Page Range | 42927-43153 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 43153 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks | |
82 FR 43002 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
82 FR 43023 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (BSC, NCEH/ATSDR); Cancellation of Meeting | |
82 FR 42927 - Continuation of the Exercise of Certain Authorities Under the Trading With the Enemy Act | |
82 FR 43006 - Registration Review; Draft Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessments for Several Pesticides; Notice of Availability | |
82 FR 43008 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an Existing Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 43005 - Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations; Correction | |
82 FR 42940 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Harvey, LA | |
82 FR 42947 - EPTC; Pesticide Tolerances | |
82 FR 43066 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the U.S. Virgin Islands | |
82 FR 43063 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 43024 - National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee Meeting | |
82 FR 43023 - Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) | |
82 FR 43052 - Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments | |
82 FR 43037 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control Grant Programs and Quality Assurance Plans | |
82 FR 42985 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Amendment | |
82 FR 42986 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 43037 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Performing Loan Servicing for the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) | |
82 FR 42945 - Safety Zone; Allegheny River miles 0.0-0.25, Ohio River mile 0.0-0.1, Monongahela River mile 0.0-0.1; Pittsburgh, PA | |
82 FR 43025 - Microdose Radiopharmaceutical Diagnostic Drugs: Nonclinical Study Recommendations; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
82 FR 42963 - Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption; Extension of Compliance Dates for Subpart E | |
82 FR 43041 - Proposed Designation of Databases for Treasury's Working System Under the Do Not Pay Initiative | |
82 FR 43050 - Information Collection: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada | |
82 FR 42972 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Texas Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 42984 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
82 FR 43032 - Iowa; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
82 FR 43033 - Vermont; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
82 FR 43034 - West Virginia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
82 FR 43017 - Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules | |
82 FR 43003 - Application To Export Electric Energy; Plant-E Corp. | |
82 FR 43038 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Evaluation of the American Apprenticeship Initiative | |
82 FR 42972 - Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
82 FR 43013 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
82 FR 43010 - Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau Extend the Filing Deadline for the First Priority Filing Window for Eligible Full Power and Class A Television Stations-Revised Filing Deadline: September 15, 2017 | |
82 FR 42973 - Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
82 FR 42974 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews | |
82 FR 43010 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
82 FR 43031 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
82 FR 43029 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
82 FR 43032 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Federal Emergency Management Agency Programs Customer Satisfaction Surveys | |
82 FR 43068 - Bureau of Consular Affairs; Registration for the Diversity Immigrant (DV-2019) Visa Program | |
82 FR 43029 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 42969 - Assessment of Fees for Dairy Import Licenses for the 2018 Tariff-Rate Import Quota Year | |
82 FR 43005 - PSEG Keys Energy Center LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 43004 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
82 FR 43003 - Application To Export Electric Energy; J. Aron & Company LLC | |
82 FR 43048 - Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; Charter Renewal | |
82 FR 43048 - International Space Station Advisory Committee; Charter Renewal | |
82 FR 42943 - Safety Zone; L4D Optic Ground Wire Crossing, St. Clair River, St. Clair, MI | |
82 FR 43040 - MET Laboratories, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition and Update to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards | |
82 FR 43083 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review | |
82 FR 42938 - Special Local Regulation; Tennessee River, Huntsville, AL | |
82 FR 42941 - Safety Zone; Tennessee River, Knoxville, TN | |
82 FR 43084 - Meeting Notice-U.S. Maritime Transportation System National Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 42938 - Income Taxes | |
82 FR 42984 - Endangered Species; File No. 21169 | |
82 FR 43001 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Annual Northern Seal Subsistence Harvest Reporting and St. George Harvest Management Plan | |
82 FR 43002 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21422 | |
82 FR 42969 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 43077 - Nominations for Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, or Review Editors With Expertise Relevant to the Working Group I, II, and III Contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) | |
82 FR 43020 - CSGOLotto, Inc.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
82 FR 43066 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
82 FR 43009 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
82 FR 43012 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
82 FR 43013 - Lenovo (United States) Inc.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
82 FR 43049 - Information Collection: Grant and Cooperative Agreement Provisions | |
82 FR 43034 - Texas; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
82 FR 43034 - Wyoming; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
82 FR 43061 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Expand the Application of the Family-Issued Securities Charge | |
82 FR 43064 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule | |
82 FR 43057 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend Its Rules To Make Technical and Conforming Updates, in Connection With the Merger of NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. With and Into the Exchange's Affiliate NYSE Arca, Inc. and the Name Change of NYSE National, Inc. | |
82 FR 43059 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend Its Price List | |
82 FR 43054 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of No Objection to an Advance Notice To Expand the Application of the Family-Issued Securities Charge | |
82 FR 42940 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Quantuck Canal, Westhampton Beach, NY | |
82 FR 43036 - Louisiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration | |
82 FR 43033 - Texas; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
82 FR 43036 - Texas; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
82 FR 43035 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
82 FR 43051 - Information Collection: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Acquisition Regulation (NRCAR) | |
82 FR 43025 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
82 FR 43028 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 43029 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 43027 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 43056 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 43068 - U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL): Public Meeting on Arbitration and Conciliation | |
82 FR 43079 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
82 FR 43078 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
82 FR 42986 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Pile Driving Activities for Waterfront Repairs at the U.S. Coast Guard Station Monterey, Monterey, California | |
82 FR 42970 - Adjustment of Appendices Under the Dairy Tariff-Rate Quota Import Licensing Regulation for the 2017 Tariff-Rate Quota Year | |
82 FR 43021 - Information Collection; General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Implementation of Information Technology Security Provision | |
82 FR 43085 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
82 FR 42960 - Amendment to Standard for All-Terrain Vehicles; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking | |
82 FR 43022 - Information Collection; Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data | |
82 FR 42945 - Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Final Rule; Determination of Attainment for the 2010 1-Hour Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Jefferson County Nonattainment Area | |
82 FR 43026 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
82 FR 42957 - Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turboprop and Turboshaft Engines | |
82 FR 43077 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Transportation Project in Florida | |
82 FR 42955 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
82 FR 42953 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
82 FR 42929 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
82 FR 42934 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
82 FR 42932 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
82 FR 43088 - Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C) |
Foreign Agricultural Service
Rural Housing Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-13-12, which applied to all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2017-13-12 required modification or replacement of certain side stay assemblies of the main landing gear (MLG). This new AD clarifies the formatting of a figure in the published version of AD 2017-13-12. This new AD was prompted by reports indicating that affected parties misinterpreted the applicability of the affected part numbers due to the formatting of a figure in the published version of AD 2017-13-12, which could result in a negative effect on compliance. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 28, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 9, 2017 (82 FR 30949, July 5, 2017).
We must receive comments on this AD by October 30, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For Airbus service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office-EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
For Messier-Dowty service information identified in this final rule, contact Messier-Dowty: Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166-8910; telephone: 703-450-8233; fax: 703-404-1621; Internet:
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
On June 19, 2017, we issued AD 2017-13-12, Amendment 39-18942 (82 FR 30949, July 5, 2017) (“AD 2017-13-12”), which applied to all Airbus Model A318 series airplanes and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2017-13-12 was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH), which indicates that the main landing gear (MLG) does not comply with certification specifications, which could result in a locking failure of the MLG side stay. AD 2017-13-12 required modification or replacement of certain MLG side stay assemblies. We issued AD 2017-13-12 prevent possible collapse of the MLG during takeoff and landing.
Since we issued AD 2017-13-12, we have received reports indicating that affected parties misinterpreted the applicability of the affected part numbers due to the formatting of figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) in the published version of AD 2017-13-12, which could result in a negative effect on compliance. Therefore, we have determined that clarification of the formatting of the published figure is necessary.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0018R1, dated September 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The EASA AD is referenced in AD 2017-13-12. EASA has not
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We have reviewed the following service information.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1429, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016.
• Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-315, dated April 24, 2015.
• Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 201-32-63, dated April 24, 2015.
The service information describes procedures for modifying the MLG side stay assembly. The Messier-Bugatti-Dowty documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We are superseding AD 2017-13-12 to clarify the formatting of a figure in the regulatory text of the published AD. No other changes have been made to AD 2017-13-12. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 959 airplanes of U.S. registry. This AD adds no new economic burden to AD 2017-13-12. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective September 28, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2017-13-12, Amendment 39-18942 (82 FR 30949, July 5, 2017) (“AD 2017-13-12”).
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder that indicates that the main landing gear (MLG) does not comply with certification specifications, which could result in a locking failure of the MLG side stay. We are issuing this AD to prevent possible collapse of the MLG during takeoff and landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2017-13-12, with revised figure formatting. Within 120 months after August 9, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-12), accomplish the action specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Modify each MLG side stay assembly having a part number listed in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1429, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016, and the service information specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable. The modification may be done “off wing,” provided the modified MLG is reinstalled on the airplane.
(i) For Model A318 Ssries airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; and Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes: Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-315, dated April 24, 2015.
(ii) For Model A321 series airplanes: Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 201-32-63, dated April 24, 2015.
(2) Replace the MLG side stay assembly with a side stay assembly that has been modified in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. Do the replacement using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (h) of AD 2017-13-12, with no changes. An airplane on which Airbus Modification (Mod) 156646, Airbus Mod 161202, or Airbus Mod 161346 has been embodied in production is not affected by the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided it is determined that no part having a part number identified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD has been installed on that airplane since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the original export certificate of airworthiness. A review of the airplane maintenance records is acceptable to make this determination, provided that these records are accurate and can be relied upon to conclusively make that determination.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2017-13-12, with no changes. As of August 9, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-12), do not install on any airplane, an MLG side stay assembly having a part number, with the strike number not cancelled, as identified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, unless
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (j) of AD 2017-13-12, with no changes. This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before August 9, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-12), using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1429, dated September 10, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0018R1, dated September 14, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3), (m)(4), and (m)(5) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 9, 2017 (82 FR 30949, July 5, 2017).
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1429, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016.
(ii) Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-315, dated April 24, 2015.
(iii) Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 201-32-63, dated April 24, 2015.
(4) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
(5) For Messier-Dowty service information identified in this AD, contact Messier-Dowty: Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166-8910; telephone: 703-450-8233; fax: 703-404-1621; Internet:
(6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective September 13, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 13, 2017.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective September 13, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 13, 2017.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for all navigable waters of the Tennessee River from mile marker (MM) 333.2 to MM 337.0. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Huntsville, AL during the Swim Hobbs Island event. Entry of persons or vessels into this regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 7 a.m. through 2 p.m. on September 17, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call Petty Officer Jonathan Braddy, Marine Safety Detachment Nashville, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 615-736-5421, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this special local regulation by September 17, 2017 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the race from 7 a.m. through 2 p.m. on September 17, 2017 will present a safety concern for anyone on the navigable waters on the Tennessee River extending from mile
This rule establishes a special local regulation from 7 a.m. through 2 p.m. on September 17, 2017 for all navigable waters from MM 333.2 to MM 337.0 on the Tennessee River in the vicinity of Huntsville, AL. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the regulated area. Vessel traffic will be able to safely navigate through the affected area before and after the scheduled event. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated area and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for Federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental Federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for Federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary special local regulation lasting seven hours that will prohibit entry on all navigable waters of the Tennessee River, from MM 333.2 to MM 337.0. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 35(a) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction and a Record of Environmental Consideration was not necessary.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels desiring entry into or passage through the area must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. U. S. Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16 or by telephone at 1-800-253-7465.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Harvey Canal Fourth Street Bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) mile 0.24 West of Harvey Lock (WHL), at Harvey, Louisiana. The deviation is necessary to allow the contractor to rehabilitate the bridge to continue full operation. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed-to-navigation for 77 consecutive days.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from September 13, 2017 through 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 21, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from September 8, 2017 through September 13, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0852] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Donna Gagliano, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard; telephone 504-671-2128, email
The C.E.C. Inc., acting on behalf of Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the Harvey Canal Fourth Street Bascule Bridge across GIWW, mile 0.24 WHL (Harvey Canal), at Harvey, Louisiana. This deviation was requested to replace electrical and hydraulic lines including trunnion shafts along with span and tail locks initial installation to the drawbridge. This bridge is governed by 33 CFR 117.5.
This deviation allows the bascule bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for 77 consecutive days from 6:30 a.m. on September 6, 2017 through 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 21, 2017.
This bridge has a vertical clearance of 7 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position.
Navigation at the site of the bridge consists mainly of tugs with barges and some recreational pleasure craft. For the duration of the rehabilitation the bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and GIWW Algiers Alternate Route can be used as an alternate route to avoid unnecessary delays. The Coast Guard will 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 regulation is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from drawbridge regulation; modification.
The Coast Guard has modified a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Beach Lane Bridge across the Quantuck Canal, mile 1.1 at Westhampton Beach, New York. This action is necessary to complete rehabilitation of the bascule leaves of the drawbridge. This modified deviation extends the period during which the bridge may open only one bascule span at a time in order to provide passage for vessels requiring an opening.
This deviation is effective from September 30, 2017 through 11:59 p.m. on October 13, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0311 is available at
If you have questions on this modified temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1518, email
The Suffolk County Department of Public Works, the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary deviation in order to complete rehabilitation of the bascule leaves and painting of the bridge. The Beach Lane Bridge across the Quantuck Canal at mile 1.1 at Westhampton Beach, New York is a double-leaf bascule bridge with a vertical clearance of 13.9 feet at mean high water and 16.2 feet at mean low water in the closed position. Horizontal clearance is 50.3 feet, but utilization of a work barge placed underneath one of the bascule leaves reduces horizontal clearance to 25 feet. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(d).
On May 15, 2017, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Quantuck Canal, Westhampton Beach, NY” in the
Due to unanticipated project delays, the Suffolk County Department of Public Works has requested to continue one-leaf operations until October 13, 2017, allowing for completion of bascule leaf rehabilitation.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transit to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Tennessee River extending from mile marker (MM) 646.8 to MM 647.0. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters near Knoxville, TN, during the University of Tennessee Football Season recurring fireworks displays. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from September 13, 2017 through 11 p.m. on November 25, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from September 8, 2017 through September 13, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Vera Max, Marine Safety Detachment Nashville, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 615-736-5421, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone by September 9, 2017 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the recurring fireworks displays from 3:30 p.m. on September 9, 2017 through 11 p.m. on November 25, 2017 will be a safety concern for all navigable waters of the Tennessee River extending from Mile Marker (MM) 646.8 to MM 647.0. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters in the temporary safety zone before, during, and after the University of Tennessee Football Season Fireworks Displays.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone during each University of Tennessee football home game during the 2017 season that will have a fireworks display. The temporary safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Tennessee River extending from MM 646.8 to MM 647.0. Transit into and through this area is prohibited from 30 minutes before kickoff until the end of each game. The first game will be on September 9, 2017 at 4 p.m. The safety zone will be enforced from 3:30 p.m. through the end of the game at approximately 8 p.m. The second game
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the temporary safety zone. The temporary safety zone will be in effect for approximately 4 and-a-half hours and only on Saturdays during the University of Tennessee football season. The temporary safety zone covers an area of the waterway stretching less than one mile. The Coast Guard expects minimum adverse impact to mariners from the temporary safety zone activation as the game times will have been advertised to the public. Also, mariners may request authorization from the COTP or a designated representative to transit the temporary safety zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for Federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental Federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for Federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves special local regulated area that would prohibit entry to unauthorized vessels. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, Security Measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or a designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 2000-foot portion of the St. Clair River in the vicinity of St. Clair, MI. This zone is necessary to protect vessels from potential hazards associated with the L4D Optic Ground Wire Crossing.
This temporary final rule is effective from 7 a.m. on September 12, 2017 through 7 p.m. September 13, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone 313-568-9564, or email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this project until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this event. We are issuing this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazard associated with this project will be a safety concern to anyone within a 2000-foot area of the LD4 Ground Wire. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the project is being conducted.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. on September 12, 2017 through 7 p.m. on September 13, 2017. A safety zone is established to include all U.S. navigable waters of the St. Clair river, St. Clair, MI, between the following two lines from bank-to-the U.S./Canadian border: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°46.139′ N., 082°28.233′ W. (NAD 83); the second line, to the south, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°45.799′ N., 082°28.251′ W. (NAD 83). This regulated area will be enforced during a one hour period of time between 7 a.m. through 7 p.m. on September 12, 2017. In the event of inclement weather the regulated area will be enforced during a one hour period of time between 7 a.m. through 7 p.m. on September 13, 2017. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Recreational vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone with the exception of a one hour time frame between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. during which the optic ground wire will cross the river on September 12 or 13, 2017. Commercial traffic shall not be impeded. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 36 hours that will prohibit entry within 2000-feet of the project site. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all recreational traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative. The safety zone shall not impede the safe navigation of commercial vessels.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the safety zone. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9464. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the subject safety zone for the Pittsburgh Steelers Fireworks on all navigable waters of the Allegheny River miles 0.0 to 0.25, Ohio River mile 0.0 to 0.1, Monongahela River mile 0.0 to 0.1, extending the entire width of the rivers. The zone is needed to protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators from the hazards associated with the barge-based fireworks display. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the safety zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 57 will be enforced on November 16, 2017, November 26, 2017, and December 10, 2017.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone for the Pittsburgh Steelers fireworks on the Allegheny River, Monongahela River and Ohio River, listed in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 57 on November 16, 2017, November 26, 2017, and December 10, 2017. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to determine that the Jefferson County nonattainment area, in Missouri, has attained the 2010 1-hour primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO
This final rule is effective on October 13, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0251. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520), the EPA established a health-based 1-hour primary SO
On February 2, 2016, the state submitted a request asking the EPA to determine that the nonattainment area attained the 2010 1-hour primary SO
The details of Missouri's submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.
The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened June 23, 2017, the date of its publication in the
The EPA is finalizing its determination that the Jefferson County 2010 1-hour primary SO
The EPA has made the monitoring data, the modeling data, the supplemental emissions inventory information and additional information submitted by the state to support this action available in the docket to this rulemaking through
Under the CAA, a determination that a nonattainment area is attaining a NAAQS is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A determination of attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been stated above. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 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 action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 July 11, 2016. 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, Attainment determination, Incorporation by reference, Sulfur dioxide.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a)
(b) [Reserved]
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of EPTC, S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate in or on grass, forage at 0.60 ppm and grass, hay at 0.50 ppm. Gowan Company requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective September 13, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 13, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0308, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0308 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 13, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0308, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for EPTC, including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with EPTC follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
On an acute exposure basis, EPTC is highly toxic via inhalation and is moderately toxic via the oral and dermal routes of exposure. It is slightly irritating to eyes and minimally-irritating to skin. It is a weak skin sensitizer.
EPTC is an S-alkylthiocarbamate, which consistently produced cardiomyopathy and neuronal cell necrosis in studies of varying length of treatment and in different species. Cardiotoxicity was observed in subchronic and long-term studies, and in general, the severity and incidence of the lesion increased with increasing doses of EPTC. In 90-day feeding and inhalation studies and in two chronic feeding/oncogenicity studies, histopathological evaluation revealed myocardial degeneration. Myocardial degeneration in adult rats was also observed in two separate two-generation reproduction studies. In two chronic dog studies, degenerative changes in the cardiac muscle were observed when EPTC was administered in a capsule, but not when administered (at comparable doses) in the diet. In both dog studies, electrocardiograms were taken, but only one high-dose male in the capsule study had changes which were described as “potentially” treatment-related.
EPTC, as well as other thiocarbamates (molinate, cycloate, pebulate, vernolate and butylate), have toxic effects on the central and peripheral nervous systems. With EPTC, there was an increased incidence and severity of neuronal necrosis/degeneration in both the central and peripheral nervous systems of rats and dogs. In the rat neurotoxicity studies, dose-related increases in the incidence of neuronal necrosis were observed in the brains after acute and subchronic exposure to EPTC. In the rat developmental neurotoxicity study, a
EPTC is a reversible acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitor. Toxicology studies with EPTC did not show any consistent pattern of AChE-inhibition between different species, length of treatment, or the type of AChE enzyme measured. In some studies, brain AChE activity was inhibited without any effect on either plasma or erythrocyte AChE activities. In other studies, erythrocyte AChE was inhibited with no inhibition of either plasma or brain AChE. AChE-inhibition was observed at comparable or higher doses than where cardiac/neuronal effects were observed.
There is no evidence of increased susceptibility following
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by EPTC as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies scan be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for EPTC used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for EPTC in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of EPTC. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at
Based on the Tier II Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM-GW) model, the highest estimated drinking water concentration (EDWC) of EPTC for acute exposure is estimated to be 378 parts per billion (ppb) from ground water. For chronic exposure, the highest EDWC is estimated to be 335 ppb from ground water. These EDWCs were directly entered into the dietary exposure models for both acute and chronic dietary risk assessments to assess the contribution from drinking water.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for EPTC is complete and adequate to assess potential risk to infants and children.
ii. There is indication that EPTC has toxic effects on the central and peripheral nervous systems. Neuronal necrosis and degeneration were observed in both the central and peripheral nervous systems of rats and dogs after acute and subchronic exposure. Treatment-related neuromuscular lesions were also observed in chronic rat and dog studies. In all of these studies hindquarter weakness was noted, and at necropsy evaluation atrophy and degeneration of the skeletal muscle was observed. In the dog study, the lesions were described as Wallerian-type degeneration in the spinal cords and various peripheral nerves. AChE inhibition was also seen in a number of toxicology studies; however, no consistent pattern was witnessed across studies with respect to AChE inhibition between different species, length of treatment, or the type of AChE enzyme measured. All studies provide clear NOAELs and LOAELs, except the acute neurotoxicity study, and because the Agency is relying on that study for selection of the acute dietary exposure endpoint, EPA is retaining the 10X FQPA safety factor to account from the extrapolation from the LOAEL to the NOAEL.
iii. There is no evidence that EPTC results in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to EPTC in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by EPTC.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
An adequate gas chromatography with micro coulometric (GLC/MC) detection method (RR-50) listed under Method A in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM Volume II, Section 180.117; is available for enforcing tolerances of EPTC
These methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
The Agency is establishing tolerances for the forage and hay forms of “grass” rather than “grass grown for seed” as requested to conform with its food and feed commodity vocabulary. Also, the Agency is establishing the tolerance levels to conform with its policy of significant figures.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of EPTC, S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on grass, forage at 0.60 ppm and grass, hay at 0.50.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a smoke-in-cabin event due to a non-sustaining electrical fire. This proposed AD would require installation of protective sleeves on the bonding jumper wires of affected galleys and lavatories. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 30, 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 Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone: 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone: 1-514-855-2999; fax: 514-855-7401; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7301; fax: 516-794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2016-20R1, dated February 3, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:
A CRJ900 aeroplane reported a smoke in cabin event due to a non-sustaining electrical fire. The source of smoke was traced to a burnt heated water supply line behind the #2 Galley. The surrounding insulation was also found burnt.
The root cause of this electrical fire was an electrical short between an un-insulated bonding jumper and a terminal block carrying 115 volts AC. The circuit resistance was high enough and the circuit breakers that protect the wiring did not trip open.
Electrical short of a bonding jumper may result in in-flight smoke or fire events as well as failure of avionics equipment due to possible water spray or leakage from a damaged water supply line. The likelihood of this happening is increased by the removal and installation of the galley or lavatory during maintenance, allowing the bonding jumper to become wedged under the terminal block.
Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate [the installation of protective sleeves on the galley and lavatory bonding jumper wires in accordance with] Bombardier Service Bulletin (SB) 670BA-25-101 Revision B dated 12 January 2017. * * *
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Bombardier, Inc., has issued Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision B, dated January 12, 2017. The service information describes procedures for installation of protective sleeves on the bonding jumper wires of affected galleys and lavatories. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 544 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by October 30, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, all certificated models.
(1) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10001 through 10344 inclusive.
(2) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15382 inclusive.
(3) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 through 19044 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by a report of a smoke-in-cabin event due to a non-sustaining electrical fire. We are issuing this AD to prevent an electrical short of a bonding jumper wire that may result in in-flight smoke or fire events as well as failure of avionics equipment due to possible water spray or leakage from a damaged water supply line.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For airplanes on which the actions specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, dated December 17, 2015; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision A, dated October 31, 2016, have not been done, as of the effective date of this AD: Within 6,600 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install protective sleeves on the bonding jumper wires of affected galleys and lavatories, in accordance with Part A through Part E, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision B, dated January 12, 2017.
(2) For airplanes on which the actions specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, dated December 17, 2015; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-25-101, Revision A, dated October 31, 2016, have been done, as of the effective date of this AD: Within 6,600 flight hours or 36 months after
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-20R1, dated February 3, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7301; fax: 516-794-5531.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone: 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone: 1-514-855-2999; fax: 514-855-7401; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of rudder yoke components that had not been properly inspected at the supplier. This proposed AD would require replacement of the left and right rudder yoke assemblies. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 30, 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 Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone: 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone: 1-514-855-2999; fax: 514-855-7401; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Aziz Ahmed, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7329; fax: 516-794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-10, dated February 27, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes; Model
Bombardier Aerospace has informed Transport Canada that a number of rudder yoke components were received which had not been properly inspected at the supplier. The rudder yoke supplier discovered that the crack detection inspection was omitted following the manufacturing of some components. A cracked rudder yoke may affect rudder function on the affected side and could result in difficulties in maneuvering the aeroplane.
This [Canadian] AD was issued to mandate the replacement of the left and right rudder yoke assemblies.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Bombardier, Inc., has issued Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-073, dated November 23, 2016. This service information describes procedures for replacement of the left and right rudder yoke assemblies. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 48 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by October 30, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial number 10343.
(2) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15326 through 15370 inclusive.
(3) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19041 and 19042.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by a report of rudder yoke components that had not been properly inspected at the supplier. We are issuing this AD to prevent a cracked rudder yoke, which may affect rudder function on the affected side and could result in difficulties in maneuvering the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 6,600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace the left and right rudder yoke assemblies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-073, dated November 23, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2017-10, dated February 27, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7329; fax: 516-794-5531.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone: 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone: 1-514-855-2999; fax: 514-855-7401; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Honeywell International Inc. TPE331 turboprop and TSE331 turboshaft engines. This proposed AD was prompted by recent reports of failures of the direct drive fuel control gears and bearings in the hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly, part number (P/N) 3101726-3. This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive engine oil filter sampling and analysis of the affected engines. This proposed AD would also require inspection of hydraulic torque sensor gear assemblies that do not meet oil filter inspection requirements. This proposed AD would further require improved component overhaul procedures that would remove from service, by attrition, certain P/N hydraulic torque sensor gear assemblies. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 30, 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 Honeywell International Inc., 111 S 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received reports of failures of the direct drive fuel control gears and bearings in the hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly, P/N 3101726-3. These failures are similar to previous failures in hydraulic torque sensor gear assemblies, P/Ns 3101726-1 and 3101726-2, that resulted in in-flight shutdowns and accidents in single and twin-engine airplanes.
After recent failures of the hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly, P/N 3101726-3, installed in six engines, we re-performed oil filter analyses on samples taken prior to these failures. We found the wear metals, including, but not limited to, M50 steel platelets, in the engine oil filter samples. The FAA has found that the oil filter analysis for wear metals provides an effective means of identifying premature wear of the components in the hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly.
This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive oil filter analysis for wear metals from the hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly. This AD also requires the use of later revisions of the hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly component overhaul manuals that provide improved maintenance instructions and removes from service, by attrition, hydraulic torque sensor gear assemblies, P/N 3101726-1 and certain P/N 3101726-2 of a pre-Series 9 configuration. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly, in-flight shutdown, and reduced control of the airplane.
Honeywell has issued Honeywell Service Information Letter (SIL) P331-97, Revision 11, dated July 23, 2008. The SIL describes procedures for conducting the spectrometric oil and filter analysis program to sample and analyze metal particles in the engine lubricating system. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We reviewed the improved procedures and limitations in the Honeywell Torque Sensor Gear Assembly Overhaul Manual with Illustrated Parts List, 72-00-17, Revision 10, dated October 31, 2013, for the TPE331 and TSE331 torque sensor gear assemblies. We also reviewed Honeywell's TPE331 Line Maintenance Training Manual which provides guidance for obtaining oil filter samples. In addition, we reviewed Honeywell Service Bulletins (SBs) TPE331-72-0402, Revision 6, dated November 26, 1997; TPE331-72-0403, Revision 5, dated January 20, 1989; TPE331-72-0404, Revision 8, dated September 13, 2016; TPE331-72-0823, Revision 3, dated September 13, 1996; TSE331-72-5003, Revision 3, dated January 20, 1989; and TPE331-72-0180, Revision 36, dated April 7, 2016. The SBs address the inspection intervals for the oil and filter analysis for the affected TPE331 and TSE331 engines.
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 requires initial and repetitive engine oil filter analysis of the affected TPE331 and TSE331 engines. This proposed AD also requires inspection of affected hydraulic torque sensor gear assemblies, and replacement or overhaul of those torque sensor gear assemblies that do not meet inspection requirements. This proposed AD restricts the use of earlier versions of the hydraulic sensor gear component overhaul manual.
Honeywell service information does not recommend oil filter sampling and analysis and hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly inspection within specified times for applicable engines. Because of recent failures, this proposed AD defines specific time requirements for performing engine oil filter sampling and analysis for all applicable TPE331 and TSE331 engines and, if necessary, hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly inspections. This proposed AD would require the oil filter sample analysis, which is only part of Honeywell's recommended spectrometric oil and oil filter analysis program.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 3,831 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate that 3,831 engines will require a records review to determine if they have an affected hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly installed.
We estimate that 2,542 engines operating under Parts 121 or 135 and 544 engines operating under Part 91 will be required to perform oil filter sampling and analysis.
We estimate that 242 engines will require that the hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly be overhauled during the first year of inspection.
We estimate that 217 engines will require hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly inspection after an unacceptable oil filter analysis during the first year of inspection.
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 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, 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 30, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) TPE331-1, -2, -2UA, -3U, -3UW, -5, -5B, -6, -6A, -8, -10, -10AV, -10N, -10P, -10R, -10T, -10U, -10UA, -10UF, -10UR model turboprop and TSE331-3U turboshaft engines with hydraulic torque sensor gear assemblies, part numbers (P/Ns) 3101726-1, -2, or -3, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7210, Turbine Engine Reduction Gear.
This AD was prompted by recent reports of failures of the direct drive fuel control gears and bearings in the hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly, P/N 3101726-3. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly, in-flight shutdown, and reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Obtain an initial engine oil filter sample of the affected engines within 150 hours time in service after the effective date of this AD. Guidance for obtaining oil filter samples can be found in Honeywell's engine training manuals; for example, see the TPE331 Line Maintenance Training Manual.
(2) Submit engine oil filter sample within 3 days of sampling to an ISO/IEC 17025-accredited laboratory capable of performing analysis using ASTM D5185, Standard Test Method for Multielement Determination of Used and Unused Lubricating Oils and Base Oils by Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES). A list of Honeywell-authorized laboratories capable of performing this analysis can be found in paragraph 1.D.(10) of Honeywell Service Information Letter (SIL) P331-97, Revision 11, dated July 23, 2008.
(3) Perform an oil filter analysis for wear metals and evaluate filter contents using paragraphs 1.D.(4) and (5) of Honeywell SIL P331-97, Revision 11, dated July 23, 2008. Guidelines for interpreting analysis results can be found in paragraph (8) of Honeywell SIL P331-97.
(4) For those engines where the oil filter analysis indicates the need for an inspection or resample, as specified in Figures 1, 2 or 3 of the Honeywell SIL P331-97, Revision 11, dated July 23, 2008, accomplish the following:
(i) If Figures 1, 2, or 3 indicate an inspection is required, within 5 days, inspect the torque sensor gear assembly using paragraph (g)(5) of this AD.
(ii) If Figures 1, 2, or 3 indicate a resample is required, perform a repeat oil filter sample and analysis, within 25 hours time in service from the previous sample, to evaluate for wear metals in accordance with paragraphs (g)(1), (2) and (3) of this AD.
(A) If the resample indicates a second resample or inspection is required, within 5 days, inspect the hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly using paragraph (g)(5) of this AD.
(B) Reserved.
(5) Inspect the hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly using the following steps:
(i) Remove bearings, P/Ns 358893-1, 3103035-1, 3103585-1 or 70100168-1, from the assembled spur gear and fuel control drive gearshaft and inspect or replace. Guidance for performing the inspection can be found in Section 70-00-00, Standard Practices of the applicable TPE331 engine maintenance manual. For example, see paragraph 5., “Bearing Inspection,” on pages 11-12 of Honeywell Maintenance Manual 70-00-00, TPE331-10 (Report No. 72-00-27), dated February 29, 2000.
(ii) Visually inspect the gearshaft teeth for scoring, pitting, chipping, metal deposits or corner breakage. Visual defects on gear teeth are acceptable if defects cannot be felt using a 0.031 inch diameter stylus. No corner breakage is allowed.
(iii) For any hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly that fails the inspection required by paragraph (g)(5) of this AD, remove the affected hydraulic torque sensor gear assembly and, before further flight, replace with a part eligible for installation.
