QFCs with all affiliates of a counterparty when an agent is acting on behalf of the counterparty would be particularly burdensome, as the agent may not have information about the counterparty's affiliates or their contracts with covered entities. Commenters also requested clarification that conformance is not required of contracts between a covered entity as agent on behalf of a non-U.S. affiliate of a foreign GSIB that would not be a covered entity under the proposal, since default rights related to the non-U.S. operations of foreign GSIBs are not the focus of the rule and do not bear a sufficient connection to U.S. financial stability to warrant the burden and cost of compliance.
One commenter also urged that securities lending authorization agreements (SLAAs) should also be exempt from the rule. The commenter explained that SLAAs are banking services agreements that establish an agency relationship with the lender of securities and an agent and may be considered credit enhancements for securities lending transactions (and therefore QFCs) because the SLAAs typically require the agent to indemnify the lender for any shortfall between the value of the collateral and the value of the securities in the event of a borrower default. The commenter explained that SLAAs typically do not contain provisions that may impede the resolution of a GSIB, but may contain termination rights or contractual restrictions on assignability. However, the commenter argued that the beneficiaries under SLAAs lack the incentive to contest the transfer of the SLAA to a bridge institution in the event of GSIB insolvency.
To respond to concerns raised by commenters, the agency provisions of the proposed rule have been modified in the final rule. The final rule provides that a covered entity does not become a party to a QFC solely by acting as agent to a QFC.
The final rule does not specifically exempt SLAAs because the agreements provide the beneficiaries with contractual rights that may hinder the orderly resolution of a GSIB and because it is unclear how such beneficiaries would act in response to the failure of their agent. More generally, the final rule does not exempt a QFC with respect to which an agent also acts in another capacity, such as guarantor. Continuing the example regarding the covered entity acting as agent with respect to a master securities lending agreement, if the covered entity also provided a SLAA that included the typical indemnification provision discussed above, the agency exemption of the final rule would not exclude the SLAA but would still exclude the master securities lending agreement. This is because the covered entity is acting solely as agent with respect to the master securities lending agreement but is acting as agent and guarantor with respect to the SLAA. However, SLAAs would be exempted under the final rule to the extent that they are not “in-scope QFCs” or otherwise meet the exemptions for covered QFCs of the final rule.
The proposal noted that, while the scope of the stay-and-transfer provisions of the Universal Protocol are narrower than the stay-and-transfer provisions that would have been required under the proposal and the Universal Protocol provides a number of creditor protection provisions that would not otherwise have been available under the proposal, the Universal Protocol includes a
Commenters generally supported the proposal's provisions to allow covered entities to comply with the requirements of the proposed rule through adherence to the Universal Protocol. For the reasons discussed above and in the proposal, the final rule continues to allow covered entities to comply with the rule through adherence to the Universal Protocol and makes other modifications to the proposal to address comments.
A few commenters requested that the final rule clarify two technical aspects of adherence to the Universal Protocol. These commenters requested confirmation that adherence to the Universal Protocol would also satisfy the requirements of section 252.83. The commenters also requested confirmation that QFCs that incorporate the terms of the Universal Protocol by reference also would be deemed to comply with the terms of the proposed alternative method of compliance.
One commenter indicated that many non-covered entity counterparties do not have ISDA master agreements for physically-settled forward and commodity contracts and, therefore, compliance with the rule's requirements through adherence to the Universal Protocol would entail substantial time and educational effort. As in the proposal, the final rule simply permits adherence to the Universal Protocol as one method of compliance with the rule's requirements, and parties may meet the rule's requirements through bilateral negotiation, if they choose. Moreover, the Securities Financing Transaction Annex and Other Agreements Annex of the Universal Protocol, which are specifically identified in the proposed and final rule, are designed to amend QFCs that are not ISDA master agreements.
Many commenters argued that the final rule should also allow compliance with the rule through a yet-to-be-created “U.S. Jurisdictional Module to the ISDA Resolution Stay Jurisdictional Modular Protocol” (an “approved U.S. JMP”) that is generally the same but narrower in scope than the Universal Protocol.
With respect to the scope of the special resolution regimes of the Universal Protocol, commenters' concern focused on the special resolution regimes of “Protocol-eligible Regimes.” Some commenters also expressed concern with the scope of “Identified Regimes” of the Universal Protocol.
The Universal Protocol defines “Identified Regimes” as the special resolution regimes of France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, as well as the U.S. Special Resolution Regimes. The Universal Protocol defines “Protocol-eligible Regimes” as resolution regimes of other jurisdictions specified in the protocol that satisfies the requirements of the Universal Protocol. The Universal Protocol provides a “Country Annex,” which is a mechanism by which individual adherents to the Universal Protocol may agree that a specific jurisdiction satisfies the requirements of a “Protocol-eligible Regime.” The Universal Protocol referred to in the proposal did not include any Country Annex for any Protocol-eligible Regime.
Commenters requested the final rule include a safe harbor for an approved U.S. JMP that does not include Protocol-eligible Regimes. Commenters argued that many counterparties may not be able to adhere to the Universal Protocol because they would not be able to adhere to a Protocol-eligible Regime in the absence of law or regulation mandating such adherence, as it would
With respect to the universal adherence feature of the Universal Protocol, commenters argued that universal adherence imposed significant monitoring burden since new adherents may join the Universal Protocol at any time. To address this concern, some commenters requested that an approved U.S. JMP allow a counterparty to adhere on a firm-by-firm or entity-by-entity basis. Other commenters suggested, or supported approval of, an approved U.S. JMP in which a counterparty would adhere to all current covered entities under the final rule (to be identified on a “static list”) and would adhere to new covered entities on an entity-by-entity basis. This static list, commenters argued, would retain the “universal adherence mechanics” of the Universal Protocol and allow market participants to fulfill due diligence obligations related to compliance. Commenters also argued that universal adherence would be overbroad because the Universal Protocol could amend QFCs to which a covered entity or excluded bank was not a party. Certain commenters argued that adhering with respect to any counterparty would also be inconsistent with their fiduciary duties.
In response to comments and to further facilitate compliance with the rule, the final rule provides that covered QFCs amended through adherence to the Universal Protocol or a new (and separate) protocol (the “U.S. Protocol”) would be deemed to conform the covered QFCs to the requirements of the final rule.
Consistent with the proposal
The final rule also provides that the U.S. Protocol is required to include the U.S. Special Resolution Regimes and the other Identified Regimes but is not required to include Protocol-eligible Regimes.
The U.S. Protocol does not permit parties to adhere on a firm-by-firm or entity-by-entity basis because such adherence mechanisms requested by commenters would obviate one of the primary benefits of the Universal Protocol: Universal adherence. Similarly, the final rule does not permit adherence to a “static list” of all current covered entities, which other commenters requested.
The final rule also addresses provisions that allow an adherent to elect that Section 1 and/or Section 2 of the Universal Protocol do not apply to the adherent's contracts.