(6) Thereafter, repeat the steps identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this AD every additional 150 hours time in service after last oil filter sampling.
After the effective date of this AD, do not use the Honeywell Torque Sensor Gear Assembly Overhaul Manual with Illustrated Parts List, 72-00-17, Revision No. 9, dated, July 20, 1992, or earlier versions, to overhaul TPE331 or TSE331 hydraulic torque sensor gear assemblies, P/Ns 3101726-1, -2, or -3.
(1) The Manager, FAA, Los Angeles ACO 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 Los Angeles ACO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(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 Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; Internet:
(3) 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.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) required the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or the Commission) to publish, as a mandatory consumer product safety standard, the
Submit comments by November 27, 2017.
Comments related to the proposed rule, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2017-0032, may be submitted electronically or in writing:
Caroleene Paul, Project Manager, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: (301) 987-2225; email:
The CPSIA directed the Commission to “publish in the
Section 42(b) of the CPSA provides that, if ANSI/SVIA 1-2007 is revised after the Commission has published a
ANSI/SVIA 1-2017 contains requirements and test methods relating to ATVs, including vehicle equipment and configuration, vehicle speed capability, brake performance, pitch stability, electromagnetic compatibility, and sound level limits. The Commission reviewed the 2017 edition of the ANSI/SVIA standard and compared it with the 2010 edition, which is currently the mandated consumer product safety standard for ATVs. The Commission considers the following revisions to be material changes:
Requirements for stop lamps or combination tail-stop lamps on all categories of ATVs;
Requirements for reflectors for all categories of ATVs.
The standard provides that it will take effect “beginning with 2019 model year vehicles.” As explained below, the Commission believes that these revisions are reasonably related to the safe performance of ATVs.
ANSI/SVIA 1-2017 Section 4.17, Lighting & Reflective Equipment, states that all ATVs shall be equipped with lighting and reflective devices.
ANSI/SVIA 1-2017 requires stop lamps or combination tail-stop lamps on all adult and transition category ATVs. In May 2015, CPSC requested that SVIA consider adding requirements relating to stop lamps to increase the detectability of ATVs. CPSC staff reviewed 1 year (2007) of ATV-related fatality data involving two ATVs colliding, and identified 13 rear-end collisions. Of the 13 incidents, eight involved a leading ATV slowing or stopping and a following ATV colliding with the leading vehicle. Although this is only a preliminary analysis, the data illustrate a hazard pattern of rear-end collisions related to braking. CPSC staff subsequently worked with SVIA to develop the stop lamp requirements contained in ANSI/SVIA 1-2017. The Commission believes that adding stop lamp requirements in ANSI/SVIA 1-2017 improves the optional provision in the 2010 edition of the voluntary standard, and that this addition may reduce rear-end collisions related to non-detection of a vehicle braking.
ANSI/SVIA 1-2017 requires one amber reflector on each side of the ATV (mounted as far forward as practicable), one red reflector on each side of the ATV (mounted as far rearward as practicable), one red reflector on the rear of the vehicle, and one white reflector on the front of the ATV, if not equipped with a headlamp or conspicuity light. These requirements are for all categories of ATV. In May 2015, CPSC requested that SVIA consider adding requirements relating to reflectors, and worked with SVIA in developing the reflector requirements contained in ANSI/SVIA 1-2017.
Reflector use may increase the detectability of ATVs. CPSC staff's preliminary review of 331 fatal ATV-related vehicular collision incidents found that more than 30 percent of these incidents occurred at night and an additional 5 percent occurred in low light (
Because fatalities occur when ATVs cross public roads between fields or trails, CPSC believes that the requirement for side reflectors is crucial to any new efforts to increase vehicle visibility. The Commission believes that the ANSI/SVIA 1-2017 reflector requirements improve the 2010 edition of the voluntary standard (which lacked a reflector requirement), and that requirements for reflectors to increase the visibility of an ATV at night may reduce vehicular collisions related to non-detection of other vehicles.
The CPSIA provides a timetable for the Commission to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (within 120 days of receiving notification of a revised ANSI/SVIA standard) and to issue a final rule (within 180 days of publication of the proposed rule), but it does not set an effective date. Since issuing the ATV standard in 2009, the Commission has revised it once, in accordance with the revision procedures set out in the CPSIA. Based on comments to the NPR from several ATV companies, the final rule amending the Commission's ATV standard to reference the 2010 edition of the ANSI/SVIA standard provided for an effective date of 60 days from publication of the final rule.
Data from CPSC's ATV Special Study show that 97 percent of consumers who reported that their vehicle had a tail lamp, also claimed that the vehicle had a stop lamp. This suggests that adding stop lamps to ATVs to meet the new ANSI/SVIA 1-2017 requirements will require minimal changes to current production. Additionally, reflectors are a low-technology product that can be obtained in bulk as sheets or rolls of tape. Attaching reflectors in the correct positions on ATVs does not require test and evaluation effort. This suggests that adding reflectors to ATVs to meet the new ANSI/SVIA 1-2017 requirements will require minimal design and labor changes. CPSC believes that the revisions to the 2010 edition of the voluntary standard will not require significant vehicle design and testing, and that a 60-day effective date for this proposed rule will allow companies sufficient time to update their certification labels. Thus, the Commission proposes that the rule would take effect 60 days after publication of a final rule in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies review a proposed rule for the rule's potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA generally requires that agencies prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and make the analysis available to the public for comment when the agency publishes an NPR. 5 U.S.C. 603. Section 605 of the RFA provides that an IRFA is not required if the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As explained in this section, the Commission certifies that ANSI/SVIA standard, if promulgated as a final rule, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
The proposed rule would revise the mandatory ATV standard to incorporate the revisions in the 2017 edition of the ANSI/SVIA standard. The most significant changes involve requirements for brake-actuated stop lamps and reflectors. CSPC believes that the vast majority of ATVs already comply with these requirements. Consequently, the Commission anticipates that the cost of the changes required to bring ATVs that do not comply into compliance with the rule will be very low on a per-unit basis. Furthermore, other changes to the standard either increase the options for manufacturers in designing and equipping their vehicles, or are minor changes that clarify—but do not change—the standard's requirement. For these reasons, the Commission certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule would revise § 1420.3, “Requirements for four-wheel ATVs.” The current rule refers to the ANSI/SVIA 1-2010 standard; the proposed rule would replace this reference with the ANSI/SVIA 1-2017 edition of the standard.
This proposed amendment would not impose any information collection requirements. Accordingly, this rule is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exemption for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement as they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This proposed amendment falls within the categorical exemption.
The Commission proposes to incorporate by reference ANSI/SVIA 1-2017. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. For a proposed rule, agencies must discuss in the preamble to the NPR ways that the materials the agency proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested persons or how the agency worked to make the materials reasonably available. In addition, the preamble to the proposed rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(a).
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section II of this preamble summarizes the provisions of ANSI/SVIA 1-2017 that the Commission proposes to incorporate by reference. ANSI/SVIA 1-2017 is copyrighted. Interested persons may purchase a copy of ANSI/SVIA 1-2017 from Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, 2 Jenner, Suite 150, Irvine, CA 92618-3806; telephone: 949-727-3727 ext. 3023;
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that when a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a standard or regulation that prescribes requirements for the performance, composition, contents, design, finish, construction, packaging, or labeling of such product dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 232(a)(1) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety standards.” Therefore, the preemption provision of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply to a rule issued under section 232 of the CPSIA.
The CPSA establishes certain requirements for product certification and testing. Certification of children's products subject to a children's product safety rule must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third-party conformity assessment body. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). The Commission is required to publish a notice of requirements (NOR) for the accreditation of third-party conformity assessment bodies to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject.
This NPR begins a rulemaking proceeding under section 232 of the CPSIA to amend the Commission's mandatory ATV standard to reference the 2017 edition of the ANSI/SVIA standard. We invite all interested persons to submit comments on any aspect of this proposal. During the comment period, ANSI/SVIA 1-2017,
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Information, Labeling, Law enforcement, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. Law 110-314, § 232, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008).
Each ATV shall comply with all applicable provisions of the American National Standard for Four-Wheel All-Terrain Vehicles (American National Standards Institute, Inc. ANSI/SVIA 1-2017), approved on June 8, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, 2 Jenner, Suite 150, Irvine, CA 92618-3806; telephone: 949-727-3727 ext.3023;
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is proposing to extend, for covered produce other than sprouts, the dates for compliance with the agricultural water provisions in the Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption rule. We are proposing to extend the compliance dates to address questions about the practical implementation of compliance with certain provisions and to consider how we might further reduce the regulatory burden or increase flexibility while continuing to achieve our regulatory objectives, in keeping with the Administration's policies.
Submit either electronic or written comments on this proposed rule by November 13, 2017.
You may submit comments on the extension of the compliance period as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 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
• 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
Samir Assar, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1636.
This proposed extension of compliance dates concerns one of the seven foundational rules that we have established in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR) as part of our implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA; Pub. L. 111-353): “Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption” (the produce safety regulation, published in the
In the preamble of the final rule establishing the produce safety regulation, we stated that the produce safety regulation would be effective on January 26, 2016, and provided for compliance dates of 1 to 6 years from the effective date depending on farm size, commodity, and provision(s) (see table entitled “compliance dates” in the preamble of the final rule establishing the produce safety regulation, 80 FR 74354 at 74357, as corrected in a technical amendment at 81 FR 26466, May 3, 2016). (Some of the compliance dates identified in the technical amendment fall on weekends (
For the majority of agricultural water provisions at subpart E (and for most of the other provisions in the rule), with respect to covered produce other than sprouts, we provided compliance periods of 4 years from the effective date of the rule for very small businesses, 3 years for small businesses, and 2 years for all other businesses. We provided an additional 2 years beyond those compliance periods for certain water quality requirements in § 112.44 and related provisions in §§ 112.45 and 112.46. See table 1.
In a final rule, “The Food and Drug Administration Food Safety Modernization Act: Extension and Clarification of Compliance Dates for Certain Provisions of Four Implementing Rules” (81 FR 57784, August 24, 2016) we also extended the compliance date for certain “customer provisions” in the produce safety regulation (§ 112.2(b)(3)) and clarified the compliance dates for certain agricultural water testing provisions as originally established in the produce safety regulation.
FDA has received feedback from numerous stakeholders raising issues regarding the practicality of some of the agricultural water requirements in the produce safety regulation as applied to covered produce other than sprouts. Many of these concerns relate to the testing requirements for pre-harvest agricultural water, which are different for sprouts than they are for other types of covered produce. We are proposing this extension in light of the feedback we have received and under Executive Orders 13777, 13771, and 13563. Additional time would allow us to consider approaches to address these issues, as well as opportunities there may be to reduce the cost and enhance the flexibility of these requirements beyond those reflected in the final rule.
As part of this proposed extension, we also propose to simplify the subpart E compliance period structure such that all the compliance dates for subpart E provisions as applied to non-sprout produce would occur at the same time, retaining date staggering based on farm size. Accordingly, covered farms would have 2 years beyond the previously published compliance dates for the water quality requirements in § 112.44 and related provisions in §§ 112.45 and 112.46, to comply with all of subpart E. Put another way, we propose to extend the compliance dates for provisions in the first column of table 1 by 4 years, and propose to extend the compliance dates for provisions in the second column of table 1 by 2 years, so that the compliance dates for non-sprout covered produce for all provisions of subpart E would be those in table 2.
We believe the simpler compliance date structure would alleviate confusion, and because we are proposing it as part of a proposal to provide additional time for compliance with all of the provisions, we expect it to alleviate burden. We do not anticipate that the change would result in any practical or logistical compliance challenges. We request comment on whether this change to the compliance date structure would be helpful.
This proposed rule is limited in scope to extending the compliance dates for covered produce other than sprouts. The proposed rule does not address the underlying requirements in subpart E, but only the compliance dates for those requirements (for covered produce other than sprouts). We will continue to work with stakeholders on the issues raised regarding the agricultural water requirements.
Our goal is to complete this rulemaking as quickly as possible. However, we are aware that many farms have been working well in advance of their compliance dates to come into compliance. As we continue to work with stakeholders on issues raised regarding the agricultural water requirements, we intend to exercise enforcement discretion for covered produce other than sprouts relative to the agricultural water provisions in subpart E of the produce safety regulation. This means that while we are considering these issues, we do not intend to enforce the requirements in subpart E of the regulation for covered produce other than sprouts. Thus, by announcing we intend to exercise enforcement discretion for covered produce other than sprouts relative to the agricultural water provisions in subpart E, farms may choose to continue with their current water testing programs or allocate their resources differently to avoid incurring additional costs based on our proposal to extend the agricultural water compliance dates. And, as explained above, when we finalize compliance dates, we intend to continue to work with stakeholders to address agricultural water questions and with farms to prepare for compliance.
This proposed rule also would not change the compliance dates for sprouts. In the final produce safety regulation, we provided staggered compliance periods based on farm size for covered activities involving sprouts. The compliance date for activities involving sprouts for very small businesses is January 28, 2019. The compliance date for activities involving sprouts for small businesses is January 26, 2018. The compliance date for activities involving sprouts for all other businesses is January 26, 2017. Because sprouts present a unique safety risk, the final produce safety regulation established sprout-specific requirements on multiple topics, including agricultural water. The agricultural water requirements for sprouts are different from the agricultural water requirements for other produce commodities (compare §§ 112.44(a)(1) and 112.44(b)). Moreover, based on the information available to us, many sprout farms use municipal water for growing activities; and under the produce safety regulation, covered farms are not required to test water from a public supply when certain conditions are met (see 21 CFR 112.46(a)(1) and (2)). We also established earlier compliance dates for sprouts than for other covered produce, and the first compliance date for covered sprout farms (January 26, 2017) has already passed. We have not received any significant feedback from sprout farms that subpart E has posed particular challenges. Accordingly, we are proposing to take no action with regard to compliance dates for activities involving sprouts and thus the compliance dates for covered farms with respect to sprouts are the original compliance dates, including for the agricultural water provisions in Subpart E.
Table 3 summarizes the compliance dates for the produce safety regulation as they would be if this proposed rule is finalized. Time periods start from effective date of the produce safety rule (January 26, 2016) except as otherwise specified.
We have examined the impacts of this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13771 on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 states the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs and burdens, and harmonizing rules. We conclude that this proposed rule would not increase compliance costs and would instead reduce compliance costs by delaying certain compliance dates. Moreover, it would serve an important purpose of providing us an opportunity to consider how to reduce burdens on the public. We conclude that this proposed rule is an economically
This rule would extend, for non-sprout covered produce, the compliance date for all of the provisions of subpart E to 4 years after the relevant farm's compliance date for all other provisions of the produce safety regulation (which varies based on establishment size). The estimated costs and benefits accrued in any given year of compliance with the produce safety regulation, relative to the first year of compliance, would not change. However, because the compliance dates for certain provisions would be extended, the discounted value of both total costs and total benefits would decrease.
There would be a reduction in costs (
There would be a reduction in benefits associated with extending the compliance dates as described previously. Consumers eating non-sprout covered produce would not enjoy the potential health benefits (
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities when “the agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking.” (5 U.S.C. 601(2)). We have analyzed this proposed rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and determined that, because it would only extend certain compliance dates for agricultural water provisions in the produce safety regulation, it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before issuing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $148 million, using the most current (2016) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. We have determined that this proposed rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.
Executive Order 13771, entitled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, was issued on January 30, 2017. Section 2(a) of Executive Order 13771 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance of this requirement, section 2(c) of Executive Order 13771 requires that the 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. This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.
For interested persons, the detailed preliminary regulatory impact analysis is available in the docket for this rule (Ref. 2) at
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(j) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This proposed rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the proposed rule does not contain policies that 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, we conclude that the proposed rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in
We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13175. We have determined that the proposed rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Accordingly, we conclude that the proposed rule does not contain policies that have tribal implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are required regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by October 13, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces a fee of $300 to be charged for the 2018 tariff-rate quota (TRQ) year for each license issued to a person or firm by the Department of Agriculture authorizing the importation of certain dairy articles, which are subject to tariff-rate quotas set forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) of the United States.
September 13, 2017.
Abdelsalam El-Farra, Dairy Import Licensing Program, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, STOP 1021, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1021 or telephone at (202) 720-9439.
The Dairy Tariff-Rate Quota Import Licensing Regulation promulgated by the Department of Agriculture and codified at 7 CFR 6.20-6.36 provides for the issuance of licenses to import certain dairy articles that are subject to TRQs set forth in the HTS. Those dairy articles may only be entered into the United States at the in-quota TRQ tariff-rates by or for the account of a person or firm to whom such licenses have been issued and only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the regulation.
Licenses are issued on a calendar year basis, and each license authorizes the license holder to import a specified quantity and type of dairy article from a specified country of origin. The use of such licenses is monitored by the Dairy Import Licensing Program, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S.
The regulation at 7 CFR 6.33(a) provides that a fee will be charged for each license issued to a person or firm by the Licensing Authority in order to defray the Department of Agriculture's costs of administering the licensing system under this regulation.
The regulation at 7 CFR 6.33(a) also provides that the Licensing Authority will announce the annual fee for each license and that such fee will be set out in a notice to be published in the
The total cost to the Department of Agriculture of administering the licensing system for 2018 has been estimated to be $749,300.00 and the estimated number of licenses expected to be issued is 2,500. Of the total cost, $479,200.00 represents staff and supervisory costs directly related to administering the licensing system, and $270,100.00 represents other miscellaneous costs, including travel, postage, publications, forms, and ADP system support.
Accordingly, notice is hereby given that the fee for each license issued to a person or firm for the 2018 calendar year, in accordance with 7 CFR 6.33, will be $300 per license.
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces the revised appendices under the Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Regulation for the 2017 quota year reflecting the cumulative annual transfers from Appendix 1 to Appendix 2 for certain dairy product import licenses permanently surrendered by licensees or revoked by the Licensing Authority.
September 13, 2017.
Abdelsalam El-Farra, Dairy Import Licensing Program, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, at (202) 720-9439; or by email at:
The Foreign Agricultural Service, under a delegation of authority from the Secretary of Agriculture, administers the Dairy Tariff-Rate Quota Import Licensing Regulation codified at 7 CFR 6.20-6.36 that provides for the issuance of licenses to import certain dairy articles under tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) as set forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. These dairy articles may only be entered into the United States at the low-tier tariff by or for the account of a person or firm to whom such licenses have been issued and only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the regulation.
Licenses are issued on a calendar year basis, and each license authorizes the license holder to import a specified quantity and type of dairy article from a specified country of origin. The Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, issues these licenses and, in conjunction with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, monitors their use.
The regulation at 7 CFR 6.34(a) states: “Whenever a historical license (Appendix 1) is not issued to an applicant pursuant to the provisions of § 6.23, is permanently surrendered or is revoked by the Licensing Authority, the amount of such license will be transferred to Appendix 2.” Section 6.34(b) provides that the cumulative annual transfers will be published by notice in the
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Proposed collection; Comments requested.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Housing Service's (RHS) intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the program for the Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program.
Comments on this Notice must be received by November 13, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Tammy Daniels, Financial and Loan Analyst, Multi-Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Division, Rural Development, USDA, STOP 0781-Room 1263S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, telephone: (202) 720-0021.
The housing must be available for occupancy only to low- or moderate-income families or persons, whose incomes at the time of initial occupancy do not exceed 115 percent of the median income of the area. After initial occupancy, the tenant's income may exceed these limits; however, rents, including utilities, are restricted to no more than 30 percent of the 115 percent of area median income for the term of the loan.
The Secretary is authorized under Section 510 (k) of the Housing Act of 1949 to prescribe regulations to ensure that these Federally-funded loans are made to eligible applicants for authorized purposes. The lender must evaluate the eligibility, cost, benefits, feasibility, and financial performance of the proposed project. The Agency collects this information from the lender to determine if funds are being used to meet the goals and mission of Rural Development. The information submitted by the lender to the Agency is used by the Agency to manage, plan, evaluate, and account for Government resources.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, at (202) 692-0040.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
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 Texas Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 2:00 p.m. (Central Time) September 27, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is for the
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 27, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. CDT
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 866-719-0110, conference ID number: 9903479. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. 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 telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On June 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain stilbenic optical brightening agents (stilbenic OBAs) from Taiwan. The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016. For the final results of this review, we continue to find that subject merchandise has not been sold in the United States by Teh Fong Ming International Co., Ltd. (TFM) at prices below normal value during the POR.
Effective September 13, 2017.
Catherine Cartsos, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1757.
On June 6, 2017, the Department published the
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The stilbenic OBAs covered by this order are all forms (whether free acid or salt) of compounds known as triazinylaminostilbenes (
Excluded from this order are all forms of 4,4′-bis[4-anilino-6-morpholino-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]
These stilbenic OBAs are classifiable under subheading 3204.20.8000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), but they may also enter under subheadings 2933.69.6050, 2921.59.4000 and 2921.59.8090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
We determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for TFM for the period of August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1) and the
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by TFM for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company involved in the transaction. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of stilbenic OBAs from Taiwan 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 TFM will be 0.00 percent, the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 6.19 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
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 violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results of an administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with July anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Applicable September 13, 2017.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with July anniversary dates.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than July 31, 2018.
None.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (
The Department's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the final rule, available at
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of meeting of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Citizen Science Advisory Panel Finance Action Team.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Citizen Science Advisory Panel Finance Action Team via webinar.
The meeting will be held Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 12:30 p.m. The meeting is scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes. Additional Action Team webinar and plenary webinar dates and times will publish in a subsequent issue in the
Amber Von Harten, Citizen Science Program Manager, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8433 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council created a Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool in June 2017. The Council appointed members of the Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool to five Action Teams in the areas of
The Finance Action Team will meet to continue work on developing recommendations on program policies and operations to be reviewed by the Council's Citizen Science Committee. Public comment will be accepted at the beginning of the meeting.
Items to be addressed during these meetings:
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 this meeting. 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.
The meeting is 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; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Inwater Research Group, Inc. [Responsible Party: Michael Bresette], 4160 NE Hyline Drive, Jensen Beach, FL 34957, has applied in due form for a
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before October 13, 2017.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Erin Markin or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Inwater Research Group, Inc., proposes to continue long-term monitoring on habitat preference, species abundance, size frequencies, and disease prevalence in sea turtles in the Key West National Wildlife Refuge, Big Bend region, and coastal and offshore waters of Monroe, Citrus, and Dixie Counties, Florida. Annually, up to 2,432 green, 749 hawksbill, 560 Kemp's ridley, and 500 loggerhead sea turtles would be pursued by vessel for the purpose of species identification and capture using hand capture or dip nets. Of the animals pursued by vessel, annually, up to 350 green, 105 hawksbill, 230 Kemp's ridley, and 225 loggerhead sea turtles would be captured for collection of morphometric data, biological samples, and tagging (flipper and passive integrated transponder). Of the animals pursued by vessel, up to 50 green, 25 hawksbill, 25 Kemp's ridley, and 50 loggerhead sea turtles would be captured for morphometric data, biological samples and instrument attachment (acoustic and/or satellite transmitters), annually. In addition, up to 50 green, 25 hawksbill, 50 Kemp's ridley, and 25 loggerhead neonate sea turtles would be captured, annually, for collection of morphometric data, biological samples, and tagging (flipper and passive integrated transponder). The permit would be valid for up to ten years from the date of issuance.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Announcement of meeting location change and schedule modification of the SEDAR Steering Committee meeting.
The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet to discuss the SEDAR process and assessment schedule.
The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet Tuesday, September 26, 2017, from 1:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m.
John Carmichael, Deputy Executive Director, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
This meeting was previously published in the
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC 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.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Social Science Planning Committee (SSPC) in Honolulu, HI.
The SSPC meeting will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, September 26 and 27, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Council Offices at 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813.
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: (808) 522-8220.
Public comment periods will be provided. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The Committee will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving activities for waterfront repairs at the USCG Monterey Station in Monterey, California. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than October 13, 2017.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
On February 10, 2017, NMFS received a request from the USCG for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving activities for waterfront restoration, at the USCG Station Monterey in Monterrey, California. USCG's request is for take of eight species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment. Neither USCG nor NMFS expect mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued an IHA to the USCG for similar work (79 FR 57052; September 24, 2014). However, no work was conducted under that IHA.
USCG Station Monterey occupies an upland site and adjacent waterside structures including a 1,700-foot breakwater, a wharf constructed over the breakwater, and floating docks to the east of the wharf in Monterey Harbor. The USCG intends to conduct maintenance on the existing wharf, which is used to berth vessels that are critical to support USCG Station Monterey's mission.
The wharf is constructed of timber and steel material and is supported by 64 piles. In 1995, 47 of the original timber piles were replaced with 14-inch (in) steel pipe piles and the remaining 17 timber piles had polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pile wraps installed. The 17 remaining timber piles are bearing piles that have exceeded their service life partially due to marine bores and the harsh marine environment to which they are exposed, and they need to be replaced. The proposed project requires replacement of these 17 timber piles including removal of the existing timber deck, replacing stringers, steel pipe caps, steel support beams, and hardware in order to access the timber piles. The timber piles will be removed using vibratory pile driving and replaced with steel piles using vibratory pile driving and if needed an impact hammer.
In-water noise from pile driving activities will result in the take, by Level B harassment only, of eight species of marine mammals.
In-water construction for this application is proposed to occur between October 16, 2017 and October 15, 2018. Pile-driving activities are expected to occur for an estimated minimum of three to a maximum of eight days of the total construction time. It is assumed that driving time would be approximately 20 minutes (min) per pile for vibratory or impact pile driving. It is assumed that vibratory extraction of the existing piles would take approximately 10 min per pile. Pile driving and extraction would therefore result in an estimated of 240 min per day (4 hours (hrs)); 510 min for the total project or approximately 8.5 hrs.
USCG Station Monterey is located at 100 Lighthouse Avenue at the southern end of Monterey Bay in Monterey Harbor, Monterey, California. The USCG Monterey Station's area of responsibility extends 50 miles offshore for approximately 120 nautical miles of coastline, from Point Año Nuevo south to the Monterey-San Luis Obispo County line, encompassing 5,000 square miles. Monterey Bay is one of the widest bays on the Pacific Coast of the U.S. and approximately 3.5 miles of coastline are within the city limits of Monterey; the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) encompasses the entirety of the bay and further extends northward and southward along the Pacific Coast.
The 17 timber piles, approximately 16 to 18-in in diameter, will be removed using a vibratory extractor. Each timber pile will be replaced with a 14-in steel pipe pile installed using a vibratory hammer (the preferred method) and each pipe pile will be positioned and installed in the footprint of the extracted timber pile. Pile installation would be adjacent to a rock jetty that would provide substantial underwater shielding of sound transmission to areas north (or through the jetty) (see Figure 1-2 of the application).
Pile proofing will be conducted via impact hammer. If, due to substrate or breakwater armor, a pipe pile is unable to be driven to 30 feet below the mud line using a vibratory hammer, then an impact hammer will be used; and if the pile cannot be driven with an impact hammer, the pipe pile would be posted onto the armor stone. The steel pipe piles would not be filled with concrete.
The marine mammal species under NMFS's jurisdiction that have the potential to occur in the proposed construction area include California sea lion (
Sections 2 and 3 of the USCG's application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the Monterey Bay area and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. 2015 SARs (Carretta
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed project area are included in Table 1. As described below, all eight species temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed authorizing it. Some additional information about species being taken is provided below.
California sea lions breed during July on the Channel Islands off southern California which is approximately 100 mi (161 km) south of MBNMS, and off Baja and mainland Mexico (Odell 1981), although a few pups have been born on Año Nuevo Island (in San Mateo County) (Keith
Stage structure of California sea lions within the MBNMS varies by location, but generally, the majority of animals are adult and subadult males, primarily using the central California area to feed during the non-breeding season and are most common in the MBNMS during fall and spring migrations between southern breeding areas and northern feeding areas. Though males are generally most common, females may comprise 34 to 37 percent of juvenile individuals on the Monterey breakwater during El Niño events (Nicholson 1986). California sea lions are the most abundant marine mammal in the project area and regularly use the Monterey Breakwater and portions of the pier as a haul-out site.
In California, there are approximately 400 to 600 haul-out sites located on a mixture of rock shores, intertidal sand bars, and beaches associated with the mainland and offshore islands (NOAA 2015c). Harbor seals are residents in the MBNMS throughout the year. They haul out at dozens of sites from Point Sur to Año Nuevo. Within MBNMS, tagged harbor seals have been documented to move substantial distances (10-20 km (3.9-7.8 mi)) to foraging areas each night (Oxman 1995; Trumble 1995). Overall, radio-tagged individuals have moved total distances of 480 km (Allen
Pacific harbor seals are not known to regularly use the Monterey Breakwater as a haul-out site, but may use beaches or other relatively low-gradient areas to haul-out in the project area, and in areas nearby such as beaches along Cannery Row in the City of Monterey.
The harbor porpoise is a resident species of Monterey Bay and could occur within the project area. The Monterey Bay stock of harbor porpoise occurs from Point Sur to near Pigeon Point (Forney
Breeding and calving for Risso's dolphin may occur year-round with a gestation period of 13 to 14 months and most births occurring from fall to winter in California waters (NOAA 2012). The California coastal bottlenose dolphin has been consistently sighted in and around Monterey Bay and could occur within the project area (NOAA 2008).
Killer whales (both West Coast transients and Eastern North Pacific offshore stocks) visit the MBNMS on an intermittent and unpredictable basis. Transient killer whales prey on gray whales and California sea lions within the MBNMS, and have the potential to occur in the project area (MBNMS 2016).
From mid-February to May gray whales can be seen migrating northward with their calves along the West Coast (NOAA 2013a). The population migrates south along the West Coast in the fall to wintering grounds on the west coast of Baja California, Mexico, and the southeastern Gulf of California (NOAA 2014). Although gray whales are not resident species within the project area, during their annual migration they can occur within approximately two miles of the coast of Monterey Bay (MBNMS 2014).
Humpback whales are one of the more commonly observed large baleen whales in the MBNMS, mostly seen during summer and fall as they are feeding (NOAA 2014b). Both the Mexico Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and the Central America DPS can occur in the vicinity of the project area. Humpback whales are typically found further offshore than gray whales, but since 2014 higher numbers of humpback whales have been observed in and near Monterey Bay by whale-watching vessels.
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35 kilohertz (kHz), with best hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz;
Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing from 10 to less than 100 kHz;
High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data
Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz, with best hearing between 1-50 kHz;
Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, with best hearing between 2-48 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2016a) for a review of available information. Eight marine mammal species (6 cetacean and 2 pinniped (1 otariid and 1 phocid species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 1. Of the cetacean species that may be present, three are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination” section will consider the content of this section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, and the “Proposed Mitigation” section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
The USCG Monterey Station Project involves in-water pile driving and pile removal that could adversely affect marine mammal species and stocks by exposing them to elevated underwater noise levels in the vicinity of the activity area. Although marine mammals (primarily pinnipeds hauled out on the adjacent jetty) could be exposed to airborne noise associated with pile replacement, airborne noise would likely cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed below in relation to underwater noise and is accounted for in the “Estimated Take” section and therefore is not discussed further.
Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift (TS)—an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran
For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Masking occurs at the frequency band that the animals utilize. Therefore, since noise generated from vibratory pile driving activity is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. It may also
Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of sound pressure level) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009).
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity, duration, and context of the effects.
No permanent impacts to habitat are proposed to or would occur as a result of the proposed project. The USCG's proposed Station Monterey waterfront repair activity would not increase the pier's existing footprint, and no new structures would be installed that would result in the loss of additional habitat. A temporary, small-scale loss of foraging habitat may occur for marine mammals if marine mammals leave the area during pile extraction and driving activities.
Short-term turbidity is a water quality effect of most in-water work, including pile driving. Cetaceans are not expected to be close enough to the Monterey Station Project to experience turbidity, and any pinnipeds will be transiting the terminal area and could avoid localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, the impact from increased turbidity levels is expected to be discountable to marine mammals.
Acoustic energy created during pile replacement work would have the potential to disturb fish within the vicinity of the pile replacement work. As a result, the affected area could temporarily lose foraging value to marine mammals. During pile driving, high noise levels may exclude fish from the vicinity of pile driving. Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish will relocate to avoid areas of damaging noise energy. Therefore, if fish leave the area of disturbance, pinniped foraging habitat may have temporarily decreased foraging value when piles are driven using impact hammering. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown. However, the affected area represents an extremely small portion of the total area within foraging range of marine mammals that may be present in the project area.
Monterey Bay is classified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The EFH provisions of the Sustainable Fisheries Act are designed to protect fisheries habitat from being lost due to disturbance and degradation. The act requires implementation of measures to conserve and enhance EFH. The Monterey Bay is classified as an EFH for 118 species of commercially important fish, 30 of which have potential to occur within the project area. Some of these species are likely prey to pinnipeds. In addition to EFH designations, portions of the Monterey Bay are designated as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for various fish species within the Pacific Groundfish, Pacific Coast Salmon, Highly Migratory Species, and Coastal Pelagic Fisheries management plans. A concurrence letter was issued by NMFS (2013) (and still applies) concluding that the proposed action would adversely affect EFH for various federally managed fish species, including a temporary increase in suspended sediments in the water column from pile driving and removal, conversion of soft bottom habitat to artificial substrate, and an increase in underwater sound levels in the water column associated with pile driving. However, the project includes measures to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset adverse effects, such that NMFS has no further EFH conservation recommendations to provide (NOAA 2013).