Consistent with the basic purposes of the proposed and final rules, the U.S. Protocol requires that opt-outs exercised by its adherents will only be effective to the extent that the affected covered QFCs otherwise conform to the requirements of the final rule. Therefore, the U.S. Protocol allows counterparties to exercise available opt-out rights in a manner that also allows covered entities to ensure that their covered QFCs continue to conform to the requirements of the rule.
The final rule also provides that, under the U.S. Protocol, the opt-out in Section 4(b)(i)(A) of the attachment to the Universal Protocol (Sunset Opt-out)
The final rule also expressly addresses a provision in the Universal Protocol that concerns the client-facing leg of a cleared transaction. As discussed above, the final rule, like the proposal, does not exempt the client-facing leg of a cleared transaction. Therefore, the U.S. Protocol must not include the exemption in Section 2 of the Universal Protocol regarding the client-facing leg of the transaction.
As discussed above, the restrictions of the final rule leaves many creditor protections that are commonly included in QFCs unaffected. The final rule also allows any covered entity to submit to the Board a request to approve as compliant with the rule one or more QFCs that contain additional creditor protections—that is, creditor protections that would be impermissible under the restrictions set forth above.
The first two factors concern the potential impact of the requested creditor protections on GSIB resilience and resolvability. The next four concern the scope of the final rule: Adoption on an industry-wide basis, coverage of existing and future transactions, coverage of one or multiple QFCs, and coverage of some or all covered entities. Creditor protections that may be applied on an industry-wide basis may help to ensure that impediments to resolution are addressed on a uniform basis, which could increase market certainty, transparency, and equitable treatment. Creditor protections that apply broadly to a range of QFCs and covered entities would increase the chances that all of a GSIB's QFC counterparties would be treated the same way during a resolution of that GSIB and may improve the prospects for an orderly resolution of that GSIB. By contrast, proposals that would expand counterparties' rights beyond those afforded under existing QFCs would conflict with the proposal's goal of reducing the risk of mass unwinds of GSIB QFCs. The final rule also includes three factors that focus on the creditor protections specific to supported parties. The Board may weigh the appropriateness of additional protections for supported QFCs against the potential impact of such provisions on the orderly resolution of a GSIB.
In addition to analyzing the request under the enumerated factors, a covered entity requesting that the Board approve enhanced creditor protections would be required to submit a legal opinion stating that the requested terms would be valid and enforceable under the applicable law of the relevant jurisdictions, along with any additional relevant information requested by the Board.
Under the final rule, the Board could approve a request for an alternative set of creditor protections if the terms of the QFC, as compared to a covered QFC containing only the limited creditor protections permitted by the final rule, would prevent or mitigate risks to the financial stability of the United States that could arise from the failure of a GSIB and would protect the safety and soundness of bank holding companies and state member banks to at least the same extent.
Commenters requested that this approval process be made less burdensome and more flexible and urged for additional clarifications on the process for submitting and approving such requests (
The Board has clarified that the Board could approve an alternative proposal of additional creditor protections as compliant with sections 252.83 and 252.84 of the final rule, but has not otherwise modified these provisions of the proposal in response to changes requested by commenters. The provisions contain flexibility and guidance on the process for submitting and approving enhanced creditor protections. The final rule directly places requirements only on covered entities, and thus only covered entities are eligible to submit requests pursuant to these provisions. In response to commenters' concerns, the Board notes that the final rule does not prevent multiple covered entities from presenting one request and does not prevent covered entities from seeking the input of counterparties when developing a request. The final rule does not provide a maximum time to review proposals because proposals could vary greatly in complexity and novelty. The final rule also maintains the provision requiring a written legal opinion, which helps ensure that proposed provisions are valid and enforceable under applicable law. The final rule does not expand the approval process beyond additional creditor protections; however, revisions to aspects of the final rule may be made through the rulemaking process.
Under the proposal, the rule would have required compliance on the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning at least one year after the issuance of the final rule, which the proposal referred to as the effective date.
One commenter suggested that the rule should take effect no sooner than one year from the date that an approved U.S. JMP is published and available for adherence, including any additional time it might take to seek the Board's approval of it. Certain commenters requested that the compliance deadline for covered QFCs entered into by an agent on behalf of a principal be extended by six months as well. Other commenters, however, cautioned against an approach that would impose different deadlines with respect to different classes of QFCs, as opposed to counterparty types, since the main challenge in connection with the remediation is the need for outreach to and education of counterparties. These commenters contended that once a counterparty has become familiar with the requirements of the rule and the terms of the required amendments, it would be more efficient to remediate all covered QFCs with the counterparty at the same time.
A number of commenters also requested that the Board confirm that entities acquired by a GSIB, and thereby become new covered entities, have until the first day of the first calendar quarter immediately following one year after becoming covered entities to conform their existing QFCs. Commenters argued that this would allow the GSIB to conform existing QFCs in an orderly fashion without impairing the ability of covered entities to engage in corporate activities. These commenters also requested clarification that, during that conformance period, affiliates of covered entities would not be prohibited from entering into new transactions or QFCs with counterparties of the newly acquired entity if the existing covered entities otherwise comply with the rule's requirements. Some commenters urged the Board to exclude existing contracts from the final rule's requirements and only apply the rule on a prospective basis.
The effective date for the final rule is 60 days following publication in the
The final rule provides additional time for compliance with the requirements for other types of counterparties. In particular, for other types of financial counterparties
The Board is giving this additional time for compliance to respond to concerns raised by commenters. The Board encourages covered entities to start planning and outreach efforts early in order to come into compliance with the rule on the time frames provided. The Board believes that this additional time for compliance should also address concerns raised by commenters regarding the burden of conforming existing contracts by allowing firms additional time to conform all covered QFCs to the requirements of the final rule.
Although the phased-in compliance period does not contain special rules related to acting as an agent as requested by certain commenters, the rule has been modified as described above to clarify that a covered entity does not become a party to a QFC solely by acting as agent with respect to the QFC.
Entities that are covered entities when the final rule is effective would be required to comply with the requirements of the final rule beginning on the first compliance date. Thus, a covered entity would be required to ensure that covered QFCs entered into on or after the first compliance date comply with the rule's requirements but would be given more time to conform such covered QFCs with entities that are not covered entities or excluded banks.
In addition, an entity that becomes a covered entity after the effective date of the final rule (a “new covered entity” for purposes of this preamble) generally has the same period of time to comply as an entity that is a covered entity on the effective date (
Certain commenters opposed application of the requirements of the rule to existing QFCs, requesting instead that the final rule only apply to QFCs entered into after the effective date of any final rule and that all pre-existing QFCs not be subject to the rule's requirements. Commenters suggested that end users of QFCs with GSIB affiliates might not have entered into existing contracts without the default rights prohibited in the proposed rule and that revising existing QFCs would be time-consuming and expensive. Commenters pointed out that this treatment would be consistent with the final rules in the United Kingdom and the statutory requirements adopted by Germany.