During construction activity of the proposed USCG Monterey Station Project, only a small fraction of the available habitat of the Monterey Harbor would be ensonified within Monterey Bay at any given time. Disturbance to fish species would be short-term and fish would be expected to return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity ceases (refer to the USCG's SEA). The impacts to marine mammals and the food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations. For all the discussed above reasons, any adverse effects to marine mammal habitat in the area from the USCG's proposed Monterey Station project would not be significant.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS's consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to noise from pile driving and removal activities. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS's Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (NMFS, 2016a) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). USCG's proposed activity includes the use of non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving and removal) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources.
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are provided in Table 2 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.
Background noise is the sound level that would exist without the proposed activity (pile driving and removal, in this case), while ambient sound levels are those without human activity (NOAA 2009). Natural actions that contribute to ambient noise include waves, wind, rainfall, current fluctuations, chemical composition, and biological sound sources (
Pile installation would be adjacent to a rock jetty that would provide substantial underwater shielding of sound transmission to areas north (or through the jetty) (see Figure 1-2 of the Application).
To more accurately estimate the extent of underwater noise, the software package
Table 3 shows the results of the modeled underwater noise analysis for vibratory pile driving where 120 dB RMS (Level B threshold) levels would end, and Figure 5-1 from the application shows the pattern of sound expected from vibratory pile extraction and pile installation, taking into account shielding from the Monterey Breakwater. From these data, a Level B zone of influence (ZOI) was calculated at approximately 7.3 square kilometers (km
The extent of underwater noise from impact pile driving was also predicted using the
The incidental take requested is Level B harassment of any marine mammal occurring within the 160 dB rms disturbance threshold during impact pile driving of 14-in steel pipe piles; the 120 dB rms disturbance threshold for vibratory pile driving of 14-in steel pipe piles; and the 120 dB rms disturbance threshold for vibratory removal of 16-in to 18-in timber piles. Level B harassment zones have been established as described in Tables 3 and 4 that will be in place during active pile removal or installation.
When NMFS Technical Guidance (NMFS 2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as vibratory and impact pile driving, NMFS's User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths are reported below (Tables 5 and 6).
The PTS isopleths were identified for each hearing group for impact and vibratory installation and removal methods that will be used in the proposed Monterey Station Project. The PTS isopleth distances were calculated using the NMFS acoustic threshold calculator (NMFS 2016), with inputs based on measured and surrogate noise measurements. Data from the U.S Navy for their Test Pile Program at Bangor, Washington with a source level of 168 dB rms (at 10 m) was used to characterize the sound that would be produced from vibratory pile driving and removal. For impact pile driving, referenced data provided for similar piles and substrate identified in the California Department of Transportation Compendium of Pile Driving Sound Data Report (Caltrans 2007) with a source level (in SEL) of 174 dB at a distance of 10 m with an average of 30 strikes per pile.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculation and we describe how the marine mammal occurrence information is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
Take estimates are based on the number of animals per unit area in the project area multiplied by the area size of ensonified zones within which received noise levels exceed certain thresholds (
Unless otherwise described, incidental take is estimated by the following equation:
Pacific harbor seals are much less abundant in the project area than California sea lions, and only two annual surveys conducted since 1998 identified any individuals. The 2004 annual pinniped survey conducted by NMFS counted 28 Pacific harbor seals in Monterey Harbor in 2004, and 1 in 2005 (Lowry 2012). Pacific harbor seals hauled-out along Cannery Row, north of the Monterey Breakwater, ranged from 1 to 24 in 2002, 2004, and 2009. During repairs on the Pier in 2009, Pacific harbor seals were occasionally observed in the nearby waters, but were never observed to haul-out on the breakwater (Harvey and Hoover 2009). The density for harbor seals was determined by drawing a 5 km radius in ArcGIS with the jetty haul-out site at the center. The area within this circle was calculated, excluding the land, resulting in a 29 km
The calculation for Level B take of California sea lions in the water assumes an average density of 8.62 individuals/km
Due to the low frequency and unpredictability of killer whales entering the project area, the application of a density equation is not reasonable for predicting take. When killer whales enter Monterey Bay, they typically are in groups of 3 to 8 at a time (Guzman 2016). To be conservative, the proposed take estimate for Level B harassment is based on a larger group of eight animals that may enter the area (Table 7). Since the Level A zones of mid-frequency cetaceans are small and mitigation is in place to avoid Level A take (Table 6), we do not consider it likely that any killer whales would be taken by Level A harassment.
Abundance and densities of cetaceans in the California Current ecosystem were conducted from 1991 to 2005 (Barlow, Forney 2007). The results of the surveys indicate that bottlenose dolphin population density throughout the entire west coast shoreline is 1.78 individuals/100 km
Because there is not reliable local data for Monterey Bay, the proposed Level B take estimate for Risso's dolphins is a single occurrence of a small pod of 10 animals (see Table 7) as groups of Risso's dolphins average between 10-30 animals. Since the Level A zones of mid-frequency cetaceans are small and mitigation is in place to avoid Level A take (Table 6), we do not consider it likely that any Risso's dolphin would be taken by Level A harassment.
An estimate of the density of harbor porpoise in the southern portion of Monterey Bay nearshore is approximately 2.321 per km
Humpback whales are typically found further offshore than gray whales and occurrence is rare; however, since 2014 greater numbers of humpback whales have been observed in and near Monterey Bay by whale-watching vessels. Because USCG will shutdown for all observed humpbacks (in Level A and B zones), no takes of humpback whales are proposed.
The occurrence of gray whales is extremely rare near shore in the project area. If gray whales would approach the project area they would be more likely to occur during the spring migration north, when they tend to stay closer to shore than during the winter southern migration. The NOAA National Center for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) reported densities of gray whales at 0.1 to 0.5 per km
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;
(2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Several measures are proposed for mitigating effects on marine mammals from the pile installation and removal activities at for the USCG Monterey Station and are described below.
All work would be conducted during daylight hours.
A bubble curtain and cushion pads will be used during pile driving activities with an impact hammer to reduce sound levels. In addition, the USCG has proposed performing “pre-drilling.” Pre-drilling would be performed and would be discontinued when the pile tip is approximately five feet (ft) above the required pile tip elevation. Pre-drilling is a method that starts the “hole” for the new pile; the pile is inserted after the hole has been pre-drilled which creates less friction and overall noise and turbidity during installation.
Exclusion Zones calculated from the PTS isopleths will be implemented to protect marine mammals from Level A harassment (refer to Table 6). If a marine mammal is observed at or within the Exclusion Zone, work will shut down (stop work) until the individual has been observed outside of the zone, or has not been observed for at least 15 minutes for pinnipeds and small cetaceans and 30 minutes for large whales.
If a humpback whale is observed within the Level A or Level B zones, the USCG will implement shutdown measures. Work would not commence until 30-minutes after the last sighting of a humpback within these zones.
During impact pile driving because the Level B Zone is smaller (76 m) compared to the Level A Zone (84.4 m) for high frequency cetaceans for noise transmission north and northeast (through breakwater), the USCG will consider both the Level A and B zones to be at 84.4 m and will implement shutdown measures.
USCG will implement shutdown measures if the number of authorized takes for any particular species reaches the limit under the IHA and if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone during in-water construction activities.
If a marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction is observed within the Level A or B zones that has not been authorized for take, the USCG will implement shutdown measures.
USCG will monitor the Level B harassment ZOIs as described in Tables 3 and 4.
For impact pile installation, contractors will provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a one-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets. Each day, USCG will use the soft-start technique at the beginning of impact pile driving, or if impact pile driving has ceased for more than 30 minutes.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Marine mammal monitoring will be conducted in strategic locations around the area of potential effects at all times during in-water pile driving and removal as described below:
• During pile removal or installation the observer will monitor from the most practicable vantage point possible (
• If a marine mammal approaches an Exclusion Zone, the observation will be reported to the Construction Manager and the individual will be watched closely. If the marine mammal crosses into an Exclusion Zone, a stop-work order will be issued. In the event that a stop-work order is triggered, the observed marine mammal(s) will be closely monitored while it remains in or near the Exclusion Zone, and only when it moves well outside of the Exclusion Zone or has not been observed for at least 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 30 minutes for whales will the lead monitor allow work to recommence.
USCG shall employ NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSOs) to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its Monterey Station Project. The PSOs will observe and collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30 minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all pile removal and pile installation work. NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet the following requirements:
1. Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance. Use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target.
2. Advanced education in biological science, wildlife management, mammalogy or related fields (Bachelors degree or higher is preferred), but not required.
3. Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals (cetaceans and pinnipeds).
4. Sufficient training, orientation or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations.
5. Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
6. Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience).
7. Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations that would include such information as the number and type of marine mammals observed; the behavior of marine mammals in the project area during construction, dates and times when observations were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; and dates and times when marine mammals were present at or within the defined ZOI.
8. If a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
9. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
10. PSOs will monitor marine mammals around the construction site using high-quality binoculars
11. If marine mammals are observed, the following information will be documented:
(A) Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
(B) Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
(C) Weather parameters (
(D) Water conditions (
(E) Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
(F) Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity;
(G) Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
(H) Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
(I) Other human activity in the area.
USCG would be required to submit a draft marine mammal monitoring report within 90 days after completion of the in-water construction work or the expiration of the IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. The report would include data from marine mammal sightings as described: Date, time, location, species, group size, and behavior, any observed reactions to construction, distance to operating pile hammer, and construction activities occurring at time of sighting and environmental data for the period (
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, USCG would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS and the NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hrs preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hrs preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with USCG to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. USCG may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that the USCG discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that USCG discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
NMFS has defined negligible impact as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for the Monterey Station Project. Takes that are anticipated and proposed to be authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral) only. Marine mammals present in the vicinity of the action area and taken by Level B harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (startle reaction) and avoidance of the area from elevated noise levels during pile driving and pile removal and the implosion noise.
There is one endangered species that may occur in the project area, humpback whales. However, if any humpbacks are detected within the Level B harassment zone of the project area, the USCG will shut down.
The Monterey Breakwater is a haulout location for approximately 250 California sea lions. There no other know critical habitat areas, haulouts or import feeding areas in close proximately to the project area.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in the “Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat” section. Project activities would not permanently modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may kill some fish and cause other fish to leave the area temporarily, thus impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences. Therefore, given the consideration of potential impacts to marine mammal prey species and their physical environment, USCG's proposed Monterey Station would not adversely affect marine mammal habitat.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized.
• Takes that are anticipated and proposed to be authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral).
• The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat.
• There are no known important feeding or pupping areas. There is one haulout (the breakwater) within the project area. There are no other known
• For five out of eight species, take is less than one percent of the stock abundance. Instances of take for the other three species (killer whale, bottlenose dolphin, and harbor porpoise) range from 3-4 percent of the stock abundance.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
For five out of eight species, take is less than one percent of the stock abundance. Instances of take for the other three species (killer whale, bottlenose dolphin, and harbor porpoise) range from 3-4 percent of the stock abundance. Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population sizes of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to not authorize take of humpback whales, which are listed under the ESA, as the applicant will implement shutdown measures whenever humpbacks are observed (Level A or B). Therefore, consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required.
The Permit and Conservation Division has requested initiation of section 7 consultation with the West Coast Regional Office for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) for conducting pile driving and removal activities at the USCG Monterey Station, Monterey, California from October 2017 to October 2018, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
The proposed IHA language is provided next.
1. This Authorization is valid from October 16, 2017, through October 15, 2018.
2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with in-water construction work at the USCG Monterey Station Project, Monterey, California.
3. General Condition.
(a) The species authorized for taking, by Level B harassment only, and in the numbers shown in Table 7 are: California sea lion (
(b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the following acoustic sources and from the following activities:
Impact pile driving;
Vibratory pile driving; and
Vibratory pile removal
4. Prohibitions.
(a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the species listed under condition 3(a) above and by the numbers listed in Table 7 of this notice. The taking by serious injury or death of these species or the taking by harassment, injury or death of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited unless separately authorized or exempted under the MMPA and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this Authorization.
(b) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the required protected species observers (PSOs), required by condition 6(b), are not present in conformance with condition 6(b) of this Authorization.
5. Mitigation.
(a) Time Restriction.
In-water construction work shall occur only during daylight hours.
(b) Noise Attenuation.
A bubble curtain and cushion pads shall be used during pile driving activities with an impact hammer to reduce sound levels. In addition, the USCG has proposed performing “pre-drilling.” Pre-drilling shall be performed and would be discontinued when the pile tip is approximately five ft above the required pile tip elevation. Pre-drilling is a method that starts the “hole” for the new pile; the pile is inserted after the hole has been pre-drilled which creates less friction and overall noise and turbidity during installation.
(c) Level B Harassment Zones.
USCG shall monitor the Level B harassment ZOIs as described in Table 3 and 4 of this notice.
(d) Exclusion Zones.
USCG shall shut down (stop work) in the Exclusion Zones using the PTS isopleths as described in Table 6 of this notice to protect marine mammals from Level A harassment.
(i) USCG shall implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m radius around each pile for all construction methods other than pile driving for all marine mammals.
(ii) If a marine mammal is observed at or within the Exclusion Zone, work shall stop until the individual has been observed outside of the zone, or has not been observed for at least 15 minutes for pinnipeds and small cetaceans and 30 minutes for large whales.
(e) Additional Shutdown Measures.
(i) If a humpback whale is observed within the Level A or Level B zones, the USCG shall implement shutdown measures. Work would not commence until 30-minutes after the last sighting of a humpback within these zones.
(ii) USCG shall implement shutdown measures if the number of authorized takes for any particular species reaches the limit under the IHA and if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone during in-water construction activities.
(iii) During impact pile driving because the Level B Zone is smaller (76 m) compared to the Level A Zone (84.4 m) for high frequency cetaceans for noise transmission north and northeast (through breakwater), the USCG shall consider both the Level A and B zones to be at 84.4 m and will implement shutdown measures.
(iv) If a species is observed within the Level A or B zones that has not been authorized for take, the USCG shall implement shutdown measures.
For impact pile installation, contractors will provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a one-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets.
6. Monitoring.
(a) Protected Species Observers.
USCG shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its construction project. NMFS-approved PSOs will meet the following qualifications.
(i) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance. Use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target.
(ii) Advanced education in biological science, wildlife management, mammalogy or related fields (Bachelors degree or higher is preferred), but not required.
(iii) Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals (cetaceans and pinnipeds).
(iv) Sufficient training, orientation or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations.
(v) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
(vi) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience).
(vii) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations that would include such information as the number and type of marine mammals observed; the behavior of marine mammals in the project area during construction, dates and times when observations were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; and dates and times when marine mammals were present at or within the defined ZOI.
(viii) If a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
(ix) NMFS shall require submission and approval of observer CVs.
(b) Monitoring Protocols: PSOs shall be present on site at all times during pile removal and driving.
(i) A 30-minute pre-construction marine mammal monitoring shall be required before the first pile driving or pile removal of the day. A 30-minute post-construction marine mammal monitoring shall be required after the last pile driving or pile removal of the day. If the constructors take a break between subsequent pile driving or pile removal for more than 30 minutes, then additional 30-minute pre-construction marine mammal monitoring shall be required before the next start-up of pile driving or pile removal.
(ii) During pile removal or installation, the monitors shall be positioned such that each monitor has a most practicable vantage point possible (
(iii) Monitors shall record take when marine mammals enter their relevant Level B Harassment Zones based on type of construction activity.
(iv) If a marine mammal approaches an Exclusion Zone, the observation shall be reported to the Construction Manager and the individual shall be watched closely. If the marine mammal crosses into an Exclusion Zone, a stop-work order shall be issued. In the event that a stop-work order is triggered, the observed marine mammal(s) shall be closely monitored while it remains in or near the Exclusion Zone, and only when it moves well outside of the Exclusion Zone or has not been observed for at least 15 minutes for pinnipeds and small cetaceans and 30 minutes for large whales shall the lead monitor allow work to recommence.
(v) PSOs shall monitor marine mammals around the construction site using high-quality binoculars
(vi) If marine mammals are observed, the following information shall be documented:
(A) Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
(B) Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
(C) Weather parameters (
(D) Water conditions (
(E) Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
(F) Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity;
(G) Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
(H) Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
(I) Other human activity in the area.
(viii) Acoustic Monitoring—USCG shall conduct acoustic monitoring and background noise recordings (in the absence of pile-related work) following the NMFS's 2012 Guidance Documents:
7. Reporting.
(a) Marine Mammal Monitoring.
(i) USCG shall submit a draft marine mammal monitoring report within 90 days after completion of the in-water construction work or the expiration of the IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. The report shall include data from marine mammal sightings as described: date, time, location, species, group size, and behavior, any observed reactions to construction, distance to operating pile hammer, and construction activities occurring at time of sighting and environmental data for the period (
(ii) If comments are received from NMFS Office of Protected Resources on the draft report, a final report shall be submitted to NMFS within 30 days
(iii) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, USCG shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS and the NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hrs preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hrs preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with USCG to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. USCG shall not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
(b) Reporting of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals.
(i) In the event that USCG discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(ii) In the event that USCG discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
(c) Acoustic Monitoring Report—USCG shall submit an Acoustic Monitoring Report that will provide details on the monitored piles, method of installation, monitoring equipment, and sound levels documented during monitoring. NMFS shall review the acoustic monitoring report and suggest any changes in monitoring as needed.
8. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
9. A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of each contractor who performs the construction work at the Monterey Station Project.
We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed pile driving activities for the USCG Monterey Station Project. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Michael Williams, (907) 271-5117, or
The subsistence harvest of northern fur seals is cooperatively managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Tribal Governments of St. Paul and St. George Islands (Pribilof Islands) under section 119 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1388 (MMPA) and governed by regulations under section 102 of the Fur Seal Act, 16 U.S.C. 1152 (FSA) found in 50 CFR part 216 subpart F, Taking for Subsistence Purposes. The regulations, laws, and cooperative agreement are focused on conserving northern fur seals through cooperative effort and consultation regarding effective management of human activities related to the subsistence harvests of northern fur seals and Steller sea lions.
This request is for extension of the information collection for the annual
The estimates of the number of fur seals necessary to satisfy the subsistence requirements of the Pribilovians to comply with 50 CFR 216.672(b) are derived from historic harvest levels reported by, and in direct consultation with, the Tribal Governments of St. Paul and St. George Islands in Alaska and their respective local Native corporations (Tanadgusix and Tanaq).
Reports may be submitted via mail or email.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that James Lloyd-Smith, Ph.D., Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90095, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on marine mammals.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before October 13, 2017.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Shasta McClenahan or Sara Young, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests a five year research permit to take California sea lions (CSL;
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Monday, September 18, 2017, 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
Briefing Matter: Fiscal Year 2018 Operating Plan. A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
Rockelle Hammond, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
J. Aron & Company LLC (Applicant) has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before October 13, 2017.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On August 17, 2017, DOE received an application from the Applicant for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities.
In its application, the Applicant states that it does not own or control any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that the Applicant proposes to export to Mexico would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.
Comments and other filings concerning the Applicant's application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-439. An additional copy is to be provided to both Kelly Brooks, J. Aron & Company LLC, 200 West Street, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10282 and Ricardo Alicea, J. Aron & Company LLC, 200 West Street, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10282.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
Plant-E Corp (Applicant) has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before October 13, 2017.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On August 18, 2017, DOE received an application from the Applicant for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities.
In its application, the Applicant states that it does not own or control any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that the Applicant proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing
Comments and other filings concerning the Applicant's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-440. An additional copy is to be provided to Pierre Plante, Plant-E Corp., 740 St Maurice, Suite 209, Montreal, Quebec H3C 1L5.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 20170907_AGIS Filing to be effective 1/1/2017.
Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign utility company status 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 is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of PSEG Keys Energy Center 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 27, 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 (EPA).
Notice.
EPA issued notices in the
Michael Yanchulis, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0237; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0014, is available at
EPA issued notices in the
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft human health and/or ecological risk assessments for the registration review of asulam, chloroxylenol, dichlobenil, EPTC, etofenprox, gamma- and lambda-cyhalothrin, imidacloprid, indoxacarb, metribuzin, nitrapyrin, oxamyl, pendimethalin, permethrin, prometryn, pyrethrins, tau-fluvalinate, and trifloxystrobin. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed comprehensive draft human health and/or ecological risk assessments for all pesticides listed in the Table in Unit III. After reviewing comments received during the public comment period, EPA may issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments and may request public input on risk mitigation before completing a proposed registration review decision for the pesticides listed in the Table in Unit III. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.
Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2017.
Submit your comments, to the docket identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the Table in Unit III, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in the Table in Unit III.
1.
2.
3.
EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed in the Table in Unit III pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.
As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide registration for the pesticides listed in the Table to ensure that it continues to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, that these chemicals can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and/or ecological risk assessments for the pesticides listed in the Table in Unit III. Since an ecological risk assessment for the pyrethroids, including etofenprox, gamma-cyhalothrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin, pyrethrins, and tau-fluvalinate, was previously published for comment in the
1.
• To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.
• The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.
• Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.
• Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Plant-Incorporated Protectants; CBI Substantiation and Adverse Effects Reporting,” and identified by EPA ICR No. 1693.09 and OMB Control No. 2070-0142, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2018. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0440, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Ryne Yarger, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 605-1193; email address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
There is an increase of 86 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects EPA's updating of burden estimates for this collection based upon historical information on the number of CBI substantiations per year. Based upon revised estimates, the number of CBI substantiations per year has increased from 20 to 24, with a corresponding increase in the associated burden. This change is an adjustment.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
44 U.S.C. 3501
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
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.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document extends the filing deadline for the first priority filing window for eligible full power and Class A television stations to file applications for alternate channels or expanded facilities to September 15, 2017.
September 13, 2017.
Erin Griffith, 202-418-2957,
Technical issues briefly interrupted access to the Media Bureau's Licensing and Management System (LMS), which stations use to file construction permit applications and reimbursement cost estimate information. Recognizing the importance of first priority filing window, the filing window will now close at 11:59 p.m. EDT on Friday, September 15, 2017.
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
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.
On February 2, 2011, the FCC released a
Confidential information may continue to be submitted by paper filing, but a redacted version must be filed electronically at the same time the paper filing is submitted. An exception to the electronic filing requirement will be made in cases in which the filing party claims hardship. The basis for the hardship claim must be substantiated in the
The information is used by parties to permit-but-disclose proceedings, including interested members of the public, to respond to the arguments made and data offered in the presentations. The responses may then be used by the Commission in its decision-making.
The availability of 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), 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.
Licensees file surrenders of authorizations with the Commission on a voluntary basis. This information is used by Commission staff to issue Public Notices to announce the surrenders of authorization to the general public. The Commission's release of Public Notices is critical to keeping the general public abreast of the licensees' discontinuance of telecommunications services.
Without this collection of information, licensees would be required to submit surrenders of authorizations to the Commission by letter which is more time consuming than submitting such requests to the Commission electronically. In addition, Commission staff would spend an extensive amount of time processing surrenders of authorizations received by
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 10, 2017.
1.
1.
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 10, 2017.
1.
1.
2.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before October 5, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Linda Holleran Kopp, (202-326-2267) and Tiffany George (202-326-3040), Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for September 5, 2017), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before October 5, 2017. Write “Lenovo (United States) Inc., Matter No. 152 3134” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Lenovo (United States) Inc., Matter No. 152 3134” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Lenovo (United States), Inc. (“Lenovo”).
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission again will review the agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter involves Lenovo, one of the world's largest personal computer manufacturers, and its preinstallation on certain consumer laptops of VisualDiscovery, an ad-injecting software developed by Superfish, Inc. and customized for Lenovo. VisualDiscovery injected pop-up ads of similar-looking products sold by Superfish's retail partners whenever a consumer's cursor hovered over a product image while browsing on a shopping Web site. For example, when a consumer's cursor hovered over an image of owl-shaped pendants on a shopping Web site like
To facilitate its injection of pop-up ads into encrypted
As alleged in the complaint, VisualDiscovery's substitution of digital certificates for
The complaint also alleges that VisualDiscovery created a second security vulnerability by using a self-signed root certificate with the same private encryption key and the same easy-to-crack password on every laptop rather than employing private keys unique to each laptop. This violated basic encryption key management principles because attackers who cracked the simple password on one consumer's laptop could then target every affected Lenovo user with man-in-the-middle attacks that could intercept consumers' electronic communications with any Web site, including those for financial institutions and medical providers. Such attacks would provide attackers with unauthorized access to consumers' sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, login credentials, medical information, and email communications. This vulnerability also made it easier for attackers to deceive consumers into downloading malware onto any affected Lenovo laptop. The risk that this vulnerability would be exploited increased after February 19, 2015, when news of these vulnerabilities became public and bloggers posted instructions on how the vulnerabilities could be exploited.
The complaint alleges that Lenovo failed to discover these significant security vulnerabilities because it failed to take reasonable measures to assess and address security risks created by third-party software it preinstalled on its laptops. Specifically, Lenovo allegedly:
• Failed to adopt and implement written data security policies applicable to third-party preinstalled software;
• failed to adequately assess the data security risks of third-party software prior to preinstallation;
• failed to request or review any information prior to preinstallation about Superfish's data security policies, procedures or practices;
• failed to require Superfish by contract to adopt and implement reasonable data security measures;
• failed to assess VisualDiscovery's compliance with reasonable data security standards; and
• failed to provide adequate data security training for employees responsible for testing third-party software.
The complaint alleges that Lenovo's failure was an unfair act that caused or was likely to cause substantial consumer injury that consumers could not reasonably avoid, and that there were no countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.
The Commission's complaint also alleges that Lenovo failed to make adequate disclosures about VisualDiscovery to consumers. Lenovo did not disclose to consumers that it had preinstalled VisualDiscovery prior to purchase, and the software had limited visibility on the consumer's laptop. Lenovo only disclosed VisualDiscovery through a one-time pop-up window the first time consumers visited a shopping Web site that stated,
The pop-up window contained a small opt-out link at the bottom of the pop-up that was easy for consumers to miss. If a consumer clicked on the pop-up's `x' close button, or anywhere else on the screen, the consumer was opted in to the software.
The complaint alleges that this pop-up window's disclosures were inadequate and violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by failing to disclose, or failing to disclose adequately, that VisualDiscovery would act as a man-in-the-middle between consumers and all the Web sites they visited, including encrypted
The complaint also alleges that Lenovo's preinstallation of the ad-injecting software that, without adequate notice or informed consent, acted as a man-in-the-middle between consumers and all the Web sites they visited, including encrypted
The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent Lenovo from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future.
Part I of the proposed order prohibits Lenovo from making any misrepresentations about certain preinstalled software on its personal computers.
Part II of the proposed order requires Lenovo to obtain a consumer's affirmative express consent, with certain limited exceptions, prior to any preinstalled software a) injecting advertisements into a consumer's Internet browsing session, or b) transmitting, or causing to transmit, the consumer's personal information to any person or entity other than the consumer. Lenovo must also provide instructions for how consumers can revoke their consent to the software's operation by providing a reasonable and effective means for consumers to opt out, disable or remove the software.
Parts III and IV of the proposed order require Lenovo to implement a mandated software security program that is reasonably designed to address security risks in software preinstalled on its personal computers, and undergo biennial software security assessments of its mandated software security program by a third party.
Parts V through IX of the proposed order are standard reporting and
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
I support this important case and the strong settlement. I write separately to caution against an over broad application of our failure to disclose (sometimes called “deceptive omission”) authority. We should hew to longstanding case law and avoid circumventing congressionally-established limits on our authority. I therefore respectfully disagree with my colleague's position that we should expand Count I to allege additional failures to disclose.
Most FTC deception cases involve an express misrepresentation (“This sugar pill cures cancer”) or an express statement that gives rise to an implied claim that is false or misleading (“Many people who take this sugar pill don't die of cancer”).
Although the FTC and the courts have also recognized that a failure to disclose can be deceptive, this has limits.
Thus, the FTC has generally found a failure to disclose to be deceptive in two categories of cases. First, the FTC has found “half-truths” to be deceptive, where a seller makes a truthful statement that creates a material misleading impression that the seller does not correct.
Second, and less frequently, the FTC has found a seller's silence to be deceptive “under circumstances that constitute an implied but false representation.”
In such cases, an omission is misleading under the FTC Act if the consumers' ordinary fundamental expectations about the product were violated. Mere annoyances that leave the product reasonably fit for its intended use do not meet this threshold.
As
Turning to the case at hand, the complaint alleges that VisualDiscovery advertising software on Lenovo laptops acted as a man-in-the-middle between consumers and the Web sites they visited. As such, the software had access to all secure and unsecure consumer-Web site communications and rendered useless a critical security feature of the laptops' web browsers. Such practices introduced gross hazards inconsistent with ordinary consumer expectations about the minimum performance standards of software. As a result, the man-in-the-middle functionality and the problems it generated made VisualDiscovery unfit for its intended use as software. Thus, Count I properly alleges that Lenovo failed to disclose, or disclose adequately, that VisualDiscovery acted as a man-in-the-middle.
Although Commissioner McSweeny and I both support Count I, she would add allegations that Lenovo failed to disclose that VisualDiscovery injected ads into shopping Web sites and slowed web browsing. She argues that the injected ads and slowed web browsing altered the internet experience of consumers, and thus VisualDiscovery failed to meet “ordinary consumer expectations as to the irreducible minimum performance standards of [that] particular class of good.”
I respectfully disagree. Lenovo failed to disclose that VisualDiscovery would act as a man-in-the-middle. However, Lenovo
Fortunately, the outcome in this case does not depend on resolving our disagreement on the application of deceptive omission to advertising software. My goal in writing separately is to maintain the clear distinction set forth in
I support the Commission's complaint against Lenovo, but I am troubled by conduct in this case that the Commission fails to challenge. According to the complaint, Lenovo, Inc. preinstalled software on computers that was designed to serve advertisements to consumers while they were browsing Web sites. The software, called VisualDiscovery, acted as a “man-in-the-middle” between the consumers and all of the Web sites with which they communicated. It allegedly actively contravened the security posture of consumers' computers, leaving them vulnerable both to attack from cyber-criminals and to transmitting personal information across the web to Superfish, Inc. servers. These unfair practices violate the Federal Trade Commission Act and are appropriately challenged by the FTC in Counts II and III of the complaint.
But Lenovo's unlawful conduct went beyond the data security failings alleged in the complaint. The complaint also describes how the software it preinstalled on computers would: (1) Inject pop-up ads every time consumers visited a shopping Web site; and (2) disrupt web browsing by reducing download speeds by almost 25 percent and upload speeds by 125 percent. These facts were not disclosed to consumers and these omissions were deceptive.
Moreover, the FTC alleges that the VisualDiscovery software was designed to be difficult to discover. Consumers were initially made aware of the existence of the VisualDiscovery software via a pop-up window the first time they visited an ecommerce site. But clicking to close that window
Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, the failure to disclose information necessary to prevent the creation of a false impression is a deceptive practice.
This is an exceptionally strong case and clearly articulates how the Commission uses its unfairness tools to protect the data security and privacy of consumers. I support Count I, but believe the FTC should have included additional deceptive conduct alleged in the complaint within the count. The FTC should not turn a blind eye to deceptive disclosures and opt-ins, particularly when consumers' privacy and security are at stake.
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the
The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.
Theresa Kingsberry, Program Support Specialist, Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room CC-5301, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 326-3100.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Michael Ostheimer (202-326-2699), Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for September 7, 2017), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before October 10, 2017. Write “In the Matter of CSGO Lotto, Inc., File No. 1623184” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of CSGO Lotto, Inc., File No. 1623184” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies
Visit the FTC Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from CSGOLotto, Inc., Trevor Martin (“Martin”), and Thomas Cassell (“Cassell”) (collectively “respondents”).
The proposed consent order (“order”) has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make the final the agreement's order.
This matter involves respondents' advertising for their Web site,
The order includes injunctive relief to address these alleged violations and fences in similar and related violations.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or order, or to modify the order's terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB information collection.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a renewal of the currently approved information collection requirement regarding Implementation of Information Technology Security Provision.
Submit comments on or before November 13, 2017.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0300, Implementation of Information Technology Security Provision, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Kevin Funk, Program Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, at 202-357-5805 or via email at
Clause 552.239-71 requires contractors, within 30 days after contract award, to submit an IT Security Plan to the Contracting Officer and Contacting Officer's Representative that describes the processes and procedures that will be followed to ensure appropriate security of IT resources that are developed, processed, or used under the contract. The clause will also require that contractors submit written proof of IT security authorization six months after contract award, and verify that the IT Security Plan remains valid annually.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the GSAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB information collection.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data.
Submit comments on or before November 13, 2017.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0013, Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 202-208-4949 or
The Truth in Negotiations Act requires the Government to obtain certified cost or pricing data under certain circumstances. Contractors may request an exemption from this requirement under certain conditions and provide other information instead.
Fiscal year 2016 data was obtained from the Federal Procurement Data System to estimate burdens for the provisions and clauses addressed in this information collection notice. This update does not include the requirements at FAR 42.7, Indirect Cost Rates, as this requirement is covered under OMB Control Number 9000-0069. The data for 52.215-20 is for new contract awards in FY 2016. The data for modifications and orders executed in FY 2016 applies to new contract awards as well as to prior multiple year contracts that continue to be active. The following is a summary of the FY 2016 data:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (BSC, NCEH/ATSDR), September 13, 2017 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., EST; and September 14, 2017 8:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m., EST, which was published in the
This meeting is being canceled in its entirety and this notice is being published on less than 15 days prior to the meeting date due to Hurricane Irma.
For further information contact Amanda Malasky, BS, ORISE Fellow, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3717, telephone 770-488-7699;
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH). This meeting is open to the public, but without a public comment period. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting, to the contact person below. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by joining the teleconference at the USA toll-free, dial-in number at 1-866-659-0537; the pass code is 9933701. The conference line has 150 ports for callers.
The meeting will be held on October 5, 2017, 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. EDT.
Audio Conference Call via FTS Conferencing. The USA toll-free dial-in number is 1-866-659-0537; the pass code is 9933701.
Theodore Katz, MPA, Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop E-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone (513) 533-6800, Toll Free 1 (800) CDC-INFO, Email
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Classifications and Public Health Data Standards Staff, announces the following meeting of the ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee meeting. This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 240 people. We will be broadcasting the meeting live via Webcast at
The meeting will be held on September 12, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT and September 13, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Auditorium, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244.
Traci Ramirez, CCA, Program Specialist, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Classifications and Public Health Data Standards Staff (CPHDSS), 3311 Toledo Rd., Hyattsville, Maryland 20715, telephone (301) 458-4454,
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Participants who attended previous Coordination and Maintenance meetings will no longer be automatically added to the visitor list. You must request inclusion of your name prior to each meeting you wish attend.
Please register to attend the meeting on-line at:
Please contact Mady Hue (410-786-4510 or
CMS and NCHS no longer provide paper copies of handouts for the meeting. Electronic copies of all meeting materials will be posted on the CMS and NCHS Web sites prior to the meeting at
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The case review system assures that each child has a case plan designed to achieve placement in a safe setting that is the least restrictive (most family-like) setting available and in close proximity to the child's parental home, consistent with the best interest and special needs of the child. Through these requirements, States and Tribes also comply, in part, with title IV-B section 422(b) of the Act, which assures certain protections for children in foster care.
The case plan is a written document that provides a narrative description of the child-specific program of care. Federal regulations at 45 CFR 1356.21(g) and section 475(1) of the Act delineate the specific information that should be addressed in the case plan. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) does not specify a recordkeeping format for the case plan nor does ACF require submission of the document to the Federal government. Case plan information is recorded in a format developed and maintained by the State or Tribal child welfare agency.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap 35), the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information may be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Microdose Radiopharmaceutical Diagnostic Drugs: Nonclinical Study Recommendations.” This draft guidance is intended to assist developers of microdose radiopharmaceutical diagnostic drugs on the nonclinical studies recommended to support human clinical trials and marketing authorization. The draft guidance discusses how to refine nonclinical study recommendations for this class of drug given its unique characteristics. This draft guidance is intended to provide recommendations for a pathway to full drug development (marketing authorization) for microdose radiopharmaceutical diagnostic drugs.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by November 13, 2017 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)). Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Adebayo Laniyonu, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5400, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1392.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Microdose Radiopharmaceutical Diagnostic Drugs: Nonclinical Study Recommendations.” This draft guidance is intended to assist developers of microdose radiopharmaceutical diagnostic drugs on the nonclinical studies recommended to support human clinical trials and marketing authorization. The draft guidance discusses how to refine nonclinical study recommendations for this class of drug given its unique characteristics. This draft guidance is intended to provide recommendations for a pathway to full drug development (marketing authorization) for microdose radiopharmaceutical diagnostic drugs.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on nonclinical studies recommended for microdose radiopharmaceutical diagnostic drugs. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively. The collection of information for radioactive drug research committees in 21 CFR 361.1 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0053. The collection of information for the regulations on in vivo radiopharmaceuticals used for diagnosis and monitoring in 21 CFR 315.4, 315.5, and 315.6 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0409.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Government owned intellectual property covering HIV-1 reverse transcriptase inhibitors 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
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.
• Anti-microbial.
• HIV therapeutic.
• In vitro data available.
• U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/542,600 filed August 8, 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 a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NHLBI.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before December 12, 2017.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1742, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472 (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472 (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
I. Non-watershed-based studies:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before December 12, 2017.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1741, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4334-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 Iowa resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of July 19-23, 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, Michael L. Parker, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Iowa have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Allamakee, Bremer, Buchanan, Chickasaw, Clayton, Fayette, and Mitchell Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Iowa 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 of new information collection; request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before October 13, 2017.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100, email address
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4332-DR), dated August 25, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 1, 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 Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 25, 2017.
Polk, Tyler, and Walker Counties for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and 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 Vermont (FEMA-4330-DR), dated August 16, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued August 16, 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 16, 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 Vermont resulting from severe storms and flooding during the period of June 29 to July 1, 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
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, Mark H. Landry, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Vermont have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Addison, Bennington, Caledonia, Orange, Rutland, Washington, and Windsor Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Vermont 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 Wyoming (FEMA-4327-DR), dated August 5, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 1, 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 Wyoming 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 5, 2017.
Washakie 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.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4332-DR), dated August 25, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 4, 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 Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 25, 2017.
Austin, Bastrop, DeWitt, Gonzales, Karnes, Lavaca, and Lee Counties for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Aransas, Brazoria, Calhoun, Chambers, Colorado, Fayette, Fort Bend, Galveston, Goliad, Hardin, Harris, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Matagorda, Montgomery, Newton, Nueces, Orange, Polk, San Jacinto, San Patricio, Tyler, Victoria, Walker, Waller, and Wharton Counties for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and 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 West Virginia (FEMA-4331-DR), dated August 18, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued August 18, 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 18, 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 West Virginia resulting from severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of July 28-29, 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 Individual Assistance and 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 and Other Needs Assistance 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 time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Steven S. Ward, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of West Virginia have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Harrison, Marion, Marshall, and Wetzel Counties for Individual Assistance.
Doddridge, Harrison, Marion, Marshall, Monongalia, Ohio, Preston, Randolph, Taylor, Tucker, Tyler, and Wetzel Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of West Virginia 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 and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 2017.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Contact Sherina Greene, Management and Program Analyst, FEMA Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Information Management Division, at (202) 646-4343 for further information. You may contact the Information Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address:
Executive Order 12862 directs Federal agencies to provide service to the public that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. In order to work continuously to ensure that our programs are effective and meet our customers' needs, Federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA) (hereafter “the Agency”) seeks to obtain OMB approval of a generic clearance to collect qualitative feedback on our service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-3382-EM), dated August 28, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued August 31, 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 an emergency declaration for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of August 28, 2017.
Allen, Acadia, Iberia, Natchitoches, Rapides, Sabine, and Vernon 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 notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4332-DR), dated August 25, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 2, 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 September 2, 2017, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements regarding Federal funds provided 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 Texas resulting from Hurricane Harvey beginning on August 23, 2017, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
Therefore, I amend my declaration of August 25, 2017, to authorize a 90 percent Federal cost share for debris removal, including direct Federal assistance; and a 100 percent Federal cost share for emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, for 30 days from the start of the incident period, and then a 90 percent Federal cost share thereafter.
This adjustment to State and local cost sharing applies only to Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for such adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar adjustment for funds provided for Other Needs Assistance (section 408), and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (section 404). These funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible costs.
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; email Ivery W. Himes at
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.
HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes, 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
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
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 Policy, Chief Evaluation Office, Department of Labor.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents is properly assessed.
Currently, the Department of Labor is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data on the Evaluation of the American Apprenticeship Initiative. A copy of the proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before November 13, 2017.
You may submit comments by either one of the following methods:
Janet Javar by email at
I.
1. An implementation study to describe how grant programs develop,
2. An outcomes study to examine in-program and post-program outcomes of apprentices, particularly around employment, earnings, wages, and employment retention, as well as pre-intervention and post-intervention certification and credential attainment. Particular attention will be given to outcomes for underrepresented populations in apprenticeship.
3. A return on investment study to estimate the benefits and costs of apprenticeship to employers.
4. A demonstration study to examine which recruitment methods and marketing strategies most successfully encourage employers to offer apprenticeships.
This
•
•
•
A future information collection request will include an employer survey and participant survey.
II.
• 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.
• 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—for example, permitting electronic submission of responses.
III.
Comments submitted in response to this request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for MET Laboratories, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). Additionally, OSHA announces its final decision to add two new test standards to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on September 13, 2017.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of MET Laboratories, Inc. (MET) as a NRTL. MET's expansion covers the addition of three test standards to its scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification of the products.
The Agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
MET submitted three applications, dated October 15, 2015 (OSHA-2006-0028-0031), March 2, 2016 (OSHA-2006-0028-0032), and March 18, 2016 (OSHA-2006-0028-0033), to expand its recognition to include three additional test standards, including two test standards to be added to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packets and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to these applications.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing MET's expansion applications in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to MET's application, go to:
OSHA staff examined MET's expansion applications, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that MET meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant MET's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of MET's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed in Table 1 below.
Additionally, Table 2, below, lists the test standards new to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. The Agency evaluated the standards to (1) verify they represent product categories for which OSHA requires certification by a NRTL, (2) verify the documents represent end products and not components, and (3) verify the documents define safety test specifications (not installation or operational performance specifications). Based on this evaluation, OSHA finds that they are appropriate test standards and has added these standards to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, MET must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. MET must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. MET must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. MET must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on MET's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of MET, subject to the limitation and conditions specified above.
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Office of Management and Budget.
Notice of proposed designation.
Section 5(b)(1)(B) of the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 (IPERIA) provides that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with agencies, may designate additional databases for inclusion under the Do Not Pay (DNP) Initiative. IPERIA further requires OMB to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment prior to designating additional databases. In fulfillment of this requirement, OMB is publishing this Notice of Proposed Designation to designate the following six databases: (1) The Department of the Treasury's (Treasury) Office of Foreign Assets Control's Specially Designated Nationals List (OFAC List), (2) data from the General Services Administration's (GSA) System for Award Management (SAM) sensitive financial data from entity registration records (including those records formerly housed in the legacy Excluded Parties List System), (3) the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) Automatic Revocation of Exemption List (ARL), (4) the IRS's Exempt Organizations Select Check (EO Select Check), (5) the IRS's e-Postcard database, and (6) the commercial database American InfoSource (AIS) Deceased Data for inclusion in the Do Not Pay Initiative. This notice has a 30-day comment period.
Please submit comments on or before October 13, 2017. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, if OMB decides to finalize the designation, OMB will publish a notice in the
Comments must be submitted electronically before the comment closing date to
Brian Nichols at the OMB Office of
Among other things, IPERIA codified the DNP Initiative that was already underway across the Federal Government. The DNP Initiative includes multiple resources to help Federal agencies review payment eligibility for purposes of identifying and preventing improper payments. As part of the DNP Initiative, OMB designated Treasury to host Treasury's Working System, which is the primary system through which Federal agencies can verify payment eligibility.
Pursuant to IPERIA,
For commercial databases, the OMB guidance establishes additional requirements. The guidance requires that the commercial data meet the following general standards: (1) Information in commercial databases must be relevant and necessary to meet the objectives described in section 5 of IPERIA; (2) information in commercial databases must be sufficiently accurate, up-to-date, relevant, and complete to ensure fairness to the individual record subjects; and (3) information in commercial databases must not contain information that describes how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, unless use of the data is expressly authorized by statute. In addition, when OMB designates commercial databases for use in Treasury's Working System, Treasury must meet the following specific requirements: (1) Treasury shall establish rules of conduct for persons involved in the use of, or access to, commercial databases and instruct each person with respect to such rules, including penalties for noncompliance, as appropriate; and (2) Treasury shall establish appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of information in commercial databases when such information is under Treasury's control.
OMB proposes to designate the Treasury OFAC List for inclusion in Treasury's Working System. Acting under Presidential national emergency powers, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) derives its authority from a variety of U.S. Federal laws regarding embargoes and economic sanctions such as those terrorism-related mandates found in 31 CFR parts 595-597. This database is a list of persons and entities whose assets are blocked and generally prohibited from entering into financial transactions with United States (U.S.) financial institutions and the U.S. Government.
Currently, each payment-issuing agency has its own procedure for blocking or rejecting payments to persons or entities on the OFAC List. By designating the OFAC List as an additional database in Treasury's Working System, Treasury would improve and streamline access by allowing agencies to verify payment eligibility at multiple points in the payment process.
OMB has reached the following initial determinations and is seeking public comment before finalizing the designation of the database.
1. There are no statutory or other limitations that would prevent including this public database within Treasury's Working System for the purposes of verifying payment eligibility. Due to the broad audience of government agencies required to check OFAC's List, this database was made accessible to agencies matching against Treasury's Working System soon after IPERIA became effective and before the issuance of OMB Memorandum M-13-20 establishing this designation process. The database is formatted for information processing on OFAC's Web site and requires no changes to existing processes or any additional expense for Treasury.
2. There are no prohibitive privacy restrictions or risks for Treasury to make this publicly facing database already available on OFAC's Web site also available in Treasury's Working System. Risk mitigation measures include maintaining a current and compliant Security Accreditation and Authorization (SA&A) package for Treasury's Working System in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-130, Managing Information as a Strategic Resource, and complying with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) requirements. To reduce the likelihood of incidents triggered by unauthorized access, login to Treasury's Working System requires public key infrastructure (PKI) or personal identity verification (PIV) credentials. All users and administrators are required to sign rules of behavior stipulating their responsibilities to minimize risks and support DNP's mission to “Protect the integrity of the government's payment process by assisting agencies in mitigating and eliminating improper payments in a cost-effective manner while safeguarding the privacy of individuals.” In this vein, Treasury has also dedicated resources to establish a Privacy Program based on applicable requirements, the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs), and industry best practices. Treasury's Privacy Program champions various internal controls in concert with agency leadership and counsel such as a data usage governance process charged with vetting projects that support a data driven approach to reducing improper payments for Treasury's specific customers and government-wide.
3. Designating the OFAC List would likely strengthen program integrity. With access to the OFAC List through Treasury's Working System, an agency will be better equipped to minimize the risk that it makes a payment to a person or entity on the list and the potentially catastrophic impact of such a payment.
4. It would be beneficial to streamline access to the OFAC List through its inclusion as an additional database within Treasury's Working System. IPERIA requires agencies to check the Act's enumerated databases prior to making a payment with Federal funds. Federal regulations, such as 31 CFR parts 595-597, require paying agencies to check the OFAC List. Many of DNP's
5. There are no additional costs associated with expanding or centralizing access to the OFAC List within Treasury's Working System.
6. No additional stakeholder considerations were identified. Regarding policy, the designation further ensures that Treasury customers adhere to terrorism-related mandates set forth in Federal regulations, such as those found in 31 CFR parts 595-597.
OMB proposes to designate SAM sensitive financial data from entity registration records specifically the sensitive financial data and exclusion data for use in the DNP initiative via Treasury's Working System. SAM is the single registration point for entities seeking Federal contracts or grants (with limited exceptions defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations). As such, key data that are essential to appropriately identifying unique entities for DNP are included in the entity registration records in SAM and identified as sensitive data, meaning they are not disclosed publically. These data include information used in financial transactions.
By designating SAM sensitive financial data from entity registration records as an additional data source in DNP via Treasury's Working System, agencies using the system will have greater confidence in results returned from the Treasury Working System and used in analysis for processing payments. This would reduce the administrative burden for agencies having to check both systems prior to finalizing pre- and post-payment analysis.
OMB has reached the following initial determinations and is seeking public comment before finalizing the designation of the database.
1. There are no statutory or other limitations that would prevent the DNP Initiative from using SAM sensitive financial data from entity registration records for the purposes of verifying payment eligibility. GSA is authorized to maintain SAM pursuant to the FAR Subparts 4.11, 9.4, 28.2, and 52.204, 2 CFR part 25, and 40 U.S.C. 121(c), and the data collection requirements from entities is governed by the FAR and Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The records in SAM sensitive financial data from entity registration records are covered by a Privacy Act system of records. Pursuant to the system of records notice's (SORN)
2. There are some privacy restrictions and risks associated with the DNP Initiative's use of the SAM sensitive entity registration data. For example, SAM is a system of records, so the Privacy Act governs the DNP Initiative's use of these records. As mentioned above with respect to the first consideration, DNP would comport with the SORN's routine use (m), which mitigates the privacy risks with respect to the Privacy Act. Risk mitigation measures also include maintaining a current and compliant SA&A package for Treasury's Working System in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-130 requirements. To reduce the likelihood of incidents triggered by unauthorized access, login to Treasury's Working System requires PKI or PIV credentials. All users and administrators are required to sign rules of behavior stipulating their responsibilities to minimize risks and support DNP's mission to “Protect the integrity of the government's payment process by assisting agencies in mitigating and eliminating improper payments in a cost-effective manner while safeguarding the privacy of individuals.” In this vein, Treasury has also dedicated resources to establish a Privacy Program based on applicable requirements, FIPPs, and industry best practices. Treasury's Privacy Program champions various internal controls in concert with agency leadership and counsel such as a data usage governance process charged with vetting projects that support a data driven approach to reducing improper payments for Treasury's specific customers and government-wide.
3. Designating SAM sensitive financial data from entity registration records would strengthen program integrity. With SAM sensitive financial data from entity registration records as a data source in DNP, agencies would have more convenient access to these data, strengthening their ability to make stronger and more efficient payment determinations and reducing false positives that result in improper withholding of or late payments.
4. It would be beneficial to streamline access to SAM sensitive financial data from entity registration records as an additional database within Treasury's Working System. Many of Treasury's Working System users are payment-issuing agencies that are required to check SAM prior to payment. They will now be able to check SAM sensitive financial data from entity registration records alongside the other Treasury's Working System databases. This will enable agencies to make more informed and efficient payment decisions.
5. There are no additional costs associated with expanding or centralizing access to SAM sensitive financial data from entity registration records because Treasury's Working System already includes this data. As a result, Treasury's Working System already has interfaces in place to allow for access to GSA's existing SAM technology feeds.
6. No additional policy or stakeholder considerations were identified.
OMB proposes to designate the IRS's ARL, which maintains records of entities that have lost tax-exempt status due to failure to file an annual information return or notice with the IRS for three consecutive years. The Federal government administers a number of grant programs that pertain specifically to tax-exempt entities. As such, verification against ARL will assist grant-making agencies in verifying tax-exempt status prior to payment.
OMB has reached the following initial determinations and is seeking public comment before finalizing the designation of the database.
1. There are no statutory or other limitations that would prevent including this public database within Treasury's Working System.
2. There are no prohibitive privacy restrictions or risks for Treasury to make this publicly facing database also available in Treasury's Working System. Risk mitigation measures include maintaining a current and compliant SA&A package for Treasury's Working System in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-130. To reduce the likelihood of incidents triggered by unauthorized access, login to Treasury's Working System requires PKI or PIV credentials. All users and administrators are required to sign rules of behavior stipulating their responsibilities to minimize risks and support DNP's mission to “Protect the integrity of the government's payment process by assisting agencies in mitigating and eliminating improper payments in a cost-effective manner while safeguarding the privacy of individuals.” In this vein, Treasury has also dedicated resources to establish a Privacy Program based on applicable requirements, FIPPs, and industry best practices. This Treasury's Privacy Program champions various internal controls in concert with agency leadership and counsel such as a data usage governance process charged with vetting projects that support foster a data driven approach to reducing improper payments for Treasury's specific customers and government-wide.
3. Designating IRS' ARL would likely strengthen program integrity. With access to this database through Treasury's Working System, an agency will be better equipped to minimize the risk that it makes a payment to an entity that has not had its tax-exempt status verified.
4. It would be beneficial to streamline access to the ARL through its inclusion within Treasury's Working System. Many of DNP's customers are grant-issuing agencies. This will enable agencies to make more informed payment decisions, increase efficiency, and strengthen internal controls.
5. Aside from budgeted system development costs, there are no additional costs associated with expanding or centralizing access to this publically available database within Treasury's Working System.
6. No additional policy or stakeholder considerations were identified.
OMB proposes to designate the IRS's EO Select Check, which maintains records of organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions. IRS Publication 78 requires organizations with gross receipts over $50,000 to file Form 990 once every three years in order to remain eligible for tax-exempt status. The EO Select Check database is even more valuable when used in concert with ARL, and will allow agencies to verify an entity's tax-exempt status prior to payment.
OMB has reached the following initial determinations and is seeking public comment before finalizing the designation of the database.
1. There are no statutory or other limitations that would prevent including this public database within Treasury's Working System.
2. There are no prohibitive privacy restrictions or risks for Treasury to make this publicly facing database also available in Treasury's Working System. Risk mitigation measures include maintaining a current and compliant SA&A package for Treasury's Working System in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-130. To reduce the likelihood of incidents triggered by unauthorized access, login to Treasury's Working System requires PKI or PIV credentials. All users and administrators are required to sign rules of behavior stipulating their responsibilities to minimize risks and support DNP's mission to “Protect the integrity of the government's payment process by assisting agencies in mitigating and eliminating improper payments in a cost-effective manner while safeguarding the privacy of individuals.” In this vein, Treasury has also dedicated resources to establish a Privacy Program based on applicable requirements, the FIPPs, and industry best practices. This Treasury's Privacy Program champions various internal controls in concert with agency leadership and counsel such as a data usage governance process charged with vetting projects that support foster a data driven approach to reducing improper payments for Treasury's specific customers and government-wide.
3. Designating IRS's EO Select Check database would likely strengthen program integrity. With access to this database through Treasury's Working System, an agency will be better equipped to minimize the risk that it makes a payment to an entity that has not had its tax-exempt status verified.
4. It would be beneficial to streamline access to the EO Select Check through its inclusion as an additional database within Treasury's Working System. Many of DNP's customers are grant issuing agencies. This will enable agencies to make more informed payment decisions, increase efficiency, and strengthen internal controls.
5. Aside from budgeted system development costs, there are no additional costs associated with expanding or centralizing access to this publically available database within Treasury's Working System.
6. No additional policy or stakeholder considerations were identified.
OMB proposes to designate the IRS's e-Postcard database, which maintains records of small entities eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions. Entities within e-Postcard are considered both small businesses and tax-exempt, with gross receipts under $50,000. These organizations are required to file a Form 990-N once every three years in order to remain eligible for tax-exempt status. As with the EO Select Check database, e-Postcard will allow agencies to verify tax-exempt status before making a payment.
OMB has reached the following initial determinations and is seeking public comment before finalizing the designation of the database.
1. There are no statutory or other limitations that would prevent including this public database within Treasury's Working System.
2. There are no prohibitive privacy restrictions or risks for Treasury to make this publicly facing database also available in Treasury's Working System. Risk mitigation measures include maintaining a current and compliant SA&A package for Treasury's Working System in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-130. To reduce the likelihood of incidents triggered by unauthorized access, login to Treasury's Working System requires PKI or PIV credentials. All users and administrators are required to sign rules of behavior stipulating their responsibilities to minimize risks and support DNP's mission to “Protect the integrity of the government's payment process by assisting agencies in mitigating and eliminating improper payments in a cost-effective manner while safeguarding the privacy of individuals.” In this vein, Treasury has also dedicated resources to establish a
3. Designating IRS' e-Postcard database would likely strengthen program integrity. With access to this database through Treasury's Working System, an agency will be better equipped to minimize the risk that it makes a payment to an entity that has not had its tax-exempt status verified.
4. It would be beneficial to streamline access to the e-Postcard through its inclusion as additional database within Treasury's Working System. Many of DNP's customers are grant issuing agencies. This will enable agencies to make more informed payment decisions, increase efficiency, and strengthen internal controls.
5. Aside from budgeted system development costs, there are no additional costs associated with expanding or centralizing access to this publically available database within Treasury's Working System.
6. No additional policy or stakeholder considerations were identified.
OMB has considered Treasury's recommendation and assessment of the suitability of AIS Deceased Data for designation within Treasury's Working System. OMB proposes to designate AIS Deceased Data for inclusion in Treasury's Working System. Treasury's suitability assessment, which evaluates the suitability of AIS Deceased Data, is attached.
Highlights of Treasury's assessment on AIS Deceased Data against the considerations and factors outlined in Section 5(b) of OMB Memorandum M-13-20 follow:
1. There are no statutory or other limitations that would prevent Treasury from using or sharing AIS Deceased Data through Treasury's Working System.
2. Treasury assessed privacy restrictions and risks by reviewing AIS' responses to a questionnaire based on Federal Trade Commission (FTC) vendor management guidance and conducting a data source profile. The information AIS provided regarding data restrictions and risks helped inform Treasury's decision to request this OMB designation of AIS.
The questionnaire includes sections on Products and Services, Breach Notification, Consumer Access and Redress, and Legal Action/Complaints/Inquiries. AIS' response indicated that there are no consumer access or redress procedures in place because their data is not directly acquired from the consumer. AIS data is gathered through public records and additional data sources. AIS maintains that policies, practices and procedures relating to the monitoring, auditing, or evaluation of the accuracy of personally identifiable information may be customized and approved by Treasury as its customer.
Treasury evaluated AIS Deceased Data in various areas, including a data quality assessment at the attribute level, and at the level of the source as a whole. Per-data element measures include quantifications of accuracy, coverage, and conformity. Whole-source measures include assessments of the freshness, completeness, and uniqueness of all records. These six assessments factors, some of which are multi-part, reduce to six quantitative scores, and these six scores are combined into an overall data source quality benchmark. The quality assessment was performed on a snapshot of the data source from July 14, 2014, for December and January deaths and from March 28, 2014, for November deaths.
3. Designating AIS Deceased Data will strengthen program integrity. Treasury performed an analysis, in which it was conservatively estimated, that the program's use of just three months of AIS Deceased Data would have resulted in the identification of 226 additional improper payments, with a corresponding reduction of roughly $450,000 in improper payments to deceased persons. Please see sections IV(A)(5) and IV(B)(2) of the AIS Deceased Data suitability assessment for more detail on the results of this analysis.
4. Streamlining Federal officials' access to AIS Deceased Data as an additional database within Treasury's Working System supports the Administration's objectives to reduce duplication and costs to taxpayers. Adding in this needed data source without streamlining through Treasury would require each agency to purchase the data set separately, resulting in delays to access and redundant.
5. There will be some additional costs associated with expanding or centralizing access to AIS Deceased Data. However, Treasury has performed a trial assessment with respect to AIS Deceased Data, and has determined that the return on investment (ROI) is positive and outweighs the costs. Please see sections IV(A)(5) and IV(B)(2) of the AIS Deceased Data suitability assessment for more detail on how this analysis was performed and the results.
6. No additional policy or stakeholder considerations were identified.
We invite public comments on the proposed designation of each of the six databases described in this notice.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-13-20 requires the Department of the Treasury to prepare and submit to OMB a written assessment to document the suitability of any commercial database proposed for use in Treasury's Working System. Section 11(d) of M-13-20 requires the assessment to address four topics:
(i) The need to use or access the data;
(ii) how the data will be used or accessed;
(iii) a description of the data, including each data element that will be used or accessed; and
(iv) how the database meets all applicable requirements of M-13-20.
Treasury has completed its assessment of the suitability of American InfoSource (AIS) Deceased Data for inclusion as a database in Treasury's Working System. Based on its assessment, Treasury recommends that OMB propose the inclusion of AIS Deceased Data into Treasury's Working System. Below are Treasury's evaluations and conclusions regarding the Section 11(d) topics.
Decedent persons are ineligible to receive payments with few exceptions, such as to payments to survivors under the deceased name or payments to an estate for work completed before death. As such, the deceased are ineligible for most benefits, grants, or awards. There is a business need for the government to use the most complete, timely, and accurate data to ensure an improper payment is not made to these persons. Currently, government sources of death data include the Social Security Administration's (SSA) Death Master File (DMF), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Vital Statistics System, and data maintained by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) derived from Table 2000CM of tax returns.
The AIS Deceased Data database includes information about deceased persons from all 50 states. AIS Deceased Data provides death data from states currently unavailable to Treasury customers through SSA's DMF. Treasury's Working System currently uses the public version of SSA's DMF. There is also a restricted version of DMF (known as the “public plus state” DMF), which is more comprehensive and contains more data reported from states than the public version. The Social Security Act limits the disclosure of state death records contained in the “public plus state” DMF to only benefit paying agencies. SSA has determined that Treasury's Working System does not meet the requirements for access to the “public plus state” DMF. Therefore, Treasury evaluated the coverage of AIS Deceased Data by state “public plus state” DMF and found that AIS does have significant coverage in many states above and beyond public DMF which are not contained within “public plus state” DMF. In addition to inputs from SSA's public DMF, AIS gathers information from probate court records and published obituaries. Obituaries are obtained by AIS from over 3,000 funeral homes and thousands of newspapers, and probate records are collected from the county courts. These sources are not currently available to agencies accessing Treasury's Working System. Out of 600,000 records Treasury received from AIS when assessing the suitability of the database, approximately 230,000 came from sources (obituaries and probationary records) other than the public version of DMF. The positive return on investment (ROI) analysis (Section IV) removed DMF files from its calculations further supporting that including records from AIS in Treasury's Working System will create value to Federal agencies that require this additional death data to make payment decisions.
Generally, when payment-issuing agencies identify a business need to match against a specific type of database, Treasury will work with the payment-issuing agency to complete an Initial Questionnaire. An Initial Questionnaire is the form that Treasury must approve for each payment-issuing agency to initiate the onboarding process, and begin the process of accessing the requested databases. The objectives of the onboarding process are to:
• Allow the payment-issuing agency to gain access to Treasury's Working System;
• Outline business needs and legal authorities for the payment-issuing agency to access Treasury's Working System; and
• Ensure that payment-issuing agency files are ready for use in Treasury's Working System.
During the onboarding process, if an agency determines it has a business need to access death data like AIS Deceased Data—typically, to assist the agency in making eligibility determinations for payments or awards, customers will also identify the method by which their agency will search, or be disclosed, AIS Deceased Data (via online single search, batch matching, continuous monitoring, DNP Analytics, or a combination of these services). To access the batch matching and continuous monitoring matching functions, customers must establish a secure file transfer process with Treasury. Treasury then works with customers to provision access credentials and obtain supplementary information necessary to access Treasury's Working System. Each customer must certify and agree to Rules of Behavior for Treasury's Working System and certify and execute several legal agreements. Customers will then identify AIS Deceased Data as the specific database relevant to their matching needs.
Upon obtaining access to use Treasury's Working System, a comparison between AIS data and agency payment data could be made, resulting in the return of positive matches. Users may either use Treasury's online portal to view automated match results on a regular basis, or request analytical services to be performed in order to gain additional insight. It is then the customer's responsibility to review the information received and make a determination, or request additional services.
M-13-20 outlines three distinct sets of requirements for including additional databases in Treasury's Working System.
M-13-20 section 5(b) requires that when considering additional databases for designation, OMB will consider:
1. Statutory or other limitations on the use and sharing of specific data;
2. Privacy restrictions and risks associated with specific data;
3. Likelihood that the data will strengthen program integrity across programs and agencies;
4. Benefits of streamlining access to the data through the central DNP Initiative;
5. Costs associated with expanding or centralizing access, including modifications needed to system interfaces or other capabilities in order to make data accessible; and
6. Other policy and stakeholder considerations, as appropriate.
Treasury has assessed AIS Deceased Data against the considerations and factors outlined in Section 5(b) of M-13-20. Treasury has determined that:
1. There are no statutory or other limitations that would prevent Treasury from using or sharing AIS Deceased Data through Treasury's Working System.
2. Treasury assessed privacy restrictions and risks by reviewing AIS' responses to a questionnaire based on Federal Trade Commission (FTC) vendor management guidance and conducting a data source profile. These inputs that considered data restrictions and risks informed Treasury's decision to request this designation request.
The questionnaire includes sections on Products and Services, Breach Notification, Consumer Access and Redress, and Legal Action/Complaints/Inquiries. AIS' response indicated that there are no consumer access or redress procedures in place because their data is not directly acquired from the consumer. AIS data is gathered through public records and additional data sources. AIS maintains that policies, practices and procedures relating to the monitoring, auditing, or evaluation of the accuracy of personally identifiable information may be customized and approved by the Treasury as its customer.
Treasury evaluated AIS Deceased Data in various areas, including a data quality assessment at the attribute level, and at the level of the source as a whole. Per-data element measures include quantifications of accuracy, coverage, and conformity. Whole-source measures include assessments of the freshness, completeness, and uniqueness of all records. These six assessments factors, some of which are multi-part, reduce to six quantitative scores, and these six scores are combined into an overall data source quality benchmark. The quality assessment was performed on a snapshot of the data source, from July 14, 2014 for December and January deaths and from March 28, 2014 for November deaths.