The Board does not believe it is appropriate to exclude all pre-existing QFCs because of the current and future risk that existing covered QFCs pose to the orderly resolution of a covered entity. Moreover, application of different default rights to existing and future transactions within a netting set could cause the netting set to be broken, which commenters noted could increase burden to both parties to the netting set.
The Board invited comment on its evaluation of the costs and benefits of the proposal. In response to comments received, the Board has made a number of changes to the proposal that are expected to reduce costs and burdens of compliance with the final rule while at the same time ensuring that the final rule serves its intended purposes.
A number of commenters argued that particular aspects of the proposal were burdensome and costly as described throughout this
Other commenters pointed out that since large banks already adhere to the Universal Protocol, more than 90 percent of outstanding notional swaps are already subject to stays. These commenters argued that further study and analysis was needed to determine whether it is necessary to restrict end-user default rights by subjecting them indirectly to the proposed rule to capture the remaining 10 percent of the swaps market, including why the benefits outweigh the costs. Commenters also urged further analysis of why other categories of QFCs present the same concerns as swaps such that it is necessary for the Board to alter default rights contained therein (
One commenter argued that the benefits of the proposal likely substantially outweigh the costs. This commenter contended that the losses in the Lehman bankruptcy alone due to the ability of counterparties to close out QFCs and seize collateral destroyed millions if not billions of dollars and argued that the exemption of QFCs from the automatic stay of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code has effectively subsidized the cost of credit extended among QFC participants. In this commenter's view, any increase in the cost of QFCs relative to other financial instruments does not reflect true additional cost but rather reflects the loss of this implicit subsidy. The commenter estimated that the 2008 financial crisis following the Lehman bankruptcy had an estimated cost in lost or avoided gross domestic product of more than $20 trillion.
The final rule is intended to yield substantial net benefits for the financial stability of the United States by reducing the potential that resolution of a GSIB, particularly a resolution in bankruptcy, will be disorderly and disruptive to financial stability. These benefits are expected to substantially outweigh the costs associated with the final rule.
The costs of the final rule to covered entities and their QFC counterparties would generally be of three types. The first cost would be the cost to QFC counterparties arising from the relinquishment of certain rights, such as cross-default rights, that would have been permitted prior to the rule. However, the costs of restricting such rights are expected to be low as the nature of the rights that are restricted is narrow, the likelihood of exercising such rights is low, and other forms of protection are available that are not prohibited by the rule.
The second cost associated with the rule is the cost of lost revenue for covered entities that might result if non-covered entity counterparties refuse to engage in QFCs with covered entities as a result of the reduction in rights required by the rule. This cost, however, only accrues in the aggregate to the financial system to the extent that non-covered entity counterparties refuse to engage in QFCs with any counterparty. Third and finally, this rule imposes costs on covered entities and non-covered entities to the extent that they are required to bear legal and administrative costs associated with drafting and negotiating compliant contracts. These costs are expected to be small relative to the costs of doing business in the financial sector generally. Moreover, the final rule explicitly allows for the use of standardized industry protocols in lieu of complying with the terms of the rule, which should reduce the legal and administrative costs associated with complying with the rule.
The Board has taken into account the information regarding costs and benefits provided by commenters and modified the proposed rule to reduce costs. To reduce the overall burden, the final rule contains a number of changes to respond to commenter concerns. As described above, the final rule reduces compliance and negotiating costs by excluding contracts from the scope of “covered QFCs” subject to the requirements of the final rule to the extent the contract contains no default, cross-default, or transfer restrictions.
The final rule similarly excludes from section 252.83 contracts that are with U.S. counterparties and governed by U.S. law. Commenters argued that renegotiating these contracts would be burdensome with no benefit to resolution. The final rule has also been modified to address concerns raised by foreign GSIBs regarding QFCs under multi-branch master agreements by excluding from the rule QFCs where only payment or delivery may be made at a U.S. branch or agency. Foreign GSIB commenters urged that this change would eliminate the need under the proposal to modify thousands of contracts at great cost.
The final rule also provides a longer transition period requested by commenters for certain counterparties in order to help mitigate the compliance burden on covered entities and their counterparties.
The Board believes that the changes above address many of the significant concerns raised by commenters regarding the burdens of the proposed rule and should serve to mitigate the compliance costs of the final rule. The Board also notes that application of the final rule is limited to GSIBs and believes that this approach to limiting the application of this final rule sensibly balances the costs and benefits of the rule by effectively managing systemic risk while at the same time limiting the burden of compliance by not requiring non-GSIB firms to comply with any part of this final rule.
Additionally, the stay-and-transfer provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and the FDI Act are already in force, and the Universal Protocol is already partially effective. This observation provides further support for the view that any marginal costs created by the final rule—which is intended to extend the effects of the stay-and-transfer provisions under those acts and the Universal Protocol—are unlikely to be material.
Thus, the costs of the final rule are likely to be small relative to its benefits. These relatively small costs appear to be significantly outweighed by the substantial benefits that the rule would produce for the U.S. economy. Financial crises impose enormous costs on the real economy, so even small reductions in the probability or severity of future financial crises create substantial economic benefits. The final rule would materially reduce the risk to the financial stability of the United States that could arise from the severe distress or failure of a GSIB by enhancing the prospects for the orderly resolution of such a firm and would thereby materially reduce the probability and severity of financial crises in the future. The final rule would therefore advance a key objective of the Dodd-Frank Act and help protect the American economy from the substantial costs associated with more frequent and severe financial crises.
In addition, the final rule would likely benefit subsidiaries of a failed GSIB, as well as their counterparties and creditors, by helping to prevent the disorderly failure of the subsidiaries and allowing them to continue to meet their obligations. Moreover, non-covered entity counterparties may choose to engage in QFCs with non-GSIB counterparties, in which case revenue that is lost by a GSIB may be recouped by a non-GSIB and aggregate QFC activity by the financial system would not decline.
The final rule also amends several definitions in the Board's capital and liquidity rules to help ensure that the final rule would not have unintended effects for the treatment of covered entities' netting sets under those rules. The amendments are similar to the proposed rule as well as revisions that the Board and the OCC made in a 2014 interim final rule to prevent similar effects from foreign jurisdictions' special resolution regimes and firms' adherence to the 2014 Universal Protocol.
The Board's regulatory capital rules permit a banking organization to measure exposure from certain types of financial contracts on a net basis and recognize the risk-mitigating effect of financial collateral for other types of exposures, provided that the contracts are subject to a “qualifying master netting agreement” or agreement that provides for certain rights upon the default of a counterparty.
The current definition of “qualifying master netting agreement” recognizes that default rights may be stayed if the financial company is in resolution under the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDI Act, a substantially similar law applicable to government-sponsored enterprises, or a substantially similar foreign law, or where the agreement is subject by its terms to any of those laws. Accordingly, transactions conducted under netting agreements where default rights may be stayed in those circumstances may qualify for the favorable capital treatment described above. However, the current definition of “qualifying master netting agreement” does not recognize the restrictions that the final rule would impose on the QFCs of covered entities. Thus, a master netting agreement that is compliant with the final rule would not qualify as a qualifying master netting agreement. This would result in considerably higher capital and liquidity requirements for QFC counterparties of covered entities, which is not an intended effect of the final rule.
Accordingly, the final rule amends the definition of “qualifying master netting agreement” so that a master netting agreement could qualify for such treatment where the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out on a net basis all transactions under the agreement and to liquidate or set off collateral promptly upon an event of default of the counterparty is consistent with the
The final rule similarly revises certain other definitions in the regulatory capital rules to make analogous conforming changes designed to account for the final rule's restrictions and ensure that a banking organization may continue to recognize the risk-mitigating effects of financial collateral received in a secured lending transaction, repo-style transaction, or eligible margin loan for purposes of the Board's rules. Specifically, the final rule revises the definitions of “collateral agreement,” “eligible margin loan,” and “repo-style transaction” to provide that a counterparty's default rights may be limited as required by the final rule without unintended effects.
The rule establishing margin and capital requirements for covered swap entities (swap margin rule) defines the term “eligible master netting agreement” in a manner similar to the definition of “qualifying master netting agreement.”
Certain commenters requested technical modifications to the proposed modifications to the definitions to better distinguish the requirements of section 252.84 and the provisions of Section 2 of the Universal Protocol from provisions regarding “opt in” to special resolution regimes. In response to this comment, the final rule establishes an independent exception addressing the requirements of section 252.84 and the provisions of Section 2 of the Universal Protocol and makes other minor clarifying edits.
One commenter requested that the definitions of the terms “collateral agreement,” “eligible margin loan,” “qualifying master netting agreement,” and “repo-style transaction” include references to stays in state resolution regimes (such as insurance receiverships). The commenters did not identify, and the Board is not aware of, any state resolution regime that currently includes QFC stays similar to those of the U.S. Special Resolution Regimes. Neither the nature of the potential laws nor the extent of their effect on the regulatory capital requirements of Board-regulated institutions is known. Therefore, the final rule does not reference state resolution regimes.
One commenter argued that neither the current nor the proposed definition of qualifying master netting agreement comports with section 302(a) of the Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act of 2015, which exempts certain types of counterparties from initial and variation margin requirements, and that the proposed amendments to the definition add unnecessary complexity to the Board's existing rules and therefore make compliance more difficult. Section 302(a) of that act is not relevant to the definition of qualifying master netting agreement because the definition does not require initial or variation margin. Rather, the definition of qualifying master netting agreement requires that margin provided under the agreement, if any, be able to be promptly liquidated or set off under the circumstances specified in the definition. The Board continues to believe that the amendments are necessary and do not substantially add to the complexity of the Board's rules.
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 through 3521). The Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The reporting requirements are found in sections 252.85(b) and 252.87(b) of the final rule. These information collection requirements would be implemented pursuant to section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as its safety and soundness and other relevant authorities, as described in the Abstract below. In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The final rule would revise the Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Enhanced Prudential Standards (Regulation YY) (Reg YY; OMB No. 7100-0350). In addition, as permitted by the PRA, the Board proposes to extend for three years, with revision, the Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Enhanced Prudential Standards (Regulation YY) (Reg YY; OMB No. 7100-0350). The Board received no comments on the PRA.
The Board has a continuing interest in the public's opinions of collections of information. At any time, commenters may submit comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the
Section 252.85(b) of the final rule would require a covered entity to request the Board to approve as compliant with the requirements of sections 252.83 and 252.84 of this subpart provisions of one or more forms of covered QFCs, or proposed amendments to one or more forms of covered QFCs, with enhanced creditor protection conditions. Enhanced creditor protection conditions means a set of limited exemptions to the requirements of section 252.84(b) of this subpart that are different than those of paragraphs (d), (f), and (h) of section 252.84 of this subpart. A covered entity making a request must provide (1) an analysis of the proposal under each consideration of paragraph 252.85(d) of this subpart; (2) a written legal opinion verifying that proposed provisions or amendments would be valid and enforceable under applicable law of the relevant jurisdictions, including, in the case of proposed amendments, the validity and enforceability of the proposal to amend the covered QFCs; and (3) any additional relevant information that the Board requests.
Section 252.87(b) of the final rule would require each top-tier foreign banking organization that determines that it has the characteristics of a global systemically important banking organization under the global methodology to notify the Board of the determination by January 1 of each calendar year.
Section 252.85(b)—10 respondents.
Section 252.87(b)—22 respondents.
Section 252.85(b)—40 hours.
Section 252.87(b)—1 hour.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The Board solicited public comment on this rule in a notice of proposed rulemaking
Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration, a small entity includes a depository institution, bank holding company, or savings and loan holding company with assets of $550 million or less (small banking entities).
1.
As discussed, the Board is issuing this final rule as part of its program to make GSIBs more resolvable in order to reduce the risk that their failure would pose to the financial stability of the United States, consistent with section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act. In particular, the primary purpose of the final rule is to reduce the risk that the exercise of default rights by a failing GSIB's QFC counterparties would lead to a disorderly failure of the GSIB and would produce negative contagion and disruption that could destabilize the U.S. financial system.
2.
Commenters did not raise any issues in response to the IRFA. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not file any comments in response to the proposed rule.
3.
The final rule's requirements to conform covered QFCs would only apply to GSIBs, which are the largest, most systemically important banking organizations, and certain of their subsidiaries. More specifically, the final rule would apply to (a) any U.S. GSIB top-tier bank holding company, (b) any subsidiary of such a bank holding company other than the exceptions described in the
Section 252.87(b) of the final rule would require each top-tier foreign banking organization that determines that it has the characteristics of a global systemically important banking organization under the global methodology to notify the Board of the determination by January 1 of each calendar year.
4.
In light of the foregoing, the Board does not believe that this final rule will have a significant negative economic impact on any small entities and therefore believes that there are no significant alternatives to the final rule that would reduce the impact on small entities.
5.
As noted, the Board believes that an exemption for small entities would significantly impair the effectiveness of the proposed stay-and-transfer provisions and thereby undermine a key objective of the final rule: To reduce the execution risk of an orderly GSIB resolution. The Board did not receive any comments from small entities suggesting alternatives specific to those entities or quantifying their projected costs. The Board received, however, general comments that suggested alternatives that would reduce the burden on entities without regard to size. The Board has considered those comments and changes in the final rule in response to such comments in other sections of this
The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (RCDRIA) requires that each Federal banking agency, 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. The Board has considered comment on these matters in other sections of this
In addition, new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions generally must take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form. Therefore, covered entities, which include certain insured depository institutions, are required to comply with the requirements of the final rule on the first day of calendar quarters after the effective date of the regulation.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the U.S. banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rulemakings published after January 1, 2000.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Federal Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons stated in the Supplementary Information, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System amends 12 CFR parts 217, 249, and 252 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 248(a), 321-338a, 481-486, 1462a, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831n, 1831o, 1831p-l, 1831w, 1835, 1844(b), 1851, 3904, 3906-3909, 4808, 5365, 5368, 5371.