3. Designating AIS Deceased Data will strengthen program integrity. Treasury performed an analysis in which it was conservatively estimated that the program's use of just three months of AIS Deceased Data would have resulted in the identification of 226 additional improper payments, with a corresponding reduction of roughly $450,000 in improper payments to deceased persons. Please see section IV(A)(5) and IV(B)(2) for more detail on how this analysis was performed and the results.
4. It is beneficial to the Federal government and to taxpayers to streamline access to AIS Deceased Data as an additional database within Treasury's Working System. Currently, in order to access AIS Deceased Data, customer agencies must each procure the data themselves. This process can take up to six months to complete and is costly and duplicative. With over 140 programs currently accessing Treasury's Working System, the amount of time saved with a single procurement will have a positive ROI.
5. There will be some additional costs associated with expanding or centralizing access to AIS Deceased Data. However, Treasury has performed a trial assessment with respect to AIS Deceased Data, and it has determined that the ROI is positive and outweighs the costs. Specifically, the trial assessment compared three months of AIS data to current and historical payment data in order to determine which payments would result in matches. Agency-specific business rules identified in Treasury's current processes were then applied to reduce false positives. ROI was 400%. Recurring payments were then eliminated to simulate an agency stopping the first payment, thus nullifying benefit from future payments. ROI was found to be 315%.
6. No additional policy or stakeholder considerations were identified.
M-13-20 Section 11(b) provides that Treasury may use or access a commercial database for Treasury's Working System only if OMB has officially, previously designated such database for inclusion following a period of public notice and comment, as described in section 5(b) of this Memorandum. Because commercial databases used or accessed for purposes of the DNP Initiative will be used to help agencies make determinations about persons, it is important that agencies apply safeguards that are similarly rigorous to those that apply to systems of records under the Privacy Act. Thus, commercial data may only be used or accessed for the DNP Initiative when the commercial data in question would meet the following general standards:
1. Information in commercial databases must be relevant and necessary to meet the objectives described in section 5 of IPERIA.
2. Information in commercial databases must be sufficiently accurate, up-to-date, relevant, and complete to ensure fairness to the individual record subjects.
3. Information in commercial databases must not contain information that describes how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, unless use of the data is expressly authorized by statute.
Treasury has assessed AIS Deceased Data against the considerations and factors outlined in Section 11(b) of M-13-20. Treasury has determined that:
1. AIS Deceased Data is relevant and necessary to meet objectives set out in the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 (IPERIA). IPERIA requires payment-issuing agencies to verify eligibility of payments and awards by reviewing the SSA DMF, as appropriate. Treasury has access to the public DMF, but does not currently have access to the “public plus state” DMF or probate court records and obituaries. AIS Deceased Data provides the latter two categories, creating value for payment-issuing agencies in this additional death data. Additionally, AIS Deceased Data includes records from states, including 18 states that do not report deaths to SSA via the Internet Electronic Death Registration (I-EDR), and would not be included in the “public plus state” DMF anyway. AIS Deceased Data will supplement the existing data provided by SSA in the public DMF and further
2. In its trial assessment, Treasury determined that AIS Deceased Data is sufficiently accurate, up-to-date, relevant, and complete to ensure fairness. Treasury compared the AIS Deceased Data city and state data to other databases that are considered “gold standards” and over 99 percent of these data were accurate. Treasury also assessed AIS Deceased Data social security number (SSN), date of death, and date of birth data elements and determined that: over 99 percent of the SSN data are accurate; all records contain a date of death; and 89 percent of the data contain a date of birth, which is sufficiently accurate for a supplemental matching element. The data elements that AIS will provide to Treasury's Working System all directly relate to confirming the identification of a person's status as deceased and would be fully refreshed on a quarterly basis. Extraneous fields are not included to ensure that data minimization standards (see M-13-20 section 5(c)) are applied. In addition, Treasury only receives records from AIS, which contain a SSN, first name, and last name. These practices and the data elements will ensure fewer false positives and fairness to the record subjects.
3. AIS Deceased Data does not contain information that describes how an individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
M-13-20 Section 11(c) provides that in addition to the general standards provided above, Treasury shall meet the following specific requirements whenever agencies use or access a commercial database as part of Treasury's Working System:
1. Treasury shall establish rules of conduct for persons involved in the use of or access to commercial databases and instruct each person with respect to such rules, including penalties for noncompliance, as appropriate.
2. Treasury shall establish appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of information in commercial databases when such information is under Treasury's control.
Treasury has assessed AIS Deceased Data against the considerations and factors outlined in Section 11(c) of M-13-20. Treasury has determined that it has fulfilled the requirements of Section 11(c) because:
1. Treasury has established rules of conduct for users of the Treasury's Working System. Users must agree to the following:
• To use information to perform job duties and to only access data necessary to perform said duties;
• To not use data for fraud;
• To not browse or access data without authorization;
• To make no changes to data delivered;
• To not use data for personal gain;
• To report conflicts of interest immediately;
• To terminate access when access is no longer required for job duties; and
• To not disclose information to unauthorized persons.
Terms and conditions which must be accepted each time a customer accesses the Treasury's Working System include a description of penalties for misuse of data. These include:
• Criminal and civil penalties.
• disciplinary actions and other consequences including the loss of system access.
2. Treasury has strong safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of information. Access to the Treasury's Working System is available only by authorized persons on a need-to-know basis. External access logs to Treasury's Working System are reviewed to ensure compliance with the Rules of Behavior agreed to by credentialed users. Internal access log control measures are reviewed to ensure compliance with security guidelines governing access to Privacy Act data. Audit logs allow system managers to monitor external and internal user actions and address any misuse or violation of access privileges. Access to computerized records is limited through the use of internal mechanisms available to only those whose official duties require access. Facilities where records are physically located are secured by various means, such as security guards, locked doors with key entry, and equipment requiring a physical token to gain access. The Bureau of the Fiscal Service may agree to additional safeguards for some data through a written agreement with the entity supplying the data.
Treasury's Working System recently completed its Security Assessment and Authorization (SA&A), which is reviewed at the Bureau of the Fiscal Service level. The SA&A adheres to the processes outlined in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800 series. More specifically, NIST SP 800-115; NIST SP 800-53, Rev. 3; NIST SP-800-53A, Rev. 1; NIST SP 800-37, Rev. 1; and NIST SP 800-30. Treasury's Working System also complies with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). For example, detailed SA&A information is currently safeguarded within the Treasury FISMA Information Management System; in the event of an audit, this documentation may be made available.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of renewal of charter of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel.
Pursuant to sections 14(b)(1) and 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and after consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, U.S. General Services Administration, the NASA Acting Administrator has determined that renewal of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on NASA by law. The renewed charter is for a two-year period ending on August 15, 2019.
Ms. Carol Hamilton, Designated Federal Officer, Office of International and Interagency Relations, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546; phone (202) 358-1857; email
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of renewal of charter of the International Space Station Advisory Committee.
Pursuant to sections 14(b)(1) and 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and after consultation
Mr. Patrick Finley, Designated Federal Officer, Office of International and Interagency Relations, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546; phone (202) 358-5684; email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Grant and Cooperative Agreement Provisions.”
Submit comments by October 13, 2017.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Aaron Szabo, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0107), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-3621; email:
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0223 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information 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 OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that 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.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Grant and Cooperative Agreement Provisions.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.”
Submit comments by October 13, 2017.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Aaron Szabo, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0199), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-3621, email:
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0264 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information 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 OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that 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.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for renewal of an existing information collection. The document details clauses and provisions that affect NRC contractors. The NRCAR implements and supplements the government-wide Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and ensures that the policies governing the procurement of goods and services within the NRC satisfy the needs of the agency. The information collection is entitled, “Nuclear Regulatory Commission Acquisition Regulation.”
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-2016-0265 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-2016-0265 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 estimate of the burden of the information collection 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.
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collections of information to determine (1) the practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if the RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of the publication date.
Under Section 12(o) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) is entitled to reimbursement of the sickness benefits paid to a railroad employee if the employee receives a sum or damages for the same infirmity for which the benefits are paid. Section 2(f) of the RUIA requires employers to reimburse the RRB for days in which salary, wages, pay for time lost or other remuneration is later determined to be payable. Reimbursements under section 2(f) generally result from the award of pay for time lost or the payment of guaranteed wages. The RUIA prescribes that the amount of benefits paid be deducted and held by the employer in a special fund for reimbursement to the RRB.
The RRB currently utilizes Forms SI-1c, Supplemental Information on Accident and Insurance; SI-5, Report of Payments to Employee Claiming Sickness Benefits Under the RUIA; ID-3s and ID-3s (Internet), Request for Lien Information—Report of Settlement; ID-3s-1, Lien Information Under Section 12(o) of the RUIA; ID-3u and ID-3u (Internet), Request for Section 2(f) Information; ID-30k, Notice to Request Supplemental Information on Injury or Illness; and ID-30k-1, Notice to Request Supplemental Information on Injury or Illness; to obtain the necessary information from claimants and railroad employers. Completion is required to obtain benefits. One response is requested of each respondent.
2.
The RRB requires the following information from railroad employers to calculate supplemental annuities: (a) The current status of railroad employer pension plans and whether such plans cause reductions to the supplemental annuity; (b) whether the employee receives monthly payments from a private railroad employer pension, elected to receive a lump sum in lieu of monthly pension payments from such a plan, or was required to receive a lump sum from such a plan due to the plan's small benefit provision; and (c) the amount of the payments attributable to the railroad employer's contributions. The requirement that railroad employers furnish pension information to the RRB is contained in 20 CFR 209.2.
The RRB currently utilizes Form G-88p and G-88p (Internet),
Under Section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act, dependency on an employee for one-half support at the time of the employee's death can affect (1) entitlement to a survivor annuity when the survivor is a parent of the deceased employee; (2) the amount of spouse and survivor annuities; and (3) the Tier II restored amount payable to a widow(er) whose annuity was reduced for receipt of an employee annuity, and who was dependent on the railroad employee in the year prior to the employee's death. One-half support may also negate the public service pension offset in Tier I for a spouse or widow(er). The Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) utilizes Form G-134, Statement Regarding Contributions and Support, to secure information needed to adequately determine if the applicant meets the one-half support requirement. One response is completed by each respondent. Completion is required to obtain benefits.
Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Brian Foster, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611-1275 or
On July 10, 2017, National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) advance notice SR-NSCC-2017-804 (“Advance Notice”) pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
The Advance Notice is a proposal by NSCC to further address specific wrong-way risk
Currently, in calculating a Watch List Member's overall margin charge (
Although the risk of default by Members that are not on the Watch List is lower than Members on the Watch List, NSCC believes that it is appropriate to apply the FIS Charge to all Members because all Members' long positions in family-issued securities present specific wrong-way risk. However, the proposal would still maintain the relation between the FIS Charge and the Member's risk of default (
Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard of review for an advance notice, its stated purpose is instructive: To mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.
• Promote robust risk management;
• promote safety and soundness;
• reduce systemic risks; and
• support the stability of the broader financial system.
The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act
The Commission believes the proposal in the Advance Notice is consistent with the objectives and principles described in Section 805(b) of the Act,
As discussed below, the Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act because they: (i) Are designed to reduce systemic risk; (ii) are designed to support the stability of the financial system; (iii) are designed to promote robust risk management; and (iv) are consistent with promoting safety and soundness.
The Commission believes that the proposal is designed to help promote robust risk management. As described above, the FIS Charge is calculated and collected to help mitigate NSCC's loss exposure to specific wrong-way risk that NSCC may face when liquidating family-issued security positions that are depreciating in value in response to a Member's default. By expanding the FIS Charge to family-issued security transactions presented to NSCC by all Members, the proposal would assist NSCC in collecting margin and maintaining a clearing fund amount that more accurately reflects NSCC's overall risk exposure to its Members. Therefore, the proposal is designed to help better promote robust risk management at NSCC by reducing NSCC's loss exposure to the specific wrong-way risk that NSCC faces from Member transactions in family-issued securities.
The Commission also believes that the proposal is designed to promote safety and soundness, as well as support the stability of the financial system, and reduce systemic risk. By providing for the collection by NSCC of margin amounts that contemplate and help address the specific wrong-way risk presented by all Members, the proposal would assist NSCC in helping to ensure that it maintains sufficient margin in the event that a Member holding family-issued securities defaults and such positions significantly decrease in value. Without this increased margin, NSCC is at a greater risk of not having enough margin to offset potential losses from the reduced value of family-issued securities in a default scenario. Such losses could threaten NSCC's ability to continue operations of its critical clearance and settlement services. Because the proposal would generally increase the level of financial resources available to NSCC, better enabling NSCC to continue operating in default scenarios, the proposal would help NSCC operate more safely and soundly and reduce the systemic risk associated with NSCC not providing critical clearance and settlement services in the event of a Member default. Therefore, the Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Exchange Act, which requires, in part, that NSCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of confidence.
As described above, NSCC is exposed to specific wrong-way risk where it acts as central counterparty for its Members for transactions in family-issued securities. The expanded application of the FIS Charge to all Members would help further mitigate NSCC's loss exposure to this risk. The charge is calculated and imposed based on the value and type of family-issued securities in each Member's portfolio and in consideration of the Members' credit rating, as calculated by NSCC's internal credit risk matrix. Although the FIS Charge may not fully reflect the recovery rate on a family-issue security when a Member defaults, the Commission understands that expanding the FIS Charge to non-Watch List Members, as proposed, would enable NSCC to collect more margin on such positions than would a VaR Charge, more accurately reflecting the risks those positions present. Thus, the
The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v) under the Exchange Act, which require, in part, that NSCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market; and uses an appropriate method for measuring credit exposure that accounts for relevant product risk factors and portfolio effects across products.
As described above, NSCC faces specific wrong-way risk where it acts as central counterparty to Member transactions in family-issued securities. To help address this risk, NSCC applies the FIS Charge in calculating the Member's required margin. Specifically, the FIS Charge is a component of the margin that NSCC calculates and collects using a risk-based margin methodology that is designed to help maintain the coverage of NSCC's credit exposures to its Members at a confidence level of at least 99 percent. The FIS Charge is tailored to consider both the value and type of family-issued securities held by the Member, as well as the credit risk presented by the Member, as calculated by NSCC.
However, currently, the FIS Charge is assessed only against Members on the Watch List because of the additional credit risk presented by such Members. Nevertheless, all Members, not just Members on the Watch List, present specific wrong-way risk. As such, NSCC proposes to expand the FIS Charge to all Members, while maintaining the relation between the FIS Charge and the Member's credit risk. Specifically, NSCC proposes to apply the FIS Charge to fixed-income securities that are family-issued securities of non-Watch List Members at a rate of no less than 40 percent, and to equities that are family-issued securities of non-Watch List Members at a rate of no less than 50 percent. Although NSCC proposes to apply a lesser percentage rate to non-Watch List Members than some Watch List Members, the proposed rate is designed to more accurately reflect the risks posed than what is reflected in a VaR Charge.
Because the expanded FIS Charge also would be a tailored component of the margin that NSCC collects from non-Watch List Members to help cover NSCC credit exposure to such Members, as the charge would be based on different product risk factors with respect to equity and fixed-income securities, as described above, the Commission believes that the proposed changes in the Advance Notice are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v) under the Exchange Act.
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 10b-17 requires any issuer of a class of securities publicly traded by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange to give notice of the following specific distributions relating to such class of securities: (1) A dividend or other distribution in cash or in kind other than interest payments on debt securities; (2) a stock split or reverse stock split; or (3) a rights or other subscription offering. Notice shall be either given to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. as successor to the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. or in accordance with the procedures of the national securities exchange upon which the securities are registered. The Commission may exempt an issuer of over-the-counter (but not listed) securities from the notice requirement. The requirements of 10b-17 do not apply to redeemable securities of registered open-end investment companies or unit investment trusts.
The information required by Rule 10b-17 is necessary for the execution of the Commission's mandate under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prevent fraudulent, manipulative, and deceptive acts and practices. The Commission has found that not requiring formal notices of the types of distributions covered by Rule 10b-17 has led to a number of abuses including purchasers not being aware of their rights to such distributions. It is only through formal notice of the distribution, including the date of the distribution, that current holders, potential buyers, or potential sellers of the securities at issue will know their rights to the distribution. Therefore, it is only through formal notice that investors can make an informed decision as to whether to buy or sell a security.
There are approximately 12,127 respondents per year. These respondents make approximately 27,144 responses per year. Each response takes approximately 10 minutes to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 4,524 burden hours. The total internal labor cost of compliance for the respondents, associated with producing and filing the reports, is approximately $317,991.96.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site:
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to make technical and conforming updates in connection with (a) the merger of NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. with and into the Exchange's affiliate NYSE Arca, Inc. and (b) the name change of NYSE National, Inc. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to make technical and conforming updates in connection with (a) the merger of NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”) with and into the Exchange's affiliate NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), and (b) the name change of NYSE National, Inc.
On June 2, 2017, the Exchange's affiliate, NYSE Arca, filed rule changes with the Commission in connection with the proposed merger of NYSE Arca's wholly-owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, with and into NYSE Arca (the “Merger”).
Prior to the Merger, NYSE Arca had two rulebooks: the NYSE Arca rules for its options market and the NYSE Arca Equities rules for its equities market. At the Merger, the NYSE Arca Equities rules were integrated into the NYSE Arca rules, so that there is now one NYSE Arca rulebook.
In January 2017, the Exchange's parent NYSE Group, Inc. acquired all the capital stock of National Stock Exchange, Inc., which was renamed “NYSE National, Inc.”
• In Exchange Rule 5.2(j) (Exchange Traded Products), the Exchange proposes to update the cross references to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1) by deleting the word “Equities” from the term “NYSE Arca Equities Rule” and appending an “-E” to the end of the rule number. The new cross reference would be to “NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(1).” Similarly, the Exchange proposes to update the cross references to subsections of NYSE Arca Options Rule 5.13 and to NYSE Arca Options Rule 5.3 by deleting the word “Options” form the term “NYSE Arca Options Rule” and appending an “-O” to the end of the rules number. The new cross references would be to “NYSE Arca Rule 5.13-O” and “NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-O,” respectively, followed by any relevant subsection of the rule.
• In Exchange Rules 8.4 (Account Approval), 8.5 (Suitability), 8.6 (Discretionary Accounts), 8.7 (Supervision of Accounts), 8.8 (Customer Complaints), the Exchange proposes to update the references to NYSE Arca Equities Rules 9.18 by deleting the word “Equities” from the term “NYSE Arca Equities Rules” and appending an “-E” to the end of the rule number. The new cross references would be to “NYSE Arca Rule 9.18-E,” followed by any relevant subsection of the rule.
• In Exchange Rule 8.9 (Prior Approval of Certain Communications to Customers) the Exchange proposes to update the cross references to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.28 by deleting the
• Finally, in Exchange Rule 19, Supplementary Material .01 (Locking or Crossing Protected Quotations in NMS Stocks), the Exchange proposes to replace “NYSE Arca Equities, Inc.” with “NYSE Arca, Inc.” and replace “National Stock Exchange, Inc.” with “NYSE National, Inc.”.
None of the foregoing changes are substantive.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Exchange Act,
The proposed rule change is a non-substantive change and does not impact the governance or ownership of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would enable the Exchange to continue to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and comply and enforce compliance with the provisions of the Exchange Act by its members and persons associated with its members, because ensuring that the rules accurately cross reference the rules of NYSE Arca and the name of NYSE National, Inc. would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange by adding clarity and transparency to its rules.
For similar reasons, the Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by ensuring that market participants can more easily navigate, understand and comply with its rules. The Exchange believes that, by ensuring that such rules accurately cross-reference the rules of NYSE Arca and the name of NYSE National, Inc., the proposed rule change would reduce potential investor or market participant confusion.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with updating the rules to reflect its affiliate's merger and integrated rulebook.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of 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 under section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (1) delete fees and credits that are not applicable to trading on the Pillar trading platform, and (2) prorate Port Fees to the number of trading days in a billing month that a port is utilized. The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on September 1, 2017. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (1) delete fees and credits that are not applicable to trading on the Pillar trading platform, and (2) prorate Port Fees to the number of trading days in a billing month that a port is utilized.
The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on September 1, 2017.
To effect its transition of cash equities trading to Pillar, the Exchange amended its Price List to adopt a new pricing model for trading on the Pillar platform.
On July 24, 2017, the Exchange transitioned all cash equities trading to the Pillar platform. Because transaction fees and credits that are not applicable to trading on the Pillar trading platform are now obsolete, the Exchange proposes to delete the following fees and credits in their entirety:
• Equity Transaction Fees and Credits for Listed Securities and the following subheadings:
○ Transactions in Securities with a Per Share Price of $1.00 or More;
○ Transactions in Securities with a Per Share Price Below $1.00;
○ Fees and Credits Applicable to Designated Market Makers on Transactions in Securities with a Per Share Price of $1.00 or more;
○ Fees and Credits Applicable to Designated Market Makers on Transactions in Securities with a Per Share Price below $1.00;
○ Credits Applicable to Supplemental Liquidity Providers; and
○ Fees and Credits Applicable to Executions in the Retail Liquidity Program.
• Transaction Fees and Credits For Non-ETP Securities Traded Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges and the following subheadings:
○ Fees and Credits applicable to Market Participants;
○ Fees and Credits applicable to Designated Market Makers (DMMs);
○ Fees and Credits applicable to Supplemental Liquidity Providers (SLPs); and
○ Fees and Credits Applicable to Executions in the Retail Liquidity Program.
• Transaction Fees and Credits For ETPs Traded Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges and the following subheadings:
○ Fees and Credits applicable to Market Participants;
○ Fees and Credits applicable to DMMs;
○ Fees and Credits applicable to SLPs;
○ Fees and Credits Applicable to Executions in the Retail Liquidity Program; and
○ Crossing Sessions
• Port Fees.
The Exchange proposes to delete the following additional fees as being inapplicable to trading on Pillar:
○ Risk Management Gateway (“RMG”);
○ Equipment fees;
○ Radio Paging Service;
○ Financial Vendor Services;
○ Cellular Phones;
○ Booth Telephone System;
○ Service Charges; and
○ System Processing Fees, comprising fees for the Online Comparison System (OCS) and Merged Order Report.
The RMG is no longer supported in Pillar and the various equipment fees relate to trading cash equities on a Floor-based trading platform, and are thus obsolete. Similarly, the Exchange no longer utilizes OCS or makes Merged Order Reports available.
The Exchange also proposes to delete footnotes 17-19 designated as “Reserved” in the “CRD Fees for Member Organizations that are not FINRA Members” section of the Price List. The Exchange believes it would reduce confusion and promote transparency to delete footnotes that do not have any substantive content.
The Exchange also proposes a technical, non-substantive amendment to replace the heading “Pillar Trading Platform” with “NYSE American Trading Fees and Credits.”
Until October 1, 2017, the Exchange is not charging market participants for the use of order/quote entry ports or for the
The Exchange proposes to amend the Price List to add a footnote to the heading of Section V (Port Fees) providing that port fees for order/quote entry and drop copies will be prorated to the number of trading days in a billing month.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change to eliminate fees and credits that are not applicable to trading on Pillar would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would eliminate fees and credits that are now obsolete. Eliminating obsolete fees and credits would reduce potential confusion and add transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules, thereby ensuring that members, regulators, and the public can more easily navigate and understand the Exchange's rulebook.
The Exchange also believes that prorating the fees for order/quote entry and drop copy ports is reasonable because it would provide a nexus between the Exchange's charge for use of its ports and the number of trading days in a billing month that the market participant utilizes the applicable port. The Exchange believes that the proposed prorating of monthly port fees rebate is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it directly ties the monthly port fees to the number of trading days in that billing month. The Exchange also believes that the proposed prorating is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all market participants utilizing ports to connect to the Exchange would be treated the same.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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.
On July 10, 2017, National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2017-010 (“Proposed Rule Change”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Proposed Rule Change is a proposal by NSCC to further address specific wrong-way risk
Currently, in calculating a Watch List Member's overall margin charge (
Although the risk of default by Members that are not on the Watch List is lower than Members on the Watch
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible.
The Commission believes that the proposal is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. As described above, the proposal would provide for the collection by NSCC of margin amounts that contemplate and help address the specific wrong-way risk presented by all Members. In doing so, the proposal would help ensure that NSCC maintains sufficient margin in the event that a Member holding family-issued securities defaults and such positions significantly decrease in value. Without this increased margin, NSCC is at a greater risk of not having enough margin to offset potential losses from the reduced value of family-issued securities in a default scenario. Such losses could threaten NSCC's ability to continue operations of its critical clearance and settlement services. Because the proposal would generally increase the level of financial resources available to NSCC, better enabling NSCC to continue operating in default scenarios, the proposal would help NSCC to continue providing prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions in the event of a Member default.
The Commission believes also that the proposal is designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of NSCC or for which it is responsible. As described above, the FIS Charge is calculated and collected to help mitigate NSCC's loss exposure to specific wrong-way risk that NSCC may face when liquidating family-issued security positions that are depreciating in value in response to a Member's default. By expanding the FIS Charge to family-issued security transactions presented to NSCC by all Members, the proposal would assist NSCC in collecting margin and maintaining a clearing fund amount that more accurately reflects NSCC's overall risk exposure to its Members. Therefore, the proposal is designed to help assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of NSCC by mitigating the risk that NSCC would suffer a loss from a Member default, and reducing Members' exposure to clearing fund losses from the specific wrong-way risk that NSCC faces from Member transactions in family-issued securities. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Commission believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
The Commission believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act, which requires, in part, that NSCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of confidence.
As described above, NSCC is exposed to specific wrong-way risk where it acts as central counterparty for its Members for transactions in family-issued securities. The expanded application of the FIS Charge to all Members would help further mitigate NSCC's loss exposure to this risk. The charge is calculated and imposed based on the value and type of family-issued securities in each Member's portfolio and in consideration of the Members' credit rating, as calculated by NSCC's internal credit risk matrix. Although the FIS Charge may not fully reflect the recovery rate on a family-issue security when a Member defaults, the Commission understands that expanding the FIS Charge to non-Watch List Members, as proposed, would enable NSCC to collect more margin on such positions than would a VaR Charge, more accurately reflecting the risks those positions present. Thus, the expanded FIS Charge is designed to help NSCC collect sufficient financial resources to help cover the specific risk exposure, with a high degree of confidence, which is presented by all Members seeking to clear and settle transactions in family-issued securities. Therefore, the Commission believes that the proposal to expand the FIS Charge to all Members is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act.
The Commission believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (e)(6)(v) under the Act, which require, in part, that NSCC establish, implement,
As described above, NSCC faces specific wrong-way risk where it acts as central counterparty to Member transactions in family-issued securities. To help address this risk, NSCC applies the FIS Charge in calculating the Member's required margin. Specifically, the FIS Charge is a component of the margin that NSCC calculates and collects using a risk-based margin methodology that is designed to help maintain the coverage of NSCC's credit exposures to its Members at a confidence level of at least 99 percent. The FIS Charge is tailored to consider both the value and type of family-issued securities held by the Member, as well as the credit risk presented by the Member, as calculated by NSCC.
However, currently, the FIS Charge is assessed only against Members on the Watch List because of the additional credit risk presented by such Members. Nevertheless, all Members, not just Members on the Watch List, present specific wrong-way risk. As such, NSCC proposes to expand the FIS Charge to all Members, while maintaining the relation between the FIS Charge and the Member's credit risk. Specifically, NSCC proposes to apply the FIS Charge to fixed-income securities that are family-issued securities of non-Watch List Members at a rate of no less than 40 percent, and to equities that are family-issued securities of non-Watch List Members at a rate of no less than 50 percent. Although NSCC proposes to apply a lesser percentage rate to non-Watch List Members than some Watch List Members, the proposed rate is designed to more accurately reflect the risks posed than what is reflected in a VaR Charge.
Because the expanded FIS Charge also would be a tailored component of the margin that NSCC collects from non-Watch List Members to help cover NSCC credit exposure to such Members, as the charge would be based on different product risk factors with respect to equity and fixed-income securities, as described above, the Commission believes that the proposed changes in the Proposed Rule Change are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (e)(6)(v) under the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule (17 CFR 270.38a-1) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) (“Investment Company Act”) is intended to protect investors by fostering better fund compliance with securities laws. The rule requires every registered investment company and business development company (“fund”) to: (i) Adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the federal securities laws by the fund, including procedures for oversight of compliance by each investment adviser, principal underwriter, administrator, and transfer agent of the fund; (ii) obtain the fund board of directors' approval of those policies and procedures; (iii) annually review the adequacy of those policies and procedures and the policies and procedures of each investment adviser, principal underwriter, administrator, and transfer agent of the fund, and the effectiveness of their implementation; (iv) designate a chief compliance officer to administer the fund's policies and procedures and prepare an annual report to the board that addresses certain specified items relating to the policies and procedures; and (v) maintain for five years the compliance policies and procedures and the chief compliance officer's annual report to the board.
The rule contains certain information collection requirements that are designed to ensure that funds establish and maintain comprehensive, written internal compliance programs. The information collections also assist the Commission's examination staff in assessing the adequacy of funds' compliance programs.
While Rule 38a-1 requires each fund to maintain written policies and procedures, most funds are located within a fund complex. The experience of the Commission's examination and oversight staff suggests that each fund in a complex is able to draw extensively from the fund complex's “master” compliance program to assemble appropriate compliance policies and procedures. Many fund complexes already have written policies and procedures documenting their compliance programs. Further, a fund needing to develop or revise policies and procedures on one or more topics in order to achieve a comprehensive compliance program can draw on a number of outlines and model programs available from a variety of industry representatives, commentators, and organizations.
There are approximately 4,133 funds subject to Rule 38a-1. Among these funds, 97 were newly registered in the past year. These 97 funds, therefore, were required to adopt and document the policies and procedures that make up their compliance programs. Commission staff estimates that the average annual hour burden for a fund to adopt and document these policies and procedures is 105 hours. Thus, we estimate that the aggregate annual
All funds are required to conduct an annual review of the adequacy of their existing policies and procedures and the policies and procedures of each investment adviser, principal underwriter, administrator, and transfer agent of the fund, and the effectiveness of their implementation. In addition, each fund chief compliance officer is required to prepare an annual report that addresses the operation of the policies and procedures of the fund and the policies and procedures of each investment adviser, principal underwriter, administrator, and transfer agent of the fund, any material changes made to those policies and procedures since the date of the last report, any material changes to the policies and procedures recommended as a result of the annual review, and certain compliance matters that occurred since the date of the last report. The staff estimates that each fund spends 49 hours per year, on average, conducting the annual review and preparing the annual report to the board of directors. Thus, we estimate that the annual aggregate burden hours associated with the annual review and annual report requirement is 202,517 hours.
Finally, the staff estimates that each fund spends 6 hours annually, on average, maintaining the records required by proposed Rule 38a-1. Thus, the annual aggregate burden hours associated with the recordkeeping requirement is 24,798 hours.
In total, the staff estimates that the aggregate annual information collection burden of Rule 38a-1 is 237,500 hours. The estimate of burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. Complying with this collection of information requirement is mandatory. Responses will not be kept confidential. 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 control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule effective September 1, 2017. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify the surcharge that is applied to certain Complex Orders executed on the Exchange.
Currently, the Exchange imposes a $0.05 per contract surcharge for any Electronic Non-Customer Complex Order that executes against a Customer Complex Order, regardless of whether the execution occurs in a Complex Order Auction (the “Surcharge”).
Additionally, to encourage ATP Holders to transact additional Non-Customer Complex Orders on the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to offer a reduced Surcharge for those ATP Holders that meet a certain volume threshold. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to reduce the per contract surcharge to $0.07 for any ATP Holder that transacts at least 0.20% of Total Industry Customer equity and ETF option average daily volume (or TCADV) of Electronic Non-Customer Complex Order Executions in a month.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to add “TCADV” as a defined term in the Key
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed increase to the Surcharge is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory, as it applies to all similarly situated Non-Customer Complex Orders. Applying the Surcharge, as modified, to market participant orders except Customer orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically, Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. An increase in the activity of Specialists and Market Makers in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
In addition, the proposed surcharge is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory as it is consistent with fees charged by other options exchanges.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal to offer a reduced surcharge to those ATP Holders that achieve certain volume thresholds is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes the proposed reduced rate is reasonably designed to encourage ATP Holders that transact Non-Customer Complex Orders to direct more of this order flow to the Exchange to qualify for the reduced rates. The proposed rates are reasonable and equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they apply equally to all ATP Holders that transact Non-Customer Complex Orders. In addition, the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because, while only Non-Customer Complex Orders qualify for the reduced surcharge, the Exchange believes any increase in Non-Customer Complex Orders would result in greater volume and liquidity being attracted to the Exchange, which benefit all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
The proposal to define “TCADV” in the Fee Schedule, as well as to fix the typographical errors in Section I.A.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS (FEMA-4335-DR), dated 09/07/2017.
Issued on 09/07/2017.
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 President's major disaster declaration on 09/07/2017, applications for 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 physical damage is 152938 and for economic injury is 152940.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collection below is pending at SSA. SSA will submit it to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than November 13, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than October 13, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
1.
2.
3.
The Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, Department of State, gives notice of a public meeting to discuss possible topics for future work related to arbitration or conciliation in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The public meeting will take place on Tuesday, October 17, 2017 from 10:00 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. EDT. This is not a meeting of the full Advisory Committee.
UNCITRAL's Working Group II (Dispute Settlement) is currently working on the development of a convention and model legislative provisions on conciliated settlements that resolve international, commercial disputes. Once this negotiation is completed, however, it is unclear whether UNCITRAL should pursue additional work in the area of dispute settlement, and if so, what the new project should be. One topic that has been proposed by the International Academy of Construction Lawyers relates to the use of adjudication procedures in construction disputes. The purpose of the public meeting is to obtain the views of concerned stakeholders on (1) whether the Working Group should address construction contract adjudication, and (2) what, if any, other possible topics related to arbitration, conciliation, or other forms of dispute settlement merit attention by the Working Group.
Department of State.
Notice.
This public notice provides information on how to apply for the DV-2019 Program.
The Department of State administers the Congressionally-mandated Diversity Immigrant Visa Program annually. Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides for a class of immigrants known as “diversity immigrants,” from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States. For fiscal year 2018, 50,000 diversity visas (DVs) will be available. There is no cost to register for the DV Program.
Applicants who are selected in the lottery (“selectees”) must meet simple, but strict, eligibility requirements to qualify for a diversity visa. The Department of State determines selectees through a randomized computer drawing. Diversity visa numbers are distributed among six geographic regions, and no single country may receive more than seven percent of the available DVs in any one year.
For DV-2019, natives of the following countries are not eligible to apply, because more than 50,000 natives of these countries immigrated to the United States in the previous five years:
Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.
Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR, and Taiwan are eligible.
There are no changes in eligibility this year.
If you were not born in an eligible country, there are two other ways you might be able to qualify.
• Was your spouse born in a country whose natives are eligible? If yes, you can claim your spouse's country of birth—provided that both you and your spouse are named on the selected entry, are found eligible for and issued diversity visas, and enter the United States simultaneously.
• Were you born in a country whose natives are ineligible, but in which neither of your parents were born or legally resident at the time of your birth? If yes, you may claim the country of birth of one of your parents if it is a country whose natives are eligible for the DV-2019 program. For more details on what this means, see the Frequently Asked Questions.
• At least a high school education or its equivalent, defined as successful completion of a 12-year course of formal elementary and secondary education;
OR
• two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience to perform. The Department of State will use the U.S. Department of Labor's O*Net Online database to determine qualifying work experience. For more information about qualifying work experience for the principal DV applicant, see the Frequently Asked Questions.
Do not submit an entry to the DV program unless you meet both of these requirements.
Applicants must submit entries for the DV-2019 DV program electronically at
Submit your Electronic Diversity Visa Entry Form (E-DV Entry Form or DS-5501), online at
We strongly encourage you to complete the entry form yourself, without a “visa consultant,” “visa agent,” or other facilitator who offers to help. If someone else helps you, you should be present when your entry is prepared so that you can provide the correct answers to the questions and retain the confirmation page and your unique confirmation number.
After you submit a complete entry, you will see a confirmation screen that contains your name and a unique confirmation number. Print this confirmation screen for your records. It is extremely important that you retain your confirmation page and unique confirmation number. Without this information, you will not be able to access the online system that will inform you of the status of your entry. You also should retain access to the email account listed in the E-DV. See the Frequently Asked Questions for more information about Diversity Visa scams.
Starting May 1, 2018, you will be able to check the status of your entry by returning to
You must provide the following information to complete your E-DV entry:
1. Name—last/family name, first name, middle name—exactly as on your passport.
2. Gender—male or female.
3. Birth date—day, month, year.
4. City where you were born.
5. Country where you were born—Use the name of the country currently used for the place where you were born.
6. Country of eligibility for the DV Program—Your country of eligibility will normally be the same as your country of birth. Your country of eligibility is not related to where you live.
If you were born in a country that is not eligible, please review the Frequently Asked Questions to see if there is another way you may be eligible.
7. Entrant photograph(s)—Recent photographs (taken within 6 months) of yourself, your spouse, and all your children listed on your entry. See Submitting a Digital Photograph for compositional and technical specifications. You do not need to include a photograph for a spouse or child who is already a U.S. citizen or a Lawful Permanent Resident, but you will not be penalized if you do. We cannot accept group photographs; you must submit a photograph for each individual. Your entry may be disqualified or your visa refused if the photographs are more than six months old, have been manipulated in any way, or do not meet the specifications explained below. Submitting the same photograph that you submitted with a prior year's entry) will result in disqualification. See Submitting a Digital Photograph for more information.
8. Mailing Address—In Care Of
9. Country where you live today.
10. Phone number (optional).
11. Email address—An email address to which you have direct access, and will continue to have direct access after we notify selectees in May of next year. If your entry is selected and you respond to the notification of your selection through the
12. Highest level of education you have achieved, as of today: (1) Primary school only, (2) Some high school, no diploma, (3) High school diploma, (4) Vocational school, (5) Some university courses, (6) University degree, (7) Some graduate-level courses, (8) Master's degree, (9) Some doctoral-level courses, and (10) Doctorate. See the Frequently Asked Questions for more information about educational requirements.
13. Current marital status—(1) Unmarried, (2) married and my spouse is NOT a U.S. citizen or U.S. LPR, (3) married and my spouse IS a U.S. citizen or U.S. LPR, (4) divorced, (5) widowed, or (6) legally separated. Enter the name, date of birth, gender, city/town of birth, country of birth of your spouse, and a photograph of your spouse meeting the same technical specifications as your photo.
Failure to list your eligible spouse will result in disqualification of the principal applicant and refusal of all visas in the case at the time of the visa interview. You must list your spouse even if you currently are separated from him/her, unless you are legally separated. Legal separation is an arrangement when a couple remain married but live apart, following a court order. If you and your spouse are legally separated, your spouse will not be able to immigrate with you through the Diversity Visa program. You will not be penalized if you choose to enter the name of a spouse from whom you are legally separated. If you are not legally separated by a court order, you must include your spouse even if you plan to be divorced before you apply for the Diversity Visa. Failure to list your eligible spouse is grounds for disqualification.
If your spouse is a U.S. citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident, do not list him/her in your entry. A spouse who is already a U.S. citizen or a Lawful Permanent Resident will not require or be issued a DV visa. Therefore, if you select “married and my spouse IS a U.S. citizen or U.S. LPR” on your entry, you will not be prompted to include further information on your spouse. See the Frequently Asked Questions for more information about family members.
14. Number of children—List the name, date of birth, gender, city/town of birth, and country of birth for all living unmarried children under 21 years of age, regardless . Submit individual photographs of each of your children using the same technical specifications as your own photograph.
Be sure to include:
• All living natural children;
• all living children legally adopted by you; and,
• all living step-children who are unmarried and under the age of 21 on the date of your electronic entry, even if you are no longer legally married to the child's parent, and even if the child does not currently reside with you and/or will not immigrate with you.
Married children and children over the age of 21 are not eligible for the DV. However, the Child Status Protection Act protects children from “aging out” in certain circumstances. If you submit your DV entry before your unmarried child turns 21, and the child turns 21 before visa issuance, it is possible that he or she may be treated as though he or she were under 21 for visa-processing purposes.
A child who is already a U.S. citizen or a Lawful Permanent Resident will not require or be issued a diversity visa, and you will not be penalized for either including or omitting such family members from your entry.
Failure to list all children who are eligible will result in disqualification of the principal applicant and refusal of all visas in the case at the time of the visa interview. See the Frequently Asked Questions for more information about family members.
See the Frequently Asked Questions for more information about completing your Electronic Entry for the DV-2019 Program.
Based on the allocations of available visas in each region and country, the Department of State will randomly select individuals by computer from among qualified entries. All DV-2019 entrants must go to the
If your entry is selected, you will be directed to a confirmation page that will provide further instructions, including information on fees connected with immigration to the United States.
In order to immigrate, DV selectees must be admissible to the United States. The DS-260, Online Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application, electronically, and the consular officer, in person will ask you questions about your eligibility to immigrate, and these questions include criminal and security related grounds.
All eligible selectees, including family members, must be issued by September 30, 2019. Under no circumstances can the Department of State issue DVs or approve adjustments after this date, nor can family members obtain DVs to follow-to-join the principal applicant in the United States after this date. See the Frequently Asked Questions for more information about the selection process.
You can take a new digital photograph or scan a recent photographic print, taken within the last 6 months, with a digital scanner, as long as it meets the compositional and technical specifications listed below. Test your photos through the photo validation link on the E-DV Web site, which provides additional technical advice on photo composition and examples of acceptable and unacceptable photos. Do not submit an old photograph. Submitting the same photograph that was submitted with a prior year's entry, a photograph that has been manipulated, or a photograph that does not meet the specifications below will result in disqualification.
Photographs must be in 24-bit color depth. If you are using a scanner, the settings must be for True Color or 24-bit color mode. See the additional scanning requirements below.
•
•
•
•
•
• Taking a New Digital Image. If you submit a new digital image, it must meet the following specifications:
○
○
○
○
• Scanning a Submitted Photograph. Before you scan a photographic print, make sure it meets the color and compositional specifications listed above. Scan the print using the following scanner specifications:
○
○
○
○
“Native” ordinarily means someone born in a particular country, regardless of the individual's current country of residence or nationality. “Native” can also mean someone who is entitled to be “charged” to a country other than the one in which he/she was born under the provisions of Section 202(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Because there is a numerical limitation on immigrants who enter from a country or geographic region, each individual is “charged” to a country. Your chargeability” refers to the country towards which limitation you count. Your country of eligibility will normally be the same as your country of birth. However, you may choose your country of eligibility as the country of birth of your spouse, or the country of birth of either of your parents if you were born in a country in which neither parent was born and in which the parents were not resident at the time of your birth. These are the only three ways to select your country of chargeability.
If you claim alternate chargeability through either of the above, you must provide an explanation on the E-DV Entry Form, in question #6. Listing an incorrect country of eligibility or chargeability (
There are two circumstances in which you still might be eligible to apply. First, if your derivative spouse was born in an eligible country, you may claim chargeability to that country. As your eligibility is based on your spouse, you will only be issued a DV-1 immigrant visa if your spouse is also eligible for and issued a DV-2 visa. Both of you must enter the United States together using your DVs. Similarly, your minor dependent child can be “charged” to a parent's country of birth.
Second, you can be “charged” to the country of birth of either of your parents as long as neither of your parents was born in or a resident of your country of birth at the time of your birth. People are not generally considered residents of a country in which they were not born or legally naturalized, if they were only visiting, studying in the country temporarily, or stationed temporarily for business or professional reasons on behalf of a company or government from a different country other than the one in which you were born.
If you claim alternate chargeability through either of the above, you must provide an explanation on the E-DV Entry Form, in question #6. Listing an incorrect country of eligibility or chargeability (
DVs are intended to provide an immigration opportunity for persons who are not from “high admission” countries. The law defines “high admission countries” as those from which a total of 50,000 persons in the Family-Sponsored and Employment-Based visa categories immigrated to the United States during the previous five years. Each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) counts the family and employment immigrant admission and adjustment of status numbers for the previous five years to identify the countries that are considered “high admission” and whose natives will therefore be ineligible for the annual diversity visa program. Because USCIS makes this calculation annually, the list of countries whose natives are eligible or not eligible may change from one year to the next.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determines the regional DV limits for each year according to a formula specified in Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The number of visas the Department of State eventually will issue to natives of each country will depend on the regional limits established, how many entrants come from each country, and how many of the selected entrants are found eligible for the visa. No more than seven percent of the total visas available can go to natives of any one country.
U.S. immigration law and regulations require that every DV entrant must have at least a high school education or its equivalent or have two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience. A “high school education or equivalent” is defined as successful completion of a 12-year course of elementary and secondary education in the United States OR the successful completion in another country of a formal course of elementary and secondary education comparable to a high school education in the United States. Only formal courses of study meet this requirement; correspondence programs or equivalency certificates (such as the General Equivalency Diploma G.E.D.) are not acceptable. You must present documentary proof of education or work experience to the consular officer at the time of the visa interview.
If you do not meet the requirements for education or work experience, your entry will be disqualified at the time of your visa interview, and no visas will be issued to you or any of your family members.
The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) O*Net OnLine database will be used to determine qualifying work experience. The O*Net Online Database groups job experience into five “job zones.” While the DOL Web site lists many occupations, not all occupations qualify for the DV Program. To qualify for a DV
If you do not meet the requirements for education or work experience, your entry will be disqualified at the time of your visa interview, and no visas will be issued to you or any of your family members.
When you are in O*Net OnLine, follow these steps to find out if your occupation qualifies:
1. Under “Find Occupations” select “Job Family” from the pull down;
2. Browse by “Job Family,” make your selection, and click “GO;”
3. Click on the link for your specific occupation.
4. Select the tab “Job Zone” to find the designated Job Zone number and Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating range.
As an example, select Aerospace Engineers. At the bottom of the Summary Report for Aerospace Engineers, under the Job Zone section, you will find the designated Job Zone 4, SVP Range, 7.0 to < 8.0. Using this example, Aerospace Engineering is a qualifying occupation.
For additional information, see the Diversity Visa—List of Occupations Web page
There is no minimum age to apply, but the requirement of a high school education or work experience for each principal applicant at the time of application will effectively disqualify most persons who are under age 18.
The DV-2019 entry period will run from 12:00 p.m. (noon), Eastern Daylight Time (EST) (GMT-4), Tuesday, October 3, 2017, until 12:00 p.m. (noon), Eastern Standard Time (EDT) (GMT-5), Tuesday, November 7, 2017. Each year, millions of people submit entries. Holding the entry period on these dates ensures selectees receive notification in a timely manner and gives both the visa applicants and our embassies and consulates time to prepare and complete cases for visa issuance.
We strongly encourage you to enter early during the registration period. Excessive demand at the end of the registration period may slow the system down. We cannot accept entries after noon EST Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
Yes, an entrant may apply while in the United States or another country. An entrant may submit an entry from any location.
Yes, the law allows only one entry by or for each person during each registration period. The Department of State uses sophisticated technology to detect multiple entries.
Yes, a husband and a wife may each submit one entry if each meets the eligibility requirements. If either spouse is selected, the other is entitled to apply as a derivative dependent.
The only exception to this requirement is if your spouse is already a U.S. citizen or U.S. Lawful Permanent Resident. A spouse who is already a U.S. citizen or a Lawful Permanent Resident will not require or be issued a DV. Therefore, if you select “married and my spouse IS a U.S. citizen or U.S. LPR” on your entry, you will not be able to include further information on your spouse.
Parents and siblings of the entrant are ineligible to receive DV visas as dependents, and you should not include them in your entry.
If you list family members on your entry, they are not required to apply for a visa or to immigrate or travel with you. However, if you fail to include an eligible dependent on your original entry, your case will be disqualified at the time of your visa interview and no visas will be issued to you or any of your family members. This only applies to those who were family members at the time the original application was submitted, not those acquired at a later date. Your spouse, if eligible to enter, may still submit a separate entry even though he or she is listed on your entry, as long as both entries include details on all dependents in your family (see FAQ #12 above).
We encourage you to prepare and submit your own entry, but you may have someone submit the entry for you. Regardless of whether you submit your own entry, or an attorney, friend, relative, or someone else submits it on your behalf, only one entry may be submitted in your name. You, as the entrant, are responsible for ensuring that information in the entry is correct and complete; entries that are not correct or complete may be disqualified. Entrants should keep their own confirmation number so that they are able to independently check the status of their entry using Entrant Status Check at
Yes. Your DV registration will not make you ineligible for another immigrant visa classification.
You can enter online during the registration period beginning at 12:00 p.m. (noon) Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4) on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, and ending at 12:00 p.m. (noon) Eastern Standard Time (EST) (GMT-5) on Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
No, you will not be able to save the form into another program for completion and submission later. The E-DV Entry Form is a Web form only. You must fill in the information and submit it while online.
No. The E-DV Entry Form is designed to be completed and submitted at one time. You will have 60 minutes starting from when you download the form to complete and submit your entry through the E-DV Web site. If you exceed the 60-minute limit and have not submitted your complete entry electronically, the system discards any information already entered. The system deletes any partial entries so that they are not accidentally identified as duplicates of a later, complete entry. Read the DV instructions completely before you start to complete the form online, so that you know exactly what information you will need.
Yes, as long as the photograph meets the requirements in the instructions and is electronically submitted with, and at the same time as, the E-DV online entry. You must already have the scanned photograph file when you submit the entry online; it cannot be submitted separately from the online application. The entire entry (photograph and application together) can be submitted electronically from the United States or from overseas.
Yes, as long as you complete your submission by 12:00 p.m. (noon) Eastern Standard Time (EST) (GMT-5) on Tuesday, November 7, 2017. If your photo(s) did not meet the specifications, the E-DV Web site will not accept your entry, so you will not receive a confirmation notice. However, given the unpredictable nature of the Internet, you may not receive the rejection notice immediately. If you can correct the photo(s) and re-send the Form Part One or Two within 60 minutes, you may be able to successfully submit the entry. Otherwise, you will have to restart the entire entry process. You can try to submit an application as many times as is necessary until a complete application is submitted and you receive the confirmation notice. Once you receive a confirmation notice, your entry is complete and you should NOT submit any additional entries.
You should receive the confirmation notice immediately, including a confirmation number that you must record and keep. However, the unpredictable nature of the Internet can result in delays. You can hit the “Submit” button as many times as is necessary until a complete application is submitted and you receive the confirmation notice. However, once you receive a confirmation notice, do not resubmit your information.
If you did not receive a confirmation number, your entry was not recorded. You must submit another entry. It will not be counted as a duplicate. Once you receive a confirmation number, do not resubmit your information.
You must use your confirmation number to access the Entrant Status Check available on the E-DV Web site at
You may check the status of your DV-2019 entry through the Entrant Status Check on the E-DV Web site at
You must have your confirmation number to access Entrant Status Check. A tool is now available in Entrant Status Check (ESC) on the eDV Web site that will allow you to retrieve your confirmation number via the email address with which you registered by entering certain personal information to confirm your identity.
U.S. embassies and consulates and the Kentucky Consular Center are unable to check your selection status for you or provide your confirmation number to you directly (other than through the ESC retrieval tool). The Department of State is NOT able to provide a list of those selected to continue the visa process.
The Department of State will not send you a notification letter. The U.S. government has never sent emails to notify individuals that they have been selected, and there are no plans to use email for this purpose for the DV-2019 program. If you are a selectee, you will only receive email communications regarding your visa appointment
Only Internet sites that end with the “.gov” domain suffix are official U.S. government Web sites. Many other Web sites (
You may receive emails from websites that try to trick you into sending money or providing your personal information. You may be asked to pay for forms and information about immigration procedures, all which are available for free on the Department of State Web site or through U.S. embassy or consulate Web sites. Additionally, organizations or Web sites may try to steal your money by charging fees for DV-related services. If you send money to one of these organizations, you will likely never see it again. Also, do not send personal information to these Web sites, as it may be used for identity fraud/theft.
These deceptive emails may come from people pretending to be affiliated with the Kentucky Consular Center or the Department of State. Remember, the U.S. government has never sent emails to notify individuals that they have been selected, and will not use email to notify selectees for the DV-2019 program. The Department of State will never ask you to send money by mail or by services such as Western Union.
For DV-2019, 50,000 DV visas are available. Because it is likely that some of the first 50,000 persons who are selected will not qualify for visas or not pursue their cases to visa issuance, more than 50,000 entries will be selected to ensure that all of the available DV visas are issued. However, this also means that there will not be a sufficient number of visas for all those who are initially selected. To maximize use of all available visas, the Department of State may update Entrant Status Check to include additional selectees at any time before the program ends on September 30, 2019.
You can check the E-DV Web site's Entrant Status Check to see if you have been selected for further processing and your place on the list. Interviews for the DV-2019 program will begin in October 2018 for selectees who have submitted all pre-interview paperwork and other information as requested in the notification instructions. Selectees who provide all required information will be informed of their visa interview appointment through the E-DV Web site's Entrant Status Check four to six weeks before the scheduled interviews with U.S. consular officers at overseas posts.
Each month, visas will be issued to those applicants who are eligible for issuance during that month, visa-number availability permitting. Once all of the 50,000 DV visas have been issued, the program will end. Visa numbers could be finished before September 2019. Selected applicants who wish to apply for visas must be prepared to act promptly on their cases.
Official notifications of selection will be made through Entrant Status Check, available starting May 1, 2018, through at least September 30, 2019, on the E-DV Web site
All entries received from each region are individually numbered, and at the end of the entry period, a computer will randomly select entries from among all the entries received for each geographic region. Within each region, the first entry randomly selected will be the first case registered; the second entry selected will be the second case registered, etc. All entries received within each region during the entry period will have an equal chance of being selected. When an entry has been selected, the entrant will receive notification of his or her selection through the Entrant Status Check available starting May 1, 2018, on the E-DV Web site
Yes, provided you are otherwise eligible to adjust status under the terms of Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), you may apply to USCIS for adjustment of status to permanent resident. You must ensure that USCIS can complete action on your case, including processing of any overseas spouse or children under 21 years of age, before September 30, 2019, since on that date your eligibility for the DV-2019 program expires. The Department of State will not approve any visa numbers or adjustments of status for the DV-2019 program after midnight EDT on September 30, 2019, under any circumstances.
If you are selected in the DV-2019 program, you are entitled to apply for visa issuance only during U.S. government fiscal year 2019, which is from October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019. We encourage selectees to apply for visas as early as possible, once their lottery rank numbers become eligible for further processing.
If a DV selectee dies at any point before he or she has traveled to the United States or adjusted status, the DV case is automatically terminated. Any derivative spouse and/or children of the deceased selectee will no longer be entitled to a DV visa. Any visas that were issued to them will be revoked.
If you are a randomly selected entrant, you will receive instructions for the DV visa application process through Entrant Status Check at
If you are selected and you are already present in the United States and plan to file for adjustment of status with USCIS, the instructions page accessible through Entrant Status Check at
No. Visa application fees cannot be refunded. You must meet all qualifications for the visa as detailed in these instructions. If a consular officer determines you do not meet requirements for the visa, or you are otherwise ineligible for the DV under U.S. law, the officer cannot issue a visa and you will forfeit all fees paid.
DV applicants are subject to all grounds of ineligibility for immigrant visas specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). There are no special provisions for the waiver of any ground of visa ineligibility aside from those ordinarily provided in the INA, nor is there special processing for waiver requests. Some general waiver provisions for people with close relatives who are U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Resident aliens may be available to DV applicants in some cases, but the time constraints in the DV program may make it difficult for applicants to benefit from such provisions.
Please visit the
By law, a maximum of 55,000 visas are available each year to eligible persons. However, in November 1997, the U.S. Congress passed the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), which stipulates that beginning as early as DV-1999, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated DVs will be made available for use under the NACARA program. The actual reduction of the limit began with DV-2000 and will remain in effect through the DV-2019 program, so 50,000 visas remain for the DV program described in these instructions.
No. The U.S. government will not provide any of these services to you if you receive a visa through the DV program. If you are selected to apply for a DV, you will need to demonstrate that you will not become a public charge in the United States before being issued a visa. This evidence may be in the form of a combination of your personal assets, an Affidavit of Support (Form I-134) submitted by a relative or friend residing in the United States, an offer of employment from an employer in the United States, or other evidence.
The list below shows the countries whose natives are eligible for DV-2019, grouped by geographic region. Dependent areas overseas are included within the region of the governing country. USCIS identified the countries whose natives are not eligible for the DV-2019 program according to the formula in Section 203(c) of the INA. The countries whose natives are not eligible for the DV program (because they are the principal source countries of Family-Sponsored and Employment-Based immigration or “high-admission” countries) are noted after the respective regional lists.
* Persons born in the areas administered prior to June 1967 by Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt are chargeable, respectively, to Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. Persons born in the Gaza Strip are chargeable to Egypt; persons born in the West Bank are chargeable to Jordan; persons born in the Golan Heights are chargeable to Syria.
In Africa, natives of Nigeria are not eligible for this year's diversity program.
* Persons born in the areas administered prior to June 1967 by Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt are chargeable, respectively, to Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. Persons born in the Gaza Strip are chargeable to Egypt; persons born in the West Bank are chargeable to Jordan; persons born in the Golan Heights are chargeable to Syria.
** For the purposes of the diversity program only, persons born in Macau S.A.R. derive eligibility from Portugal.
Natives of the following Asia Region countries are not eligible for this year's diversity program:
Bangladesh, China (mainland-born), India, Pakistan, South Korea, Philippines, and Vietnam. Hong Kong S.A.R. (Asia region), Macau S.A.R. (Europe region, chargeable to Portugal), and Taiwan (Asia region) do qualify and are listed here.
** Macau S.A.R. does qualify and is listed above. For the purposes of the diversity program only, persons born in Macau S.A.R. derive eligibility from Portugal.
Natives of the following European countries are not eligible for this year's DV program: Great Britain (United Kingdom). Great Britain (United Kingdom) includes the following dependent areas: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, St. Helena, and Turks and Caicos Islands. Note that for purposes of the diversity program only, Northern Ireland is treated separately; Northern Ireland does qualify and is listed among the qualifying areas.
In North America, natives of Canada and Mexico are not eligible for this year's diversity program.
Countries in this region whose natives are not eligible for this year's diversity
The United States Department of State, in cooperation with the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), seeks nominations for U.S. scientists with requisite expertise to serve as Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, or Review Editors on the Working Group I, II, and III contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). The outlines for the contributions of Working Groups I, II, and III were adopted at the 46th session of the IPCC Plenary.
Nominations may be submitted at
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) established the IPCC in 1988. In accordance with its mandate, and as reaffirmed in various decisions by the Panel, the major activity of the IPCC is to prepare comprehensive and up-to-date assessments of policy-relevant, scientific, technical, and socio-economic information for understanding the scientific basis of climate change, potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.
This notice will be published in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), USDOT.
Notice of Limitation of Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by the FHWA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Other Federal Agencies.
The FHWA, on behalf of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by FHWA and other Federal Agencies, since May 8, 2015, that are final within the meaning of Federal law. These actions relate to a proposed highway project, the State Road (SR) 7 extension from SR 704/Okeechobee Boulevard to County Road (CR) 809/North Lake Boulevard, Federal Project No: 4752-030-P, in Palm Beach County, State of Florida. These actions grant license, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of the FDOT, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For FDOT: Ms. Ann Broadwell, Environmental Administrator, Florida Department of Transportation, District 4, 3400 Commercial Blvd., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309; telephone: (954) 777-4325; email:
Effective December 14, 2016, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that FHWA, USACE and other Federal Agencies have taken final agency action subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals 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.
The project subject to this notice is:
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and comment request.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that FRA is forwarding the currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the information collection and its expected burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 13, 2017.
Send comments regarding these information collections to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via email to OMB at the following address:
A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Administration, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6132).
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), and 1320.10. On May 2, 2017, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summary below describes the ICR and its expected burden. FRA is submitting the new request for clearance by OMB as the PRA requires.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the currently approved information collection activities listed below. Before submitting these information collection requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities, which are identified in this notice.
Comments must be received no later than November 13, 2017.
Submit written comments on any or all of the following proposed activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590; or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB Control Number 2130-XXXX,” and should also include the title of the collection of information. Alternatively, comments may be faxed to (202) 493-6216 or (202) 493-6497, or emailed to Mr. Brogan at
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292) or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132).
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
FRA believes that soliciting public comment will promote its efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce reporting burdens; (2) ensure that it organizes information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
The summaries below describe the ICRs that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
Paragraph (d) of 49 CFR 232.3 requires the cars to be identified by a card attached to the side of the equipment specifically noting and signed by the shipper that the car is being moved under the authority of that paragraph. Railroads typically use carrier bad order forms or tags for these purposes. These forms are readily available from all carrier repair facilities. If a car moving under 49 CFR 232.3(d) is not properly tagged, a carrier is not legally allowed to move the car. Section 232.3(d)(3) does not require carriers or shippers to retain cards or tags. When a car bearing a tag for movement under this provision arrives
The information collected under this rule is used by FRA to ensure railroads operating camp cars comply with all the requirements mandated in this regulation to protect the health and safety of camp car occupants.
The rule also requires most employers to conduct periodic oversight of their own employees and annual written reviews of their training programs to close performance gaps. Additionally, the rule requires specific training and qualification of operators of roadway maintenance machines that can hoist, lower, and horizontally move a suspended load.
Finally, the rule clarifies the existing training requirements for railroad and contractor employees who perform brake system inspections, tests, or maintenance.
FRA will use the information collected to ensure each employer—railroad or contractor—conducting operations subject to new part 243 develops, adopts, submits, and complies with a training program for each category and subcategory of safety-related railroad employee. Each program must have training components identified so that FRA will understand how the program works when it reviews the program for approval. Further, FRA will review the required training programs to ensure they include initial, ongoing, and on-the-job criteria; testing and skills evaluation measures designed to foster continual compliance with Federal standards; and the identification of critical safety defects and plans for immediate remedial actions to correct them.
In response to petitions for reconsideration, FRA has extended the effective date for developing the required Training Program under § 243.101 for employers with 400,000 or more total annual employee work hours to January 1, 2019, and for employers with less than 400,000 total annual employee work hours to May 1, 2020.
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Requirements (ICRs) abstracted below have been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describe the nature of the information collection and their expected burdens. The
Comments must be submitted on or before October 13, 2017.
Tia Swain, Office of Administration, Management Planning Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop TAD-10, Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-0354 or
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L. 104-13, Section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collection of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summary below describes the nature of the information collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected burden. The requirements are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
All written comments must refer to the docket number that appears at the top of this document and be submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FTA Desk Officer. Alternatively, comments may be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, at the following address:
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of advisory committee public meeting.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) announces a public meeting of the U.S. Maritime Transportation System National Advisory Committee (MTSNAC) to discuss advice and recommendations for the U.S. Department of Transportation on issues related to the maritime transportation system. The MTSNAC will consider the adoption of new bylaws and update the committee on activities of the subcommittees and their work plans and recommendations.
The meeting will be held at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 27, 2017.
The meetings will be held at the DOT Conference Center at the U.S. Department of Transportation Headquarters, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Jeffrey Flumignan, Designated Federal Officer, at
The MTSNAC is a Federal advisory committee that advises the U.S. Department of Transportation and MARAD on issues related to the maritime transportation system. The MTSNAC was originally established in 1999 and mandated in 2007 by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The MTSNAC operates in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The agenda will include brief remarks by the Maritime Administrator, an introduction to the Committee on the Maritime Workforce Working Group subcommittee, updates to the Committee on other subcommittee work, administrative items, and public comments.
The meeting will be open to the public. Members of the public who wish to attend in person must RSVP to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before September 28, 2017.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is amending Regulation C to make technical corrections to and to clarify certain requirements adopted by the Bureau's Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C) final rule (2015 HMDA Final Rule), which was published in the
This rule is effective on January 1, 2018, except that the amendments to § 1003.5 in amendatory instruction 8, the amendments to § 1003.6 in amendatory instruction 9, and the amendments to supplement I to part 1003 in amendatory instruction 10 are effective on January 1, 2019; and the amendments to § 1003.2 in amendatory instruction 11, the amendments to § 1003.3 in amendatory instruction 12, the amendments to § 1003.5 in amendatory instruction 13, the amendments to § 1003.6 in amendatory instruction 14, and the amendments to supplement I to part 1003 in amendatory instruction 15 are effective on January 1, 2020. See part VI for more information.
Shaakira Gold-Ramirez, Paralegal Specialist, Joseph Devlin, Angela Fox, Kathryn Lazarev, and Alexandra W. Reimelt, Counsels; and Terry J. Randall, Senior Counsel, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700 or
Regulation C implements the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), 12 U.S.C. 2801 through 2810. For over four decades, HMDA has provided the public and public officials with information about mortgage lending activity within communities by requiring financial institutions to collect, report, and disclose certain data about their mortgage activities. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) amended HMDA, transferring rulewriting authority to the Bureau and expanding the scope of information that must be collected, reported, and disclosed under HMDA, among other changes.
The Bureau has identified a number of areas in which implementation of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule could be facilitated through clarifications, technical corrections, or minor changes. On April 25, 2017, the Bureau published a notice of proposed rulemaking (April 2017 HMDA Proposal) that would make certain amendments to Regulation C to address those areas.
This final rule temporarily increases the open-end threshold to 500 or more open-end lines of credit for two years (calendar years 2018 and 2019). In addition, the final rule corrects a drafting error by clarifying both the open-end and closed-end thresholds so that only financial institutions that meet the threshold for two years in a row are required to collect data in the following calendar years. With these amendments, financial institutions that originated between 100 and 499 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years will not be required to begin collecting data on their open-end lending before January 1, 2020. This temporary increase in the open-end threshold will provide time for the Bureau to consider whether to initiate another rulemaking to address the appropriate level for the open-end threshold for data collected beginning January 1, 2020.