The revisions and republication are set forth below:
(1) Under applicable law in the relevant jurisdictions, other than:
(i) In receivership, conservatorship, or resolution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, or under any similar insolvency law applicable to GSEs, or laws of foreign jurisdictions that are substantially similar
(ii) Where the agreement is subject by its terms to, or incorporates, any of the laws referenced in paragraph (1)(i) of this definition; or
(2) Other than to the extent necessary for the counterparty to comply with the requirements of subpart I of the Board's Regulation YY (part 252 of this chapter), part 47 of this title, or part 382 of this title, as applicable.
(1) * * *
(iii) The extension of credit is conducted under an agreement that provides the Board-regulated institution the right to accelerate and terminate the extension of credit and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default, including upon an event of receivership, insolvency, liquidation, conservatorship, or similar proceeding, of the counterparty, provided that, in any such case:
(A) Any exercise of rights under the agreement will not be stayed or avoided under applicable law in the relevant jurisdictions, other than:
(
(
(B) The agreement may limit the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out on a net basis all transactions under the agreement and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default of the counterparty to the extent necessary for the counterparty to comply with the requirements of subpart I of the Board's Regulation YY (part 252 of this chapter), part 47 of this title, or part 382 of this title, as applicable.
(1) The agreement creates a single legal obligation for all individual transactions covered by the agreement upon an event of default following any stay permitted by paragraph (2) of this definition, including upon an event of receivership, conservatorship, insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceeding, of the counterparty;
(2) The agreement provides the Board-regulated institution the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out on a net basis all transactions under the agreement and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default, including upon an event of receivership, conservatorship, insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceeding, of the counterparty, provided that, in any such case:
(i) Any exercise of rights under the agreement will not be stayed or avoided under applicable law in the relevant jurisdictions, other than:
(A) In receivership, conservatorship, or resolution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, or under any similar insolvency law applicable to GSEs, or laws of foreign jurisdictions that are substantially similar
(B) Where the agreement is subject by its terms to, or incorporates, any of the laws referenced in paragraph (2)(i)(A) of this definition; and
(ii) The agreement may limit the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out on a net basis all transactions under the agreement and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default of the counterparty to the extent necessary for the counterparty to comply with the requirements of subpart I of the Board's Regulation YY (part 252 of this chapter), part 47 of this title, or part 382 of this title, as applicable;
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) The transaction is executed under an agreement that provides the Board-regulated institution the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out the transaction on a net basis and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default, including upon an event of receivership, insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceeding, of the counterparty, provided that, in any such case:
(
(
(ii) Where the agreement is subject by its terms to, or incorporates, any of the laws referenced in paragraph (3)(ii)(A)(
(
12 U.S.C. 248(a), 321-338a, 481-486, 1467a(g)(1), 1818, 1828, 1831p-1, 1831o-1, 1844(b), 5365, 5366, 5368.
(1) The agreement creates a single legal obligation for all individual transactions covered by the agreement upon an event of default following any stay permitted by paragraph (2) of this definition, including upon an event of receivership, conservatorship, insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceeding, of the counterparty;
(2) The agreement provides the Board-regulated institution the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out on a net basis all transactions under the agreement and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default, including upon an event of receivership, conservatorship, insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceeding, of the counterparty, provided that, in any such case:
(i) Any exercise of rights under the agreement will not be stayed or avoided under applicable law in the relevant jurisdictions, other than:
(A) In receivership, conservatorship, or resolution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, or under any similar insolvency law applicable to GSEs, or laws of foreign jurisdictions that are substantially similar
(B) Where the agreement is subject by its terms to, or incorporates, any of the laws referenced in paragraph (2)(i)(A) of this definition; and
(ii) The agreement may limit the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out on a net basis all transactions under the agreement and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default of the counterparty to the extent necessary for the counterparty to comply with the requirements of subpart I of the Board's Regulation YY (part 252 of this chapter), part 47 of this title, or part 382 of this title, as applicable;
12 U.S.C. 321-338a, 481-486, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831n, 1831o, 1831p-l, 1831w, 1835, 1844(b), 1844(c), 3101
For purposes of this subpart:
(1) Either consolidates the other company, or is consolidated by the other company, on financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the International Financial Reporting Standards, or other similar standards;
(2) Is, along with the other company, consolidated with a third company on a financial statement prepared in accordance with principles or standards referenced in paragraph (1) of this definition; or
(3) For a company that is not subject to principles or standards referenced in paragraph (1), if consolidation as described in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition would have occurred if such principles or standards had applied.
(i) Right of a party, whether contractual or otherwise (including, without limitation, rights incorporated by reference to any other contract, agreement, or document, and rights afforded by statute, civil code, regulation, and common law), to liquidate, terminate, cancel, rescind, or accelerate such agreement or transactions thereunder, set off or net amounts owing in respect thereto (except rights related to same-day payment netting), exercise remedies in respect of collateral or other credit support or property related thereto (including the purchase and sale of property), demand payment or delivery thereunder or in respect thereof (other than a right or operation of a contractual provision arising solely from a change in the value of collateral or margin or a change in the amount of an economic exposure), suspend, delay, or defer payment or performance thereunder, or modify the obligations of a party thereunder, or any similar rights; and
(ii) Right or contractual provision that alters the amount of collateral or margin that must be provided with respect to an exposure thereunder, including by altering any initial amount, threshold amount, variation margin, minimum transfer amount, the margin value of collateral, or any similar amount, that entitles a party to demand the return of any collateral or margin transferred by it to the other party or a custodian or that modifies a transferee's right to reuse collateral or margin (if such right previously existed), or any similar rights, in each case, other than a right or operation of a contractual provision arising solely from a change in the value of collateral or margin or a change in the amount of an economic exposure;
(2) With respect to § 252.84, does not include any right under a contract that allows a party to terminate the contract on demand or at its option at a specified time, or from time to time, without the need to show cause.
(1) Means a national bank, a Federal savings association, a Federal branch, a Federal agency, or an FSI that is exempted from the scope of this subpart pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) or (b)(3) of § 252.82;
(2) Does not include any entity described in paragraph (1) of this definition that is owned pursuant to section 3(a)(A)(ii) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(a)(A)(ii)); is owned by a depository institution in satisfaction of debt previously contracted in good faith; is a portfolio concern, as defined under 13 CFR 107.50, that is controlled by a small business investment company, as defined in section 103(3) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 662); is owned pursuant to paragraph (11) of section 5136 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (12 U.S.C. 24); or is a DPC branch subsidiary.
(1)(i) A bank holding company or an affiliate thereof; a savings and loan holding company as defined in section 10(n) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a(n)); a U.S. intermediate holding company that is established or designated for purposes of compliance with this part; or a nonbank financial company supervised by the Board;
(ii) A depository institution as defined in section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)); an organization that is organized under the laws of a foreign country and that engages directly in the business of banking outside the United States; a Federal credit union or State credit union as defined in section 2 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752(1) & (6)); an institution that functions solely in a trust or fiduciary capacity as described in section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(c)(2)(D)); an industrial loan company, an industrial bank, or other similar institution described in section 2(c)(2)(H) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(c)(2)(H));
(iii) An entity that is state-licensed or registered as:
(A) A credit or lending entity, including a finance company; money lender; installment lender; consumer lender or lending company; mortgage lender, broker, or bank; motor vehicle title pledge lender; payday or deferred deposit lender; premium finance company; commercial finance or lending company; or commercial mortgage company; except entities registered or licensed solely on account of financing the entity's direct sales of goods or services to customers;
(B) A money services business, including a check casher; money transmitter; currency dealer or exchange; or money order or traveler's check issuer;
(iv) A regulated entity as defined in section 1303(20) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended (12 U.S.C. 4502(20)) or any entity for which the Federal Housing Finance Agency or its successor is the primary federal regulator;
(v) Any institution chartered in accordance with the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 2002
(vi) Any entity registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a swap dealer or major swap participant pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 1
(vii) A securities holding company, with the meaning specified in section 618 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 1850a); a broker or dealer as defined in sections 3(a)(4) and 3(a)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(4)-(5)); an investment adviser as defined in section 202(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)); an investment company registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
(viii) A private fund as defined in section 202(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)); an entity that would be an investment company under section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3) but for section 3(c)(5)(C); or an entity that is deemed not to be an investment company under section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 pursuant to Investment Company Act Rule 3a-7 (17 CFR 270.3a-7) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission;
(ix) A commodity pool, a commodity pool operator, or a commodity trading advisor as defined, respectively, in sections 1a(10), 1a(11), and 1a(12) of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 1a(10), 1a(11), and 1a(12)); a floor broker, a floor trader, or introducing broker as defined, respectively, in sections 1a(22), 1a(23) and 1a(31) of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 1a(22), 1a(23), and 1a(31)); or a futures commission merchant as defined in section 1a(28) of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 1a(28));
(x) An employee benefit plan as defined in paragraphs (3) and (32) of section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002);
(xi) An entity that is organized as an insurance company, primarily engaged in writing insurance or reinsuring risks underwritten by insurance companies, or is subject to supervision as such by a State insurance regulator or foreign insurance regulator; or
(xii) An entity that would be a financial counterparty described in paragraphs (1)(i)-(xi) of this definition, if the entity were organized under the laws of the United States or any state thereof.
(2) The term “financial counterparty” does not include any counterparty that is:
(i) A sovereign entity;
(ii) A multilateral development bank; or
(iii) The Bank for International Settlements.
(1) Designated contract markets, registered futures associations, swap data repositories, and swap execution facilities registered under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1
(2) Any broker, dealer, transfer agent, or investment company, or any futures commission merchant, introducing broker, commodity trading advisor, or commodity pool operator, solely by reason of functions performed by such institution as part of brokerage, dealing, transfer agency, or investment company activities, or solely by reason of acting on behalf of a FMU or a participant therein in connection with the furnishing by the FMU of services to its
(1) Is organized as a bank, as defined in section 3(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; a savings association, as defined in section 3(b) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; a farm credit system institution chartered under the Farm Credit Act of 1971; or an insured Federal credit union or State-chartered credit union under the Federal Credit Union Act; and
(2) Has total assets of $10,000,000,000 or less on the last day of the company's most recent fiscal year.
(a)
(b)
(1) A bank holding company that is identified as a global systemically important BHC pursuant to 12 CFR 217.402;
(2) A subsidiary of a company identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section other than a subsidiary that is:
(i) A national bank, a Federal savings association, a Federal branch, a Federal agency, an FSI;
(ii) A company owned pursuant to section 3(a)(A)(ii), 4(c)(2), 4(k)(4)(H), or 4(k)(4)(I) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(a)(A)(ii), 1843(c)(2), 1843(k)(4)(H), 1843(k)(4)(I));
(iii) A company owned by a depository institution in satisfaction of debt previously contracted in good faith;
(iv) A portfolio concern, as defined under 13 CFR 107.50, that is controlled by a small business investment company, as defined in section 103(3) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 662); or
(v) A company the business of which is to make investments that are designed primarily to promote the public welfare, of the type permitted under paragraph (11) of section 5136 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (12 U.S.C. 24), including the welfare of low- and moderate-income communities or families (such as providing housing, services, or jobs)); or
(3) A U.S. subsidiary, U.S. branch, or U.S. agency of a global systemically important foreign banking organization other than a U.S. subsidiary, U.S. branch, or U.S. agency that is:
(i) A national bank, a Federal savings association, a Federal branch, a Federal agency, an FSI;
(ii) A company owned pursuant to section 3(a)(A)(ii), 4(c)(2), 4(k)(4)(H), or 4(k)(4)(I) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(a)(A)(ii), 1843(c)(2), 1843(k)(4)(H), 1843(k)(4)(I));
(iii) A company owned by a depository institution in satisfaction of debt previously contracted in good faith;
(iv) A portfolio concern, as defined under 13 CFR 107.50, that is controlled by a small business investment company, as defined in section 103(3) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 662);
(v) A company the business of which is to make investments that are designed primarily to promote the public welfare, of the type permitted under paragraph (11) of section 5136 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (12 U.S.C. 24), including the welfare of low- and moderate-income communities or families (such as providing housing, services, or jobs);
(vi) A section 2(h)(2) company; or
(vii) A DPC branch subsidiary.
(c)
(1) With respect to a covered entity that is a covered entity on November 13, 2017, an in-scope QFC that the covered entity:
(i) Enters, executes, or otherwise becomes a party to on or after January 1, 2019; or
(ii) Entered, executed, or otherwise became a party to before January 1, 2019, if the covered entity or any affiliate that is a covered entity or excluded bank also enters, executes, or otherwise becomes a party to a QFC with the same person or a consolidated affiliate of the same person on or after January 1, 2019.
(2) With respect to a covered entity that becomes a covered entity after November 13, 2017, an in-scope QFC that the covered entity:
(i) Enters, executes or otherwise becomes a party to on or after the later of the date the covered entity first becomes a covered entity and January 1, 2019; or
(ii) Entered, executed, or otherwise became a party to before the date identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section with respect to the covered entity, if the covered entity or any affiliate that is a covered entity or excluded bank also enters, executes, or otherwise becomes a party to a QFC with the same person or consolidated affiliate of the same person on or after the date identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) with respect to the covered entity.