The final rule establishes transition rules for two data points, loan purpose and the unique identifier for the loan originator. The transition rules require, in the case of loan purpose, or permit, in the case of the unique identifier for the loan originator, financial institutions to report not applicable for these data points when reporting certain loans that they purchased and that were originated before certain regulatory requirements took effect. The final rule also makes additional amendments to clarify certain key terms, such as multifamily dwelling, temporary financing, and automated underwriting system, and to create a new reporting exception for certain transactions associated with New York State consolidation, extension, and modification agreements.
In addition, the 2017 HMDA Final Rule facilitates reporting the census tract of the property securing or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure a covered loan that is required to be reported by Regulation C. The Bureau plans to make available on its Web site a geocoding tool that financial institutions may use to identify the census tract in which a property is located. The final rule establishes that a financial institution would not violate Regulation C by reporting an incorrect census tract for a particular property if the financial institution obtained the incorrect census tract number from the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site, provided that the financial institution
Finally, the final rule also makes certain technical corrections. These technical corrections include, for example, a change to the calculation of the check digit under § 1003.4(a)(1)(i) and replacement of the word “income” with the correct word “age” in comment 4(a)(10)(ii)-3.
HMDA requires certain banks, savings associations, credit unions, and for-profit nondepository institutions to collect, report, and disclose data about originations and purchases of mortgage loans, as well as mortgage loan applications that do not result in originations (for example, applications that are denied or withdrawn). When the statute was originally adopted, Congress stated the purposes of HMDA as providing the public and public officials with information to help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of the communities in which they are located and to assist public officials in their determination of the distribution of public sector investments in a manner designed to improve the private investment environment.
In 2010, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended HMDA and also transferred HMDA rulemaking authority and other functions from the Board to the Bureau.
In October 2015, the Bureau issued the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, which implemented the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA.
The 2015 HMDA Final Rule requires some financial institutions to begin collecting data on certain dwelling-secured, open-end lines of credit, including home-equity lines of credit. Current Regulation C allows, but does not require, reporting of home-equity lines of credit.
As noted in the July 2017 HMDA Proposal and in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, in expanding coverage to include mandatory reporting of open-end lines of credit, the Bureau recognized that doing so would impose one-time and ongoing operational costs on reporting institutions; that the one-time costs of modifying processes and systems and training staff to begin open-end line of credit reporting likely would impose significant costs on some institutions; and that institutions' ongoing reporting costs would increase as a function of
Concerning open-end origination volume, the Bureau used multiple data sources, including credit union Call Reports, Call Reports for banks and thrifts, and data from the Bureau's Consumer Credit Panel to develop estimates for different potential thresholds in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule.
To estimate the one-time and ongoing costs of collecting and reporting data under HMDA in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau identified seven “dimensions” of compliance operations and used those to define three broadly representative financial institutions according to the overall level of complexity of their compliance operations: “tier 1” (high-complexity); “tier 2” (moderate-complexity); and “tier 3” (low-complexity).
Concerning one-time costs, the Bureau recognized in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule that the one-time cost of reporting open-end lines of credit could be substantial because most financial institutions do not report open-end lines of credit currently and thus would have to develop completely new systems to begin reporting these data. As a result, there would be one-time costs to create processes and systems for open-end lines of credit.
Concerning ongoing costs, the Bureau acknowledged that costs for open-end reporting vary by institutions due to many factors, such as size, operational structure, and product complexity, and that this variance exists on a continuum that was impossible to capture fully.
Drawing on all of these estimates, the Bureau decided to establish an open-end threshold that would require institutions that originate 100 or more open-end lines of credit to collect and report data. The Bureau estimated that this threshold would avoid imposing the burden of establishing open-end reporting on approximately 3,000 predominantly smaller-sized institutions with low-volume open-end lending
To effectuate this decision, the 2015 HMDA Final Rule amended Regulation C to define two discrete thresholds that were intended to work in tandem. First, the rule established an institutional coverage threshold that limits the definition of “financial institution” to include only those institutions that either originated at least 25 covered closed-end mortgages in each of the preceding years or that originated at least 100 covered open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding years.
Since issuing the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau has conducted outreach with financial institutions, HMDA vendors, and other interested parties. As part of these efforts and through its own analysis of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau identified certain technical errors in the Final Rule, potential ways to ease burden of reporting certain data requirements, and clarification of key terms that will facilitate compliance with Regulation C. On April 13, 2017, the Bureau issued the April 2017 HMDA Proposal, which was published in the
The comment period for the April 2017 HMDA Proposal closed on May 25, 2017. The Bureau received a total of 51 comments from financial institutions, financial trade associations, compliance and software vendors, consumer advocacy groups, and individuals. The Bureau has considered all the comments and discusses the responsive comments below and now issues this final rule with certain changes and adjustments, as described below. As discussed in a number of instances below, the Bureau received comments on topics related to the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, but not relevant to those topics the Bureau had raised in the April and July 2017 HMDA Proposals. The Bureau considered all the comments but, as discussed further below, in many instances, found that these comments did not raise points relevant to the Bureau's decisions raised in its proposals.
Since the Bureau issued the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, many industry stakeholders have expressed concerns over the levels for the transactional coverage thresholds. Recent credit union Call Report data, coupled with the evidence as to the number of institutions that would be covered by the open-end threshold contained in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, led the Bureau to seek comment to determine whether an adjustment to the threshold is appropriate. On July 14, 2017, the Bureau issued the July 2017 HMDA Proposal, which was published in the
The comment period for the July 2017 HMDA Proposal closed on July 31, 2017. The Bureau received 35 comments, which were from financial institutions, financial trade associations, consumer advocacy groups, and individuals. The Bureau has considered all comments and now finalizes the amendments as proposed for the reasons discussed below.
The Bureau consulted or offered to consult with the appropriate Federal agencies concerning both proposals, at both the proposed and final rule stages of the rulemaking. The Bureau consulted or offered to consult with the Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the National Credit Union Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Agriculture, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC).
The Bureau is issuing this final rule pursuant to its authority under the Dodd-Frank Act and HMDA. This final rule consists of amendments and corrections to the 2015 HMDA Final Rule and a temporary change to the threshold for reporting open-end lines of credit established in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. Section 1061 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the Bureau the
HMDA section 305(a) broadly authorizes the Bureau to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes.
A number of HMDA provisions specify that covered institutions must compile and make their HMDA data publicly available “in accordance with regulations of the Bureau” and “in such formats as the Bureau may require.”
HMDA section 304(e) directs the Bureau to prescribe a standard format for HMDA disclosures required under HMDA section 304.
As amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, HMDA section 304 requires itemization of specified categories of information and “such other information as the Bureau may require.”
The Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA also authorize the Bureau's Director to develop or assist in the improvement of methods of matching addresses and census tracts to facilitate HMDA compliance by depository institutions in as economical a manner as possible.
In preparing this final rule, the Bureau has considered the changes below in light of its legal authority under HMDA and the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau has determined that each of the changes addressed below is consistent with the purposes of HMDA and is authorized by one or more of the sources of statutory authority identified in this part.
The discussion below uses the following terminology to refer to provisions or proposed provisions of Regulation C, as applicable: “Current § 1003.X” refers to the provision currently in effect, which does not reflect amendments to Regulation C made by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule that have not yet taken effect; “Revised § 1003.X” refers to the provision as revised by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule; “§ 1003.X as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule,” refers to a provision newly adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule; and “Proposed § 1003.X” refers to the proposed amendments from the April 2017 HMDA Proposal or the July 2017 HMDA Proposal, pursuant to which this final rule is adopted.
In the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau adopted § 1003.2(d) to provide that a closed-end mortgage loan is a dwelling-secured extension of credit that is not an open-end line of credit. Comment 2(d)-2, as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, provides guidance on what constitutes an extension of credit, including an example of a transaction that would not be a closed-end mortgage loan because no credit is extended. Comment 2(d)-2 also explains that, for purposes of Regulation C, an extension of credit refers to the granting of credit pursuant to a new debt obligation. The comment provides that if a transaction modifies, renews, extends, or amends the terms of an existing debt obligation without satisfying and replacing the original debt obligation with a new debt obligation, the transaction generally is not an extension of credit under Regulation C. The Bureau proposed certain clarifying amendments to comment 2(d)-2.
As adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the example in comment 2(d)-2 illustrating a transaction in which there is no extension of credit discussed installment land sales contracts and included a specific description of an installment land sales contract that would not be considered an extension of credit. The Bureau proposed to remove this specific description from comment 2(d)-2, while also providing more generally that installment land sales contracts, depending on the facts and circumstances, may or may not involve extensions of credit rendering the transactions closed-end mortgage loans.
Three industry commenters expressed support for the proposed change. One stated that the new language would add clarity by acknowledging the complexity of the determination of whether the transaction involves an extension of credit. Two industry commenters expressed opposition to the proposal, stating that it would introduce additional ambiguity and reporting challenges.
For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is adopting the provision as proposed. The Bureau believes that the specific description of an installment land sales contract that would not be an extension of credit, which was included in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, is not helpful for illustrating a transaction in which there is no extension of credit. Whether an installment land sales contract is an extension of credit is a fact-specific inquiry that depends on the particular installment contract's terms and other facts and circumstances. A short description without relevant details does not accurately illustrate the complexity of such a determination. Although making this determination may be challenging for some financial institutions, it is not feasible for the Bureau to provide specific examples, due to the numerous and complex forms of installment land sales contracts and situations in which they arise.
Comment 2(d)-2.ii, as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, also provides a narrow exception to revised Regulation C's general rule that an extension of credit occurs only when a new debt obligation is created. Under that exception, a transaction completed pursuant to a New York State consolidation, extension, and modification agreement and classified as a supplemental mortgage under New York Tax Law section 255, such that the borrower owes reduced or no mortgage recording taxes (New York CEMA), is deemed an extension of credit.
The Bureau proposed to revise comment 2(f)-2 as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule by adding language to clarify treatment of multi-location loans. The Bureau is revising the proposed language, and is incorporating that language into new comment 2(n)-3, as discussed below.
In addition to the multi-location loan clarification, the Bureau proposed a technical correction to comment 2(f)-2. The Bureau proposed to change the term “complexes” to “housing complexes” for clarity, with no change in meaning intended. The Bureau received only one comment on this change, and the commenter expressed support for the change. The Bureau is now adopting this technical correction as proposed.
Section 1003.2(g) defines financial institution for purposes of Regulation C, and sets forth Regulation C's institutional coverage for depository financial institutions and nondepository financial institutions. The Bureau proposed amendments to § 1003.2(g) and associated commentary to increase temporarily the level of open-end originations required to trigger collection and reporting responsibilities and to make conforming changes related to a new reporting exclusion for preliminary transactions providing new funds before consolidation as part of a New York CEMA. The Bureau is adopting the proposed amendments as proposed for the reasons discussed below.
Section 1003.2(g), as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, conditions Regulation C's institutional coverage, in part, on the lender's volume of origination of open-end lines of credit or closed-end mortgage loans by establishing loan-volume thresholds. The threshold for closed-end mortgage loans is at least 25 in each of the two preceding calendar years, and the threshold for open-end lines of credit is at least 100 in each of the two preceding calendar years. Section 1003.3(c)(11) and (12), as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, includes complementary thresholds set at the same levels that determine whether a financial institution is required to collect and report data on closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit, respectively.
As noted in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau believes that including dwelling-secured lines of credit within the scope of Regulation C is a reasonable interpretation of HMDA section 303(2), which defines “mortgage loan” as a loan secured by residential real property or a home improvement loan. In the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau interpreted “mortgage loan” to include dwelling-secured lines of credit, as they are secured by residential real property and they may be used for home improvement purposes.
In establishing the open-end threshold at 100 in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau drew on estimates of the distribution of open-end origination volume across financial institutions and estimates of the one-time and ongoing costs that would be incurred by institutions of various sizes in collecting and reporting data on open-end lines of credit. The Bureau explained that it believed this threshold appropriately balanced the benefits and burdens of covering institutions based on their open-end mortgage lending.
As explained in the July 2017 HMDA Proposal, since 2013 the number of dwelling-secured open-end lines of credit originated has increased by 36 percent and continues to grow.
Additionally, in the July 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau explained that information received by the Bureau since issuing the 2015 HMDA Final Rule has caused the Bureau to question its assumption that tier 3, low-complexity institutions process home-equity lines of credit on the same data platforms as closed-end mortgages, which in turn drove the Bureau's assumption that the one-time costs for these institutions would be minimal. After issuing the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau had heard anecdotal evidence suggesting that one-time costs to begin reporting open-end lines of credit could be as high as $100,000 for tier 3, low-complexity institutions. The Bureau likewise had heard anecdotal evidence suggesting that the ongoing costs for these institutions to report open-end lines of credit, which the Bureau estimated would be under $10,000 per year and add under $60 per line of credit, could be at least three times higher.
Based on this anecdotal evidence regarding one-time and ongoing costs and new data indicating that more institutions would have reporting responsibilities under the 100-loan open-end threshold than estimated in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau believed it was appropriate to seek comment on whether a temporary adjustment to the open-end threshold was advisable to allow for additional data collection and assessment. The temporary increase proposed in the July 2017 HMDA Proposal would allow the Bureau to do such an evaluation without requiring financial institutions originating fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit per year to collect and report data concerning open-end lines of credit in the meantime.
The Bureau sought comment on whether to increase the open-end threshold temporarily and, if so, whether to raise the threshold to 500 or to a larger or smaller number. The Bureau also sought comment on what time period to increase the open-end threshold, should it do so.
Comments regarding the proposed changes to the open-end threshold in both §§ 1003.2(g) and 1003.3(c)(12) are discussed below. Industry commenters expressed support for increasing the threshold, but requested that the Bureau further raise the threshold to exclude more financial institutions from the obligation to report open-end lines of credit. Commenters most often requested that the Bureau raise the open-end threshold to 1,000. Many commenters also requested that the Bureau make the open-end threshold increase permanent instead of temporary. Some commenters also urged the Bureau to reverse the 2015 HMDA Final Rule's decision to require some financial institutions to report data on open-end lines of credit and, instead, to maintain optional reporting. Further, many commenters requested that the Bureau also increase the closed-end threshold.
Consumer advocacy groups opposed the Bureau's proposal. These commenters expressed concern about the gaps in the HMDA data resulting from the proposed increase in the threshold. They noted that these gaps in the HMDA data would make it harder for them and other members of the public to understand whether open-end credit lending is conducted in a responsible and non-discriminatory manner, and whether credit needs are being met in communities, particularly if the major lenders in their areas are institutions below the temporarily raised threshold. They stated that the benefits of reporting were clear and based on concrete evidence, but that the costs of reporting were not clear, arguing that industry cost estimates relied on by the Bureau in the proposal were based on anecdotal evidence. They suggested that only by allowing open-end reporting to begin as provided in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule would the Bureau learn the concrete costs. Further, they expressed support for the Bureau's decision not to propose changes to the closed-end threshold.
The Bureau is finalizing the proposed temporary increase in the open-end threshold to 500 loans. The Bureau is amending § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B) and (g)(2)(ii)(B) and comment 2(g)-3 and -5, effective January 1, 2018, to increase the open-end threshold from 100 to 500 and, effective January 1, 2020, to restore the threshold to 100.
The Bureau does not believe that increasing the threshold to 1,000 is appropriate at this time. The Bureau believes that the temporary increase in the threshold will avoid imposing the costs of reporting on tier 3, low-complexity institutions, while the Bureau studies the appropriate level of the threshold in light of the market conditions described in the July 2017 HMDA Proposal. The Bureau estimates that, in 2015, 289 depository institutions originated 500 or more open-end lines of credit as compared to an estimated 980 depository institutions that originated at least 100 open-end lines of credit.
Additionally, the Bureau agrees generally with consumer advocacy groups about the importance of increasing visibility into the open-end line of credit market. Increasing the threshold from 100 to 500 will decrease visibility into the open-end line of credit market. The Bureau believes, however, that the limited loss of visibility occasioned by increasing the threshold from 100 to 500, at least for the next two years while the Bureau further studies the issue, is justified by the uncertainty surrounding the costs of reporting borne by tier 3, low-complexity institutions and the recent trends in the market. However, the Bureau is not persuaded that the limited benefits of an even higher threshold would justify any additional loss of data.
The Bureau is not making the threshold increase for open-end lines of credit permanent at this time. As discussed in the July 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau believes it is vitally important to begin the collection and reporting of data on the growing market for open-end lines of credit and that the increase in open-end origination volume since 2013 further demonstrates the importance of these data. However, the Bureau recognizes that anecdotal evidence and recent market trends suggest that costs associated with the 100-loan open-end threshold may be significantly higher and affect more institutions than the Bureau estimated in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. The two-year period will allow time for the Bureau to decide, through an additional rulemaking, whether any adjustments to the open-end threshold are needed. The Bureau intends to make that determination in sufficient time so that if institutions are covered under any permanent threshold set by the Bureau but not under the temporary threshold, those institutions will be able to resume and complete their implementation processes.
Similarly, the Bureau declines to retain optional reporting of open-end lines of credit. As discussed in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, improved visibility into this key segment of the mortgage market is critical because of the risks posed by these products to consumers and local markets and the lack of other publicly available data about these products.
The Bureau, as explained in the July 2017 HMDA Proposal, does not believe increasing the closed-end threshold is appropriate.
As discussed in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau adopted § 1003.2(g)(1) pursuant to its authority under section 305(a) of HMDA to provide for such adjustments and exceptions for any class of transactions that the Bureau judges are necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA. Pursuant to section 305(a) of HMDA, for the reasons given in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau found that the exception in § 1003.2(g)(1) is necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA. By reducing burden on financial institutions and establishing a consistent loan-volume test applicable to all financial institutions, the Bureau found that the provision will facilitate compliance with HMDA's requirements.
As discussed below, the Bureau proposed an exclusion from reporting, in proposed § 1003.3(c)(13), for any preliminary transaction providing new funds before consolidation as part of a New York CEMA. Consistent with that proposal, the Bureau proposed a conforming change to § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(A) and (2)(ii)(A), as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, in the definition of “financial institution,” which would add the new exclusion to a list of exclusions referenced in that definition regarding closed-end mortgage loans.
The Bureau received no comments on this conforming change, and now adopts the provision as proposed.
HMDA section 303(2) defines a mortgage loan as a loan that is secured by residential real property or a home improvement loan. Regulation C currently defines home improvement loan and provides guidance in commentary about mixed-use property,
Several State trade associations and one large financial institution supported the proposed amendments to comment 2(i)-4. One commenter stated that the proposal would ease the compliance burden regarding mixed-use properties. Another commenter stated that it shared the Bureau's concern that, as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, comments 2(i)-4 and 3(c)(10)-3.ii could be interpreted as providing inconsistent guidance. This commenter stated that it agreed that loans or lines of credit to improve primarily the commercial portion of a multifamily dwelling should not be reported because they involve relatively small housing components and large commercial components of the dwelling in comparison to loans or lines of credit to improve primarily the commercial portion of a non-multifamily dwelling.
A few commenters recommended alternative reporting requirements for loans to improve primarily the commercial portion of a mixed-use dwelling. One national trade association suggested that, if a property is subject to HMDA reporting requirements and a loan is made for any improvement on that property, that loan should be considered a home improvement loan. It stated that this recommendation would simplify compliance by providing a single standard for all loans to improve property used for residential and commercial purposes and avoid financial institutions having to determine the percentage of loan proceeds used for a residential purpose and whether the loan is for a non-multifamily or multifamily dwelling. Another national trade association suggested that it would improve consistency to apply the same treatment to all loans that improve mixed-use properties. Alternatively, one State trade association recommended that, if any portion of the loan proceeds will be used to improve the commercial portion of a mixed-use property, the loan should not be a reportable home improvement loan, regardless of whether the dwelling is a multifamily dwelling. It suggested that, if the Bureau were to adopt the proposed guidance on reporting loans to improve commercial portions of mixed-use property, it would be helpful to clarify in comment 2(i)-4 that a loan to improve commercial space in a dwelling other than a multifamily dwelling would be a reportable home improvement loan. A national trade association stated that all commercial-purpose loans should be excluded from HMDA reporting. Finally, a few commenters expressed concern that the proposed guidance did not address how to treat loans to improve commercial portions of mixed-use property where the property would have been considered a multifamily dwelling under the proposed guidance in comment 2(f)-2, which would have explained that a loan secured by five or more separate dwellings in more than one location is a loan secured by a multifamily dwelling.
The Bureau is adopting comment 2(i)-4 as proposed, with a minor amendment to provide further clarity. As adopted, comment 2(i)-4 also includes a cross-reference to comment 3(c)(10)-3.ii for guidance on loans to improve primarily the commercial portion of a dwelling other than a multifamily dwelling. The Bureau declines to treat all loans to improve mixed-use property as home improvement loans as this would expand coverage of commercial-purpose transactions and result in the reporting of loans or lines of credit to improve
Current § 1003.2 provides a definition of home purchase loan and provides guidance in commentary. The 2015 HMDA Final Rule revised the current definition of home purchase loan in § 1003.2(j) and revised the current home purchase loan commentary to conform to revised § 1003.2(j) and to provide additional clarifications. As discussed in more detail in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.3(c)(3), the Bureau proposed certain amendments to the § 1003.3(c)(3) commentary regarding temporary financing. The Bureau proposed conforming amendments to comment 2(j)-3 to reflect the proposed revisions to the § 1003.3(c)(3) commentary. Commenters supported the proposed amendments to comment 2(j)-3. The Bureau is adopting comment 2(j)-3 as proposed, with a minor amendment to conform to a clarification the Bureau is adopting in the commentary to § 1003.3(c)(3).
In revised § 1003.2(f) and comment 2(f)-2, the 2015 HMDA Final Rule revised and clarified the definition of “dwelling” in Regulation C to provide, among other things, that multifamily residential structures include housing complexes and manufactured home communities and that such communities are dwellings. Revised § 1003.2(n) provides that a “multifamily dwelling” is a dwelling that contains five or more individual dwelling units. To apply this definition and ease compliance, the Bureau proposed to add language to comment 2(f)-2 that would have clarified that a loan secured by five or more separate dwellings in more than one location is a loan secured by a multifamily dwelling and provided an example.
Revised § 1003.4(a) excludes several data points for covered loans secured by or applications proposed to be secured by multifamily dwellings because such data may not be easily available, relevant, or useful for multifamily transactions. During implementation of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau was asked whether loans that are secured by five or more separate dwellings that each contain fewer than five individual dwelling units in more than one location are loans secured by multifamily dwellings and, thus, may take advantage of the exclusions for covered loans secured by or applications proposed to be secured by multifamily dwellings in revised § 1003.4(a). For example, a landlord might use a covered loan to improve five or more single-family dwellings in different locations, with those properties securing the loan. At the time of the April 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau believed that such a loan should be reported as secured by a multifamily dwelling. The Bureau believed that as with loans that are secured by multifamily dwellings in one location, the information that would be excluded from reporting under revised § 1003.4(a), such as the debt-to-income ratio, might also not be easily available, relevant, or useful for loans secured by five or more separate non-multifamily dwellings in more than one location. Consequently, the Bureau proposed to add language to comment 2(f)-2 making clear that a loan secured by five or more separate dwellings in more than one location is a loan secured by a multifamily dwelling and providing an example.
The Bureau received 14 comments discussing the proposed change to comment 2(f)-2. Five commenters expressed support for the change, and nine expressed opposition to it. The commenters supporting the change stated that it would ease compliance, and one wanted clarification of how loans with cross-collateralization clauses, which the commenter stated are often used in the multi-location loans that are implicated in the change, should be reported.
The commenters opposing the proposed change stated several different objections. Several commenters stated that the change would not ease compliance but, instead, would make it more confusing and difficult. Commenters said that the new provision conflicted with Regulations X, Z, and B, as well as the Call Report
After careful consideration of all the comments received, the Bureau now believes that it is not appropriate to add language to comment 2(f)-2 providing that a loan secured by five or more separate dwellings in more than one location is a loan secured by a multifamily dwelling. To ensure clarity and facilitate compliance, the Bureau is now changing the language proposed in the April 2017 HMDA Proposal to provide explicitly that such a loan is not secured by a multifamily dwelling. The Bureau is also altering the example provided to clarify that the multi-location loan described in the example should not be reported as secured by a multifamily dwelling. In addition, the Bureau has incorporated the new language into new comment 2(n)-3, because the comment involves the definition of multifamily dwelling in § 1003.2(n), rather than the definition of dwelling in § 1003.2(f). The Bureau has also added to the new comment a description and example of a situation similar to that of multi-location loans, as discussed below.
The Bureau believes that the conflicts commenters described regarding the CRA and Call Reports would create the compliance burdens described by commenters. In addition, the Bureau acknowledges that additional clarification would be required to reconcile the proposed classification of multi-site loans language with the proposed change to the commentary on loans for improvement of commercial space in a non-multifamily dwellings in comment 2(i)-4. Consequently, the Bureau believes that the proposed language might have increased the compliance burden rather than decreased it as intended.
In addition, further review of the five data points that are excluded
During consideration of the public comments and consultation with the relevant Federal agencies, the Bureau became aware that it might also be useful to provide guidance on the treatment of covered loans that are secured by multiple dwellings within a multifamily dwelling, but not secured by the entire multifamily dwelling itself. The Bureau has been told that these loans potentially could increase similar issues for HMDA, CRA, and Call Report reporting requirements unless the Bureau clarifies that they are not secured by a multifamily dwelling. In addition, revised § 1002.2(n)'s definition of a multifamily dwelling, stating that a multifamily dwelling is one that “contains” five or more individual dwelling units, is reasonably interpreted to mean that a loan secured by five or more separate dwellings located in a multifamily dwelling but not secured by the entire multifamily dwelling is not secured by a loan that “contains” five or more individual dwelling units, just as it is reasonably interpreted to mean that a loan secured by a multi-location loan is not secured by a dwelling that “contains” five or more dwelling units.
Consequently, the Bureau is adding language to new comment 2(n)-2 stating that a covered loan secured by five or more separate dwellings that are located within a multifamily dwelling, but which is not secured by the entire multifamily dwelling (
Regarding reporting cross-collateralized loans, the Bureau notes that § 1003.4(a)(31) requires reporting of the number of individual dwelling units related to the property “securing” the covered loan or, in the case of an application, proposed to “secure” the covered loan. If the documents for a multi-location loan or a loan secured by multiple dwellings within a multifamily dwelling include a cross-collateralization clause that results in the loan being secured by six dwelling units, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(31) by reporting “6,” even though the loan is not secured by a multifamily dwelling. Nonetheless, the HMDA data will have a clear indication of whether a loan is in fact wholly or partially secured by a multifamily dwelling in the response to § 1003.4(a)(32), which requires reporting of income restricted dwelling units if the property securing or proposed to secure the loan includes a multifamily dwelling. Revised comment 4(a)(32)-6 makes clear that when no multifamily dwelling is included in the collateral, the institution reports that the data point is not applicable. The Filing Instructions Guide for HMDA Data Collected in 2018 (2018 FIG)
Current Regulation C provides an exclusion for temporary financing in § 1003.4(d)(3). The 2015 HMDA Final Rule revised the exclusion for temporary financing in § 1003.3(c)(3) and adopted comment 3(c)(3)-1 to clarify the scope of the exclusion and to incorporate existing guidance included in a Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Frequently Asked Question (FAQ).
The majority of commenters supported the proposed changes to the § 1003.3(c)(3) commentary. Several expressed support for the proposed clarifications generally, while a few State and national trade associations stated that the proposal would reduce burden and uncertainty. A few commenters indicated that construction-only loans are often originated through separate channels from residential loans and that it would be expensive to develop systems to report construction-only loans. A few commenters that supported the proposed clarifications regarding construction-only loans or lines of credit stated that buyers of the newly-constructed dwellings would often seek permanent financing that would be reportable under HMDA.
One national trade association stated that the proposal would not clarify what constitutes temporary financing and that temporary financing may be structured in different ways, may involve a change in lender, or may involve only a single set of loan documents that does not reflect the permanent financing. This commenter suggested that the Bureau define temporary financing as any dwelling-secured loan to a borrower for any purpose where the initial advance of funds will be replaced by permanent financing at a later date. One State trade association requested further clarification on which loans would be excluded as temporary financing and expressed the belief that the proposal did not sufficiently distinguish between one-time closing home purchase loans and short-term construction loans with permanent financing to be obtained at a later date. A few commenters requested additional clarification on the treatment of bridge loans or construction loans that are paid in full with proceeds from the sale of the borrower's current dwelling without the borrower obtaining permanent financing.
The Bureau is adopting the amendments to the § 1003.3(c)(3) commentary substantially as proposed, with minor clarifications to comment 3(c)(3)-1. Final comment 3(c)(3)-1 states that § 1003.3(c)(3) provides that closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit obtained for temporary financing are excluded transactions. The comment then provides that a loan or line of credit is considered temporary financing and excluded under § 1003.3(c)(3) if the loan or line of credit is designed to be replaced by separate permanent financing extended by any financial institution to the same borrower at a later time. The Bureau is also adopting revisions to the illustrative example in comment 3(c)(3)-1.i to provide that the borrower obtains permanent financing for his or her new home either from the same lender or from another lender.
Final comment 3(c)(3)-1 thus clarifies further that the applicability of the temporary financing exclusion does not depend on whether the financial institution that originates the permanent financing is the same institution that originated the loan or line of credit the permanent financing is designed to replace. The Bureau notes that, as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, comment 3(c)(3)-1.ii provides an illustrative example of a construction loan that is excluded because it is designed to be replaced by permanent financing from either the lender that originated the loan or another lender. Nevertheless, the Bureau believes that the additional revisions adopted here to comment 3(c)(3)-1 clarify further that the determination of whether a loan or line of credit is temporary financing does not depend on the identity of the financial institution that originates the permanent financing to replace that loan or line of credit. Final comment 3(c)(3)-1 also omits proposed language regarding “except as provided in comment 3(c)(3)-2,” because both comments 3(c)(3)-1 and -2 set forth independent criteria for determining whether a loan or line of credit is considered temporary financing.
Final comment 3(c)(3)-2 provides that a construction-only loan or line of credit is considered temporary financing and excluded under § 1003.3(c)(3) if the loan or line of credit is extended to a person exclusively to construct a dwelling for sale and cross-references comment 3(c)(3)-1.ii through .iv for examples of the reporting requirement for construction loans that are not extended to a person exclusively to construct a dwelling for sale.
The Bureau declines to adopt further revisions to the § 1003.3(c)(3) commentary as it believes the guidance adopted in this final rule provides a clear standard that serves HMDA's purposes. Regarding the treatment of loans that close in a single transaction, the 2015 HMDA Final Rule explained that “the loan is temporary financing if it is designed to be replaced by longer-term financing at a later time (
Regulation C currently covers closed-end, commercial-purpose loans made to purchase, refinance, or improve a dwelling. The 2015 HMDA Final Rule adopted § 1003.3(c)(10) to provide that loans and lines of credit made primarily for a commercial or business purpose are excluded transactions unless they are for the purpose of home purchase under § 1003.2(j), home improvement under § 1003.2(i), or refinancing under
Comments addressing the proposed changes to both comments 2(i)-4 and 3(c)(10)-3.ii and comments related to the proposed clarifications regarding reporting requirements for loans to improve mixed-use property generally are discussed above in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.2(i). One large financial institution expressed the belief that the examples in proposed comment 3(c)(10)-3.ii would lead to uncertainty and stated that neither a doctor's office nor a daycare center is considered a dwelling for purposes of HMDA reporting because they are commercial properties without any residential purposes.
The Bureau is adopting comment 3(c)(10)-3.ii as proposed. The Bureau notes that final comment 3(c)(10)-3.ii provides an illustrative example regarding a doctor's office or a daycare center located in a dwelling other than a multifamily dwelling. Final comment 3(c)(10)-3.ii does not affect the definition of dwelling in § 1003.2(f) or the guidance in comment 2(f)-4 regarding the determination of whether a property used for both residential and commercial purposes is a dwelling for purposes of Regulation C.
Section 1003.2(g), as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, provides loan-volume thresholds for closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit for Regulation C's coverage of financial institutions. The threshold for closed-end mortgage loans is 25 loans originated in each of the two preceding calendar years. Section 1003.3(c)(11), as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, provides a complementary exclusion for financial institutions with loan volumes below the threshold, providing that a closed-end mortgage loan is an excluded transaction if a financial institution originated fewer than 25 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar years. However, the use of the word “each” in § 1003.3(c)(11) was a drafting error.
Five financial industry and vendor commenters supported the proposal to replace the word “each” with “either,” stating that it would add clarity. One consumer advocacy group commenter opposed the change, stating that the word “each” would increase the number of institutions reporting, and would particularly promote accountability for small financial institutions. One industry commenter requested that the Bureau add more examples so that community banks can better understand application of the loan-volume test.
The Bureau is adopting the provision as proposed. To ensure that the exclusion mirrors the loan-volume threshold for financial institutions in § 1003.2(g) and excludes transactions when that threshold is not met, § 1003.3(c)(11) must provide that a closed-end mortgage loan is an excluded transaction if a financial institution originated fewer than 25 closed-end mortgage loans in “either” of the two preceding calendar years.
The Bureau also proposed a technical clarification to the example in comment 3(c)(11)-1 to describe more thoroughly the reporting requirements for financial institutions whose origination totals for the prior two years are above the threshold. The clarification would specify that the financial institution must report purchased loans, as well as originated loans and applications, as required by §§ 1003.4(a) and 1003.5(a). One commenter stated its support for the change, without further discussion, and no other commenters discussed it. The Bureau now adopts the clarification as proposed.
Although the 2015 HMDA Final Rule did not specifically state that optional reporting of the loans excluded by § 1003.3(c)(11) is allowed, comment 3(c)(11)-1 states that a financial institution that is below the 25-mortgage loan threshold “need not” report such loans, suggesting that it might choose to report them. The Bureau proposed to clarify further that it interprets the exclusion in § 1003.3(c)(11), providing that the requirements of Regulation C do not apply to a closed-end mortgage loan if the financial institution originated fewer than 25 closed-end mortgage loans in either of the two preceding calendar years, to permit a financial institution to report closed-end mortgage loans and applications for closed-end mortgage loans voluntarily. The Bureau also solicited comment on whether a financial institution that reports such transactions voluntarily should be required to report all such transactions, and whether the voluntary reporting provision should be included in the regulation text, as well as the commentary.
The Bureau received six comments discussing the voluntary reporting clarification. Four commenters expressed support for the provision and none expressed opposition. One commenter stated that voluntary reporting would reduce burden on smaller institutions. Another stated that voluntary reporting would allow financial institutions to prepare for implementation before they are required to report. A third commenter stated that a financial institution may prefer
Three commenters expressed support for the inclusion of a requirement that voluntary reporters report all the relevant excluded covered loans and applications. No commenters expressed opposition to including this requirement. One industry commenter stated that requiring the reporting of all excluded covered loans and applications would give financial institutions a more complete understanding of the HMDA requirements. A consumer advocacy group commenter stated that selective reporting of excluded transactions could hide fair lending violations and compromise CRA exams.
Two commenters expressed support for including the voluntary reporting provision in the regulation text rather than just the comment. No commenters expressed opposition. One of these commenters said that including the provision in the regulation text would avoid confusion, and the other stated that it would highlight the Bureau's demonstrated attempts to harmonize regulations to reduce obligations on smaller institutions.
The Bureau has considered the comments and is adopting the provision allowing optional reporting of the loans excluded by § 1003.3(c)(11) as proposed, and is placing it in the rule text with additional explanation in the commentary. Final § 1003.3(c)(11) includes new language stating that a financial institution may collect, record, report, and disclose information, as described in §§ 1003.4 and 1003.5, a closed-end mortgage loan that would otherwise be excluded under § 1003.3(c)(11) because of the threshold as though it is a covered loan, provided that the financial institution complies with such requirements for all applications for closed-end mortgage loans which it receives, closed-end mortgage loans that it originates, and closed-end mortgage loans that it purchases during the calendar year during which final action is taken on the closed-end mortgage loan. As noted above, the Bureau recently proposed to amend Regulation B to add § 1002.5(a)(4)(i), which would permit a creditor that is a financial institution under 12 CFR 1003.2(g) to collect information regarding the ethnicity, race, and sex of an applicant for a closed-end mortgage loan that is an excluded transaction under 12 CFR 1003.3(c)(11) if it submits HMDA data concerning such closed-end mortgage loans and applications or if it submitted HMDA data concerning closed-end mortgage loans for any of the preceding five calendar years. The Bureau is in the process of reviewing the comments and considering whether to issue a final rule, which the Bureau expects would be issued soon after the date this rule is issued. The Bureau may offer additional clarification about the relationship between permissible collection and reporting at that time.
The Bureau believes that the exclusion in § 1003.3(c)(11) (and, as discussed below, in § 1003.3(c)(12)), differs from the exclusions in § 1003.3(c)(1)-(10), and the new § 1003.3(c)(13), discussed below, because the applicability of the § 1003.3(c)(11) exclusion is not intrinsic to the loan. Whether the loan is excluded can be determined only by reference to the financial institution's origination activity over two years. The Bureau believes that financial institutions that choose to report when they are not required to, particularly when the institution's total of closed-end mortgage loans may fluctuate above or below the threshold, may reduce their regulatory burden by doing so. In addition, the Bureau believes that requiring financial institutions that choose to report such excluded loans to report all such covered loans and applications will help ensure the accuracy and usefulness of the HMDA data reported and prevent selective reporting that could disguise fair lending violations. The Bureau agrees that including the optional reporting provision in the regulation text will avoid confusion and facilitate compliance.
As discussed in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau adopted § 1003.2(g)(1) pursuant to its authority under section 305(a) of HMDA to provide for such adjustments and exceptions for any class of transactions that the Bureau judges are necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA. Pursuant to section 305(a) of HMDA, for the reasons given in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau found that the exception in § 1003.2(g)(1) exception is necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA. The Bureau found that by reducing burden on financial institutions and establishing a consistent loan-volume test applicable to all financial institutions, the provision will facilitate compliance with HMDA's requirements.
In addition to the comments directly addressing the voluntary reporting provision, two commenters suggested that the Bureau provide a safe harbor in relation to voluntary reporting. One of these commenters stated that the Bureau should provide voluntary reporters a safe harbor or other relief from liability
The Bureau did not propose a safe harbor for voluntary reporters of excluded transactions below the origination threshold and therefore does not believe that adopting one in this final rule would be appropriate. A safe harbor may weaken the reliability of the data reported, and the Bureau has not had the benefit of notice and public comment in considering this complex issue.
As adopted in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, § 1003.3(c)(12) provides an exclusion from the requirement to report open-end lines of credit for institutions that did not originate at least 100 such loans in each of the two preceding calendar years. This threshold was intended to complement an open-end reporting threshold included in the definition of financial institution in § 1003.2(g), which sets forth Regulation C's institutional coverage. The Bureau proposed amendments to § 1003(c)(12) and its commentary to raise temporarily the open-end threshold to 500 loans and to make the same clarifying amendments, including optional reporting, as in § 1003.3(c)(11), which addresses the reporting threshold for closed-end mortgage loans. The Bureau is finalizing the proposed amendments as discussed below.
Section 1003.3(c)(12), as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, provides that an open-end line of credit is an excluded transaction, and thus not subject to Regulation C, if the financial institution originated fewer than 100 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years. As discussed in more detail in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.3(c)(11) and further below, the exclusion as adopted in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule was intended to apply if the financial institution originated fewer than 100 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years.
Section 1003.2(g), as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, provides loan-volume thresholds, for closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit, for Regulation C's coverage of financial institutions. As discussed above, the 2015 HMDA Final Rule set the threshold for open-end lines of credit at 100 open-end lines originated in each of the two preceding calendar years. Section 1003.3(c)(12), as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, provides an exclusion for loans below a given threshold, providing that an open-end line of credit is an excluded transaction if a financial institution originated fewer than 100 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years. The use of the word “each” in § 1003.3(c)(12) is a drafting error. For the same reason as described above in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.3(c)(11), the Bureau proposed to amend § 1003.3(c)(12) and comment 3(c)(12)-1 by replacing the word “each” with “either” to clarify how a financial institution applies the exclusion. The Bureau is now adopting that correction. Comments generally discussing the proposed adjustment to the open-end threshold are discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.2(g). None of the comments received on the proposal to replace “each” with “either” differentiated between the § 1003.3(c)(11) closed-end mortgage loan exclusion explained above and the § 1003.3(c)(12) open-end line of credit exclusion, and the Bureau believes that the same reasoning applies to both.
Similarly, the Bureau adopts the clarification that would specify that the financial institution must report purchased loans, as well as originated loans and applications, as required by §§ 1003.4(a) and 1003.5(a), for the same reasons as described above in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.3(c)(11).
As with the § 1003.3(c)(11) exclusion for closed-end mortgage loans, the Bureau proposed to clarify that it interprets the exclusion in § 1003.3(c)(12), now providing that the requirements of Regulation C do not apply to an open-end line of credit if the financial institution originated fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years, to permit a financial institution to report such open-end lines of credit and applications for open-end lines of credit voluntarily.
For the same reasons as explained above regarding the § 1003.3(c)(11) closed-end mortgage loan exclusion, the Bureau is adopting the provision allowing optional reporting of transactions excluded by § 1003.3(c)(12) by including language in the regulation text that states that a financial institution may collect and report data on such loans provided that it reports all open-end lines of credit and applications that would otherwise be covered loans for a given calendar year. None of the comments received on the issue of optional reporting differentiated between the § 1003.3(c)(11) closed-end mortgage loan exclusion explained above and the § 1003.3(c)(12) open-end line of credit exclusion, and the Bureau believes that the same reasoning applies to both.
Comment 2(d)-2.ii, as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, provided a narrow exception to Regulation C's general rule that an extension of credit occurs only when a new debt obligation is created.
New York CEMAs are loans secured by dwellings located in New York. They generally are used in place of traditional refinancings, either to amend a transaction's interest rate or loan term, or to permit a borrower to take cash out. However, unlike a traditional refinancing, the existing debt obligation is not satisfied and replaced by a new obligation. Instead, the existing obligation or obligations are consolidated into a new loan, either by the same or a different lender, and either with or without new funds being added to the existing loan balance through a preliminary credit transaction that then becomes part of the consolidation. Under New York State law, if no new money is added by a preliminary, subsequently consolidated transaction, there is no “new” mortgage, and the borrower avoids paying the mortgage recording taxes that would have been imposed if a traditional refinancing had been used and the original obligation had been satisfied and replaced. If new money is added through a preliminary transaction that then becomes part of the consolidated loan, the borrower pays mortgage recording taxes only on the new money.
The Bureau explained in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule preamble that New York CEMAs are to be reported because the Bureau believed that they present a situation where a new debt obligation is created in substance, if not in form, and that the benefits of requiring such transactions to be reported justify the burdens.
In treating New York CEMAs as extensions of credit, the 2015 HMDA Final Rule departed from prior guidance from the Board that CEMAs, which modify and consolidate existing debt while generally extending the loan term, were not covered transactions because they did not meet the definition of a refinancing.
Four commenters discussed the proposed exclusion. Three expressed support for the exclusion, and the fourth only objected to the proposed timing requirement, as discussed below. A consumer advocacy group commenter stated that the proposal would eliminate double counting and lead to a more accurate picture of how successful financial institutions are at meeting credit needs. Although they expressed support for the proposal, two industry commenters objected to the 2015 HMDA Final Rule's treatment of New York CEMAs as extensions of credit, and another requested that the proposed exclusion for preliminary transactions be expanded to include non-New York consolidations.
The Bureau has considered the comments and is adopting the proposed exclusion as proposed, with the clarifications discussed below. The Bureau is adopting the exclusion to simplify and clarify reporting requirements regarding transactions associated with New York CEMAs. As explained above, a borrower may enter into a CEMA that consolidates both the prior debt and new funds. The new funds are added through a preliminary credit transaction in which the borrower obtains an extension of credit providing only the new funds. Then, the CEMA consolidates the new-funds transaction with the original mortgage loan into a single loan. Because the initial transaction is an extension of credit, it would be reportable under revised Regulation C if it were otherwise a covered loan. Regarding New York CEMAs, this would lead to double reporting of the new funds, once through reporting of the preliminary transaction, and again through reporting of the full New York CEMA, which includes the new funds. The Bureau believes that such an outcome would elevate the form of the transaction over the substance of the resulting consumer indebtedness and could present challenges in interpreting the reported data. Therefore, the Bureau believes it is appropriate to require that only the New York CEMA,
To achieve this outcome, the Bureau is adopting § 1003.3(c)(13), which provides that any transaction providing or, in the case of an application, proposing to provide new funds in advance of a consolidation as part of a New York CEMA is an excluded transaction. The Bureau also adopts proposed comment 3(c)(13)-1 explaining the application of the new § 1003.3(c)(13) exclusion. The Bureau believes that this exclusion will clarify and simplify reporting of New York CEMAs, eliminating double reporting
One industry commenter expressed support for the timing requirement of the § 1003.3(c)(13) exclusion, which requires that the preliminary transaction and the consolidation occur within the same calendar year, stating that it would provide a clear timeline for reporting. Two other industry commenters objected to the timing requirement, stating that it was unnecessary because the preliminary transaction and consolidation usually happens at about the same time. One of these commenters said that the timing provision was potentially confusing and problematic, and could create difficulties for year-end transactions. That commenter suggested that the Bureau should instead limit the exclusion to cases where the borrower applies for the new money and the consolidation at the same time. That commenter also requested that, if the timing provision is not changed, the Bureau clarify that an earlier, unrelated loan that occurs in the same year and is later consolidated in a New York CEMA is not required to be excluded, which would otherwise create tracking and compliance challenges. In addition, the industry commenter that expressed support for the timing provision requested that the Bureau clarify that a consolidation will be considered as having been concluded in a calendar year even if the right of rescission extends into January of the next year.
The Bureau has considered the comments on the timing provision and is adopting the provision as proposed, clarifying that the exclusion applies only to a transaction that is consolidated in a New York CEMA if the final action on the consolidation has been taken before the end of the calendar year in which final action on the preliminary transaction occurred. The Bureau is also adding new language to comment 3(c)(13)-1 to address how the exclusion relates to earlier, unrelated transactions that are consolidated into New York CEMAs in the same calendar year and how to report New York CEMAs that involve assumptions.
The Bureau believes that consolidation of a prior transaction into the New York CEMA qualifies it as an excluded transaction, thus final action on the consolidation must occur within the relevant final reporting period in order for the HMDA data to be accurate and reporting requirements to be clear. As two of the commenters pointed out, the preliminary new funds transaction and the consolidation will generally occur at about the same time, and therefore in the vast majority of these situations the timing requirement will not even be potentially implicated. In addition, the three-day right of rescission has no bearing on the date of the action taken on the originated preliminary transaction or the New York CEMA, which would occur at closing. As long as the consolidation occurs on or before December 31 of the year final action was taken on the preliminary transaction, it would be excluded. For those very few situations in which the two transactions might straddle the year's end, the financial institution can avoid this problem through a scheduling change, or can report the two transactions separately.
The Bureau chooses not to adopt the suggestion that the proposed timing requirement be replaced with a requirement that the applications for the preliminary transaction and the consolidation into the New York CEMA occur at the same time. Such a provision would lack the clarity regarding reporting requirements that a definite year-end cutoff provides.
To clarify the exclusion's timing requirement, the Bureau is adding language to comment 3(c)(13)-1 to clarify that a transaction that occurs earlier in the same year and is later consolidated in a New York CEMA is not excluded if the financial institution did not, when originated, intend to later consolidate it into a New York CEMA. The comment now states that the exclusion applies only if, at the time of the transaction that provided or proposed to provide new funds, the financial institution intended to consolidate the loan into a New York CEMA. The Bureau believes that this language will clarify and simplify reporting requirements in this situation because the financial institution will not need to track earlier, unrelated loans and can apply the exclusion based on its own knowledge of the transaction.
The commenters who discussed New York CEMAs also asked for certain clarifications of how the proposed exclusion and the 2015 HMDA Final Rule provision will work. One commenter requested clarification of how to report a new money transaction preliminary to a consolidation outside of New York. Another commenter asked the Bureau to clarify whether preliminary, new money transactions that are consolidated into New York CEMAs involving assumptions will be covered by the new exclusion. In addition, one commenter asked for clarification that the Bureau's interpretation of New York CEMAs as extensions of credit is not meant to preempt State law interpretations of New York Tax Law section 255.
Consolidation transactions similar to New York CEMAs occur in States other than New York, although the Bureau believes they are far less common.
Regarding the method for reporting these preliminary transactions for CEMAs or MECAs outside New York, if the eventual consolidation is not an extension of credit, as described by comments 2(d)-2 as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the financial institution should report data related only to the terms of the preliminary, new funds transaction and treat the CEMA or MECA that follows as if it were an unrelated transaction. As noted in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau believes that limiting the scope
New York CEMAs are sometimes carried out in a transaction involving an assumption. The Bureau notes that the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the April 2017 HMDA Proposal, and this final rule all include references to home purchase by assumption using a New York CEMA.
Regarding the comment requesting clarification of the relation of Regulation C's requirement to report New York CEMAs to New York State's interpretation of New York Tax Law section 255, the Bureau points out that Regulation C and HMDA set out requirements for collecting, recording, and reporting information. The requirement to report New York CEMAs as extensions of credit for HMDA purposes is not intended to preempt or otherwise affect the proper interpretation of New York Tax Law section 255.
HMDA section 305(a) authorizes the Bureau to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes.
HMDA section 304(b)(6)(G), as amended by Dodd-Frank Act section 1094(3)(A)(iv), authorizes the Bureau to require a universal loan identifier (ULI), as it may determine to be appropriate.
Previous to the April 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau had become aware of a typographical error that occurs twice in appendix C and makes one method of computing the check digit inaccurate. The Bureau proposed to revise appendix C by substituting 97 for .97 in two places in the relevant instructions in appendix C.
All the commenters that discussed the proposed technical correction to appendix C expressed support for the change. One industry commenter stated that it had noticed the error and had begun implementation assuming that it was wrong.
The Bureau is adopting the technical correction as proposed. Step 3 of the method for computing the check digit has two alternatives. Appendix C mistakenly provided that the second of the alternatives requires multiplication by .97 when the needed operation requires multiplication by 97 for the result to be accurate. The same typographical error occurred in Step 3 of the example based on this alternative method. The computation result presented in the example, 59.946, can be reached only by multiplying by 97, not .97. To ensure correct computation of the check digit, the Bureau now substitutes 97 for .97 in the two places where the error occurred.
For those financial institutions that do not wish to calculate the check digit themselves, the Bureau also notes that it will provide a check digit tool on its Web site before the effective date of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule.
In addition to the check digit technical correction, the Bureau proposed to amend comments 4(a)(1)(i)-3 and -4 to reflect the different effective dates for data reporting requirements adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. Specifically, the Bureau proposed to amend comments 4(a)(1)(i)-3 and -4, effective January 1, 2018, to remove the references to quarterly reporting, and to amend comments 4(a)(1)(i)-3 and -4, effective January 1, 2020, to reincorporate the references to quarterly reporting. The Bureau also proposed certain non-substantive clarifications to comments 4(a)(1)(i)-3 and -4. For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is adopting comments 4(a)(1)(i)-3 and -4, effective January 1, 2018, and as amended again effective January 1, 2020, as proposed, with minor technical revisions.
Several commenters expressed support for the proposed clarifications to comments 4(a)(1)(i)-3 and -4 regarding purchased loans and reconsidered or reinstated applications. One national trade association stated that the guidance regarding reinstated or reconsidered applications generally reflects the operations of most lenders. A few vendor commenters expressed concern with the term “assigned” as used in proposed comment 4(a)(1)(i)-3 and requested that it be removed or that a definition of the term be provided. These commenters also stated that, because the loan identification number is often part of the ULI, not being able to use the same ULI for a reconsidered or reinstated application more than once would result in lenders needing to restart the application process to obtain a unique ULI. A few commenters expressed concern that multiple entities involved in a transaction could assign a ULI and requested additional guidance on which ULI to report in such instances. One commenter requested additional guidance on whether a new
The Bureau is adopting comments 4(a)(1)(i)-3 and -4 effective January 1, 2018, and again as amended effective January 1, 2020, as proposed, with minor technical revisions. Final comment 4(a)(1)(i)-3 does not change any substantive reporting requirements regarding purchased covered loans with previously assigned ULIs. Rather, it clarifies further the requirement in § 1003.4(a)(1)(i)(D) that, for a purchased covered loan that any financial institution has previously assigned or reported with a ULI under Regulation C, the financial institution that purchases the covered loan must use the ULI that was assigned or previously reported for the covered loan. Regarding commenters' concerns about reinstated or reconsidered applications, final comment 4(a)(1)(i)-4 does not change the substantive requirements regarding when a financial institution may or may not use a previously reported ULI. Final comment 4(a)(1)(i)-4, effective January 1, 2020, clarifies that a financial institution may not use a ULI previously reported if it reinstates or reconsiders an application that was reported in a prior calendar year, but that a financial institution does have the option to report a ULI previously reported if an application is reconsidered or reinstated during the same calendar year. As explained in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, “the Bureau believes that providing this option for financial institutions will reduce burden associated with assigning a new ULI for a later transaction that a financial institution considers as a continuation of an earlier transaction.”
As to questions regarding the assignment of a ULI in situations where more than one entity is involved in a transaction, § 1003.4(a)(1) requires that, if a financial institution is required to report an application or origination under Regulation C, then, except as set forth in § 1003.4(a)(1)(i)(D) and (E), that financial institution is responsible for assigning and reporting a unique ULI for that application or origination. Comment 4(a)(1)(i)-1 clarifies that a financial institution should assign only one ULI to any particular covered loan or application, and each ULI should correspond to a single application and ensuing loan if the application is approved and a loan is originated. Comment 4(a)(1)(i)-1 clarifies further that a financial institution may use a ULI that was reported previously to refer only to the same loan or application for which the ULI was used previously or a loan that ensues from an application for which the ULI was used previously. Under comment 4(a)-2.i, if more than one financial institution is involved in the origination of a covered loan, then the institution that makes the credit decision approving the application before loan closing or account opening reports the origination and pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(1) must assign a unique ULI to the covered loan. Pursuant to comment 4(a)-2.ii, in the case of an application for a covered loan that did not result in an origination, a financial institution reports the action it took on that application, and pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(1) assigns a unique ULI to that application, if the financial institution made a credit decision on the application or was reviewing the application when the application was withdrawn or closed for incompleteness. Comment 4(a)-2.ii further provides that it is not relevant whether the financial institution received the application from the applicant or from another institution, such as a broker, or whether another financial institution also reviewed, reported an action taken, and assigned a ULI to the same application.
HMDA section 304(b)(1) requires financial institutions to report “the number and dollar amount of mortgage loans which are insured under Title II of the National Housing Act or under Title V of the Housing Act of 1949 or which are guaranteed under chapter 37 of Title 38.” Current § 1003.4(a)(2) implements HMDA section 304(b)(1) by requiring financial institutions to report the type of loan or application. In the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau revised § 1003.4(a)(2) to require financial institutions to report whether the covered loan is, or in the case of an application would have been, insured by the Federal Housing Administration, guaranteed by the Veterans Administration, or guaranteed by the Rural Housing Service or the Farm Service Agency. The Bureau adopted new comment 4(a)(2)-1 to provide further guidance. The Bureau proposed to substitute “Department of Veterans Affairs” for “Veterans Administration” in § 1003.4(a)(2) and comment 4(a)(2)-1. The Bureau received one comment in support of these proposed changes, and is adopting § 1003.4(a)(2) and comment 4(a)(2)-1 as proposed.
Current § 1003.4(a)(3) requires financial institutions to report the purpose of a covered loan or application using the categories home purchase, home improvement, or refinancing. The Bureau revised § 1003.4(a)(3) in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule to add an “other” category, a cash-out refinancing category, and to make changes to the commentary to implement these additional categories and provide instructions for reporting covered loans with multiple purposes. In the April 2017 HMDA Proposal the Bureau proposed to add new comment 4(a)(3)-6 to provide that, for purchased covered loans where the origination took place before January 1, 2018, a financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(3) by reporting that the requirement is not applicable.
The Bureau received many comments supporting the proposed clarification, and several commenters stated that it would alleviate burden for purchasers of loans originated before January 1, 2018. One vendor stated that many smaller financial institutions may be able to determine loan purpose because they review purchased loan files and recommended that financial institutions have the option to comply with § 1003.4(a)(3) by reporting the loan purpose or not applicable. A few commenters requested that the definitions of the loan purpose categories be changed to align with those set forth in Regulation Z § 1026.37(a)(9).
The Bureau is adopting comment 4(a)(3)-6 as proposed. The Bureau believes that final comment 4(a)(3)-6 provides a consistent standard that will facilitate compliance for financial institutions that purchase covered loans originated before January 1, 2018. The Bureau declines to revise § 1003.4(a)(3) to align with Regulation Z § 1026.37(a)(9). As explained in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau does not believe that aligning § 1003.4(a)(3) with Regulation Z § 1026.37(a)(9) would be appropriate because Regulation Z § 1026.37(a)(9) does not include a loan purpose for home improvement loans and does not include a separate cash-out refinancing purpose.
Section 1003.4(a)(8)(i), as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, requires financial institutions to report the action taken on covered loans and
The Bureau recognized that revised comments 4(a)(8)(i)-9 and 4(a)(8)(i)-13 may be read as in tension regarding how to report the action taken on an application for which a counteroffer is made, the applicant expresses interest in the new terms, and the financial institution provides a conditional approval to which the applicant does not respond or which otherwise does not result in an originated loan. Comment 4(a)(8)(i)-9 could be read to require the financial institution to report the action taken as a denial on the original loan terms applied for, while comment 4(a)(8)(i)-13 could be read to require the action taken to be reported as a denial, file closed for incompleteness, approved but not accepted, or application withdrawn, depending on the circumstances. In addition, the Bureau believed that limiting the reportable actions taken for counteroffers to only covered loan originated or application denied might lead to less complete and accurate reporting.
In addressing inquiries raising this concern, the Bureau had provided informal guidance that a financial institution should follow comment 4(a)(8)(i)-13 when an application for which a counteroffer is made is followed by a conditional approval that does not result in an originated loan. In accordance with this informal guidance, and to address the need to provide a full range of options in reporting the action taken on an application when there is a counteroffer, the Bureau proposed to amend the language of comment 4(a)(8)(i)-9 to broaden the possible actions taken that could be reported. The Bureau proposed to clarify that, if the applicant agrees to proceed with consideration of the financial institution's counteroffer, the counteroffer takes the place of the prior application, and the financial institution reports the action taken on the application under the terms of the counteroffer. In addition, the Bureau proposed to illustrate this interpretation by providing an example in comment 4(a)(8)(i)-9. The example would clarify that, if a financial institution makes a counteroffer, the applicant agrees to proceed with consideration of the counteroffer, and the financial institution sends a conditional approval letter stating the terms of the counteroffer, the financial institution reports the action taken on the application in accordance with comment 4(a)(8)(i)-13 regarding conditional approvals.
Five industry commenters expressed support for the changes to comment 4(a)(8)(i)-9, and three industry commenters expressed opposition. One commenter who expressed support for the changes stated that the guidance would ease the difficulties of reporting by allowing financial institutions' systems to reflect more accurately the specifics of the loan file at the time of final action without requiring additional fields.
One commenter who expressed opposition to the changes preferred that comment 4(a)(8)(i)-9 be read to require that the action taken be reported as loan denied whenever a counteroffer is made and the loan is not ultimately originated. This commenter also stated that the new language was a major change and that financial institutions would have problems implementing it before the effective date. Two commenters expressed concern that it might be difficult for financial institutions to determine and track whether an applicant agrees to proceed with a counteroffer. Two commenters stated that this difficulty would be greater in the case of commercial and multifamily transactions because the negotiations are often fluid and several counteroffers may go back and forth. One commenter suggested that a financial institution should only have to report something more than loan denied if the loan origination system has been updated with the applicant's agreement to proceed. Another commenter suggested specific guidance for reporting action taken for different scenarios after a counteroffer.
Two commenters suggested that the language added to comment 4(a)(8)(i)-9 conflicts with the treatment of counteroffers in Regulation B, which one suggested does not treat a counteroffer as a new application when an applicant agrees to proceed. Two commenters objected to the idea of a counteroffer being treated as a new application, with one asking how the original application should then be reported. One commenter who expressed support for the changes stated that many financial institutions do not use conditional approval letters, and requested that the example in comment 4(a)(8)(i)-9 be changed to allow other indications of a conditional approval. Finally, one commenter requested that a deleted sentence stating that a financial institution should report the action taken as loan originated when a loan is originated after a counteroffer should be put back into the comment.
The Bureau now adopts the amendment to comment 4(a)(8)(i)-9 largely as proposed, with some modifications to address commenters' concerns. First, the example in comment 4(a)(8)(i)-9 no longer includes a reference to a conditional approval letter, which the Bureau did not intend to suggest was required for a conditional approval to exist. The Bureau believes that removing the reference to a conditional approval letter will broaden the applicability of the example and facilitate compliance. Second, the comment is revised to clarify that a financial institution reports the action taken based on the final disposition of the application in response to the terms of the counteroffer. Information such as the application date and ULI will not change as a result of the existence of a counteroffer with which the applicant is proceeding. An additional example is also added to the commentary.
The Bureau continues to believe that it is necessary to provide a full range of options in reporting the action taken on an application when there is a counteroffer. The Bureau agrees with the industry commenter who stated that the guidance would ease the difficulties of reporting by allowing financial institutions' systems to reflect more accurately the specifics of the loan file at the time of final action. In addition, the Bureau believes that those institutions and vendors that were reading comments 4(a)(8)(i)-9 and -13 differently from this clarification will have adequate time to change their systems. To the extent the clarifications in this rule require financial institutions to make technical changes, those changes require only minor adjustments, not significant system updates. In addition, the Bureau has issued this final rule in August, four months before 2018, which the Bureau believes should afford ample time to implement any necessary minor system adjustments. The Bureau is releasing implementation aids with this final rule to facilitate implementation.
Although some financial institutions may find added difficulty in determining and tracking the action taken for counteroffers if they were previously interpreting the comments
In addition, the Bureau does not believe that the new language in comment 4(a)(8)(i)-9 conflicts with the requirements of Regulation B.
Furthermore, the Bureau has replaced the language in the proposed comment stating that the counteroffer takes the place of the prior application. This change is meant to make clear that the revisions to comment 4(a)(8)(i)-9 do not treat a counteroffer as a new covered loan that must be reported as a separate entry in the loan/application register, but rather provide that for purposes of reporting action taken, where the applicant agrees to proceed with consideration of the financial institution's counteroffer, the financial institution reports the action taken field as the disposition of the application based on the terms of counteroffer.
In addition to the change to comment 4(a)(8)(i)-9, the Bureau proposed a technical correction to comment 4(a)(8)(i)-6, as adopted by the 21015 HMDA Final Rule, correcting a citation that was intended to reference Regulation B, 12 CFR 1002.9(c)(1)(i). The citation read, “12 CFR 1002.9(c)(i).” The proposal would correct the typographical error by inserting the “(1)” paragraph designation missing from the citation. The Bureau received no comments on this technical correction and now adopts it as proposed. The Bureau is also adding language to clarify a different, correct citation in the comment.
Section 1003.4(a)(9)(i) as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule requires financial institutions to report the property address of the property securing the covered loan or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure the covered loan.
The Bureau did not receive any comments discussing the replacement of “indicating” with “reporting” in comment 4(a)(9)(i)-3. The Bureau is adopting the amendments to comment 4(a)(9)(i)-3 as proposed, replacing “indicating” with “reporting” for consistency with other comments providing similar guidance.
Current § 1003.4(a)(9) introductory text and (a)(9)(ii), as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, both require financial institutions to report certain information for certain transactions about the location of the property related to the covered loan or application, including the State, county, and census tract.
A financial institution may have incomplete information about the location of a property when it takes final action on an application in certain situations. For example, an applicant may not identify a specific property or census tract, but may provide the financial institution with only the State and county where the applicant intends to purchase a home before the financial institution denies the application.
The Bureau proposed new comments 4(a)(9)(ii)(A)-1, 4(a)(9)(ii)(B)-2, and 4(a)(9)(ii)(C)-2 to clarify that, when reporting an application, the financial institution reports that the property location requirement is not applicable if the State, county, or census tract, respectively, was not known before the application was denied, withdrawn, or closed for incompleteness.
The Bureau received two comments on the proposed comments, and both expressed support for the change. One commenter stated that the new comments would be extremely helpful. The Bureau also received one comment urging the Bureau to clarify whether reporting State, county, or census tract is permissible when a property is not located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or Metropolitan Division (MD) in which a financial institution has a home or branch office. Instruction I.C.5 in current appendix A to Regulation C addresses the situations when a financial institution may report not applicable. It states that for loans on property located outside the MSAs and MDs in which an institution has a home or branch office, or for property located outside of any MSA or MD and for which the institution is not required to report such information by § 1003.4(e), the institution may choose one of the following two options: First, a financial institution may enter the property location information, and the information reported must accurately identify the property location. Second, a financial institution may indicate that the requirement to report the property location is not applicable. The Bureau agrees that it is appropriate to clarify that a financial institution may report not applicable in these circumstances and is finalizing new comment 4(a)(9)(ii)-1 to clarify that in
In addition, the Bureau is adopting new comments 4(a)(9)(ii)(A)-1, 4(a)(9)(ii)(B)-2, and 4(a)(9)(ii)(C)-2 as proposed.
Section 1003.4(a)(10)(ii) as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule requires that a financial institution report the age of the applicant or borrower. Comment 4(a)(10)(ii)-3, as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, contains a drafting error in providing guidance on treatment of purchased loans that refers to reporting income rather than age. The Bureau proposed to correct the drafting error in comment 4(a)(10)(ii)-3 by replacing the term “income” with “age” to clarify that a financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(10)(ii) by reporting that the requirement