(d)
(1) Restricts the transfer of a QFC (or any interest or obligation in or under, or any property securing, the QFC) from a covered entity; or
(2) Provides one or more default rights with respect to a QFC that may be exercised against a covered entity.
(e)
(1) A covered entity does not become a party to a QFC solely by acting as agent with respect to the QFC; and
(2) The exercise of a default right with respect to a covered QFC includes the automatic or deemed exercise of the default right pursuant to the terms of the QFC or other arrangement.
(f)
(i) January 1, 2019, if each party to the covered QFC is a covered entity or an excluded bank;
(ii) July 1, 2019, if each party to the covered QFC (other than the covered entity) is a financial counterparty that is not a covered entity or excluded bank; or
(iii) January 1, 2020, if a party to the covered QFC (other than the covered entity) is not described in paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(ii) of this section or if, notwithstanding paragraph (f)(1)(ii), a party to the covered QFC (other than the covered entity) is a small financial institution.
(2) With respect to each of its covered QFCs, a covered entity that is not a covered entity on November 13, 2017 must conform the covered QFC to the requirements of this subpart by:
(i) The first day of the calendar quarter immediately following 1 year after the date the covered entity first becomes a covered entity, if each party to the covered QFC is a covered entity or an excluded bank;
(ii) The first day of the calendar quarter immediately following 18 months from the date the covered entity first becomes a covered entity if each party to the covered QFC (other than the covered entity) is a financial counterparty that is not a covered entity or excluded bank; or
(iii) The first day of the calendar quarter immediately following 2 years from the date the covered entity first becomes a covered entity if a party to the covered QFC (other than the covered entity) is not described in paragraph (f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii) of this section or if, notwithstanding paragraph (f)(2)(ii), a party to the covered QFC (other than the covered entity) is a small financial institution.
(a)
(i) The covered QFC designates, in the manner described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the U.S. special resolution regimes as part of the law governing the QFC; and
(ii) Each party to the covered QFC, other than the covered entity, is:
(A) An individual that is domiciled in the United States, including any State;
(B) A company that is incorporated in or organized under the laws of the United States or any State;
(C) A company the principal place of business of which is located in the United States, including any State; or
(D) A U.S. branch or U.S. agency.
(2) A covered QFC designates the U.S. special resolution regimes as part of the law governing the QFC if the covered QFC:
(i) Explicitly provides that the covered QFC is governed by the laws of the United States or a state of the United States; and
(ii) Does not explicitly provide that one or both of the U.S. special resolution regimes, or a broader set of laws that includes a U.S. special resolution regime, is excluded from the laws governing the covered QFC.
(b)
(1) In the event the covered entity becomes subject to a proceeding under a U.S. special resolution regime, the transfer of the covered QFC (and any interest and obligation in or under, and any property securing, the covered QFC) from the covered entity will be effective to the same extent as the transfer would be effective under the U.S. special resolution regime if the covered QFC (and any interest and obligation in or under, and any property securing, the covered QFC) were governed by the laws of the United States or a state of the United States; and
(2) In the event the covered entity or an affiliate of the covered entity becomes subject to a proceeding under a U.S. special resolution regime, default rights with respect to the covered QFC that may be exercised against the covered entity are permitted to be exercised to no greater extent than the default rights could be exercised under the U.S. special resolution regime if the covered QFC were governed by the laws of the United States or a state of the United States.
(c)
(a)
(1) Does not explicitly provide any default right with respect to the covered QFC that is related, directly or indirectly, to an affiliate of the direct party becoming subject to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding; and
(2) Does not explicitly prohibit the transfer of a covered affiliate credit enhancement, any interest or obligation in or under the covered affiliate credit enhancement, or any property securing the covered affiliate credit enhancement to a transferee upon or following an affiliate of the direct party becoming subject to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding or would prohibit such a transfer only if the transfer would result in the supported party being the beneficiary of the credit enhancement in violation of any law applicable to the supported party.
(b)
(2) A covered QFC may not prohibit the transfer of a covered affiliate credit enhancement, any interest or obligation in or under the covered affiliate credit enhancement, or any property securing the covered affiliate credit enhancement to a transferee upon or following an affiliate of the direct party becoming subject to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding unless the transfer would result in the supported party being the beneficiary of the credit enhancement in violation of any law applicable to the supported party.
(c)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(1) The direct party becoming subject to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding;
(2) The direct party not satisfying a payment or delivery obligation pursuant to the covered QFC or another contract between the same parties that gives rise to a default right in the covered QFC; or
(3) The covered affiliate support provider or transferee not satisfying a payment or delivery obligation pursuant to a covered affiliate credit enhancement that supports the covered direct QFC.
(e)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(f)
(1) The covered affiliate support provider that remains obligated under the covered affiliate credit enhancement becomes subject to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding, other than a Chapter 11 proceeding;
(2) Subject to paragraph (h) of this section, the transferee, if any, becomes subject to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding;
(3) The covered affiliate support provider does not remain, and a transferee does not become, obligated to the same, or substantially similar, extent as the covered affiliate support provider was obligated immediately prior to entering the receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding with respect to:
(i) The covered affiliate credit enhancement;
(ii) All other covered affiliate credit enhancements provided by the covered affiliate support provider in support of other covered direct QFCs between the direct party and the supported party under the covered affiliate credit enhancement referenced in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section; and
(iii) All covered affiliate credit enhancements provided by the covered affiliate support provider in support of covered direct QFCs between the direct party and affiliates of the supported party referenced in paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section; or
(4) In the case of a transfer of the covered affiliate credit enhancement to a transferee,
(i) All of the ownership interests of the direct party directly or indirectly held by the covered affiliate support provider are not transferred to the transferee; or
(ii) Reasonable assurance has not been provided that all or substantially all of the assets of the covered affiliate support provider (or net proceeds therefrom), excluding any assets reserved for the payment of costs and expenses of administration in the receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding, will be transferred or sold to the transferee in a timely manner.
(g)
(2)
(3)
(h)
(1) After the FDI Act stay period, if the covered affiliate credit enhancement is not transferred pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(9)-(e)(10) and any regulations promulgated thereunder; or
(2) During the FDI Act stay period, if the default right may only be exercised so as to permit the supported party under the covered affiliate credit enhancement to suspend performance with respect to the supported party's obligations under the covered direct QFC to the same extent as the supported party would be entitled to do if the covered direct QFC were with the covered affiliate support provider and were treated in the same manner as the covered affiliate credit enhancement.
(i)
(1) The party seeking to exercise a default right to bear the burden of proof that the exercise is permitted under the covered QFC; and
(2) Clear and convincing evidence or a similar or higher burden of proof to exercise a default right.
(a)
(2) A covered QFC will be deemed to be amended by the universal protocol for purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section notwithstanding the covered QFC being amended by one or more Country Annexes, as the term is defined in the universal protocol.
(3) For purposes of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section:
(i) The universal protocol means the ISDA 2015 Universal Resolution Stay Protocol, including the Securities Financing Transaction Annex and Other Agreements Annex, published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc., as of May 3, 2016, and minor or technical amendments thereto;
(ii) The U.S. protocol means a protocol that is the same as the universal protocol other than as
(A) The provisions of Section 1 of the attachment to the universal protocol may be limited in their application to covered entities and excluded banks and may be limited with respect to resolutions under the Identified Regimes, as those regimes are identified by the universal protocol;
(B) The provisions of Section 2 of the attachment to the universal protocol may be limited in their application to covered entities and excluded banks;
(C) The provisions of Section 4(b)(i)(A) of the attachment to the universal protocol must not apply with respect to U.S. special resolution regimes;
(D) The provisions of Section 4(b) of the attachment to the universal protocol may only be effective to the extent that the covered QFCs affected by an adherent's election thereunder would continue to meet the requirements of this subpart;
(E) The provisions of Section 2(k) of the attachment to the universal protocol must not apply; and
(F) The U.S. protocol may include minor and technical differences from the universal protocol and differences necessary to conform the U.S. protocol to the differences described in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A)-(E) of this section;
(iii) Amended by the universal protocol or the U.S. protocol, with respect to covered QFCs between adherents to the protocol, includes amendments through incorporation of the terms of the protocol (by reference or otherwise) into the covered QFC; and
(iv) The attachment to the universal protocol means the attachment that the universal protocol identifies as “ATTACHMENT to the ISDA 2015 UNIVERSAL RESOLUTION STAY PROTOCOL.”
(b)
(2) Enhanced creditor protection conditions means a set of limited exemptions to the requirements of § 252.84(b) that is different than that of paragraphs (d), (f), and (h) of § 252.84.
(3) A covered entity making a request under paragraph (b)(1) of this section must provide:
(i) An analysis of the proposal that addresses each consideration in paragraph (d) of this section;
(ii) A written legal opinion verifying that proposed provisions or amendments would be valid and enforceable under applicable law of the relevant jurisdictions, including, in the case of proposed amendments, the validity and enforceability of the proposal to amend the covered QFCs; and
(iii) Any other relevant information that the Board requests.
(c)
(d)
(1) Whether, and the extent to which, the proposal would reduce the resiliency of such covered entities during distress or increase the impact on U.S. financial stability were one or more of the covered entities to fail;
(2) Whether, and the extent to which, the proposal would materially decrease the ability of a covered entity, or an affiliate of a covered entity, to be resolved in a rapid and orderly manner in the event of the financial distress or failure of the entity that is required to submit a resolution plan;
(3) Whether, and the extent to which, the set of conditions or the mechanism in which they are applied facilitates, on an industry-wide basis, contractual modifications to remove impediments to resolution and increase market certainty, transparency, and equitable treatment with respect to the default rights of non-defaulting parties to a covered QFC;
(4) Whether, and the extent to which, the proposal applies to existing and future transactions;
(5) Whether, and the extent to which, the proposal would apply to multiple forms of QFCs or multiple covered entities;
(6) Whether the proposal would permit a party to a covered QFC that is within the scope of the proposal to adhere to the proposal with respect to only one or a subset of covered entities;
(7) With respect to a supported party, the degree of assurance the proposal provides to the supported party that the material payment and delivery obligations of the covered affiliate credit enhancement and the covered direct QFC it supports will continue to be performed after the covered affiliate support provider enters a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding;
(8) The presence, nature, and extent of any provisions that require a covered affiliate support provider or transferee to meet conditions other than material payment or delivery obligations to its creditors;
(9) The extent to which the supported party's overall credit risk to the direct party may increase if the enhanced creditor protection conditions are not met and the likelihood that the supported party's credit risk to the direct party would decrease or remain the same if the enhanced creditor protection conditions are met; and
(10) Whether the proposal provides the counterparty with additional default rights or other rights.
(a)
(b)
(a) For purposes of this subpart, a top-tier foreign banking organization that is
(1) The top-tier foreign banking organization determines, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, that the top-tier foreign banking organization has the characteristics of a global systemically important banking organization under the global methodology; or
(2) The Board, using information available to the Board, determines:
(i) That the top-tier foreign banking organization would be a global systemically important banking organization under the global methodology;
(ii) That the top-tier foreign banking organization, if it were subject to the Board's Regulation Q (part 217 of this chapter), would be identified as a global systemically important BHC under § 217.402 of the Board's Regulation Q; or
(iii) That any U.S. intermediate holding company controlled by the top-tier foreign banking organization, if the U.S. intermediate holding company is or were subject to § 217.402 of the Board's Regulation Q, is or would be identified as a global systemically important BHC.
(b) Each top-tier foreign banking organization that determines pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section that it has the characteristics of a global systemically important banking organization under the global methodology must notify the Board of the determination by January 1 of each calendar year.
(c) A top-tier foreign banking organization that is or controls a covered company (as defined at 12 CFR 243.2(f)) and prepares or reports for any purpose the indicator amounts necessary to determine whether the top-tier foreign banking organization is a global systemically important banking organization under the global methodology must use the data to determine whether the top-tier foreign banking organization has the characteristics of a global systemically important banking organization under the global methodology.
(d) Each top-tier foreign banking organization that controls a U.S. intermediate holding company and that meets the requirements of § 252.153(b)(5) and (6) also meets the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(a)
(1) A CCP is party; or
(2) Each party (other than the covered entity) is an FMU.
(b)
(1) The affiliate credit enhancement provider with respect to the covered QFC, then the covered entity is required to conform the credit enhancement to the requirements of this subpart but is not required to conform the direct QFC to the requirements of this subpart; or
(2) The direct party to which the excluded bank is the affiliate credit enhancement provider, then the covered entity is required to conform the direct QFC to the requirements of this subpart but is not required to conform the credit enhancement to the requirements of this subpart.
(c)
(1) An investment advisory contract that:
(i) Is with a retail customer or counterparty;
(ii) Does not explicitly restrict the transfer of the contract (or any QFC entered pursuant thereto or governed thereby, or any interest or obligation in or under, or any property securing, any such QFC or the contract) from the covered entity except as necessary to comply with section 205(a)(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-5(a)(2)); and
(iii) Does not explicitly provide a default right with respect to the contract or any QFC entered pursuant thereto or governed thereby.
(2) A warrant that:
(i) Evidences a right to subscribe to or otherwise acquire a security of the covered entity or an affiliate of the covered entity; and
(ii) Was issued prior to November 13, 2017.
(d)
(1) The potential impact of the exemption on the ability of the covered entity(ies), or affiliates of the covered entity(ies), to be resolved in a rapid and orderly manner in the event of the financial distress or failure of the entity that is required to submit a resolution plan;
(2) The burden the exemption would relieve; and
(3) Any other factor the Board deems relevant.
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 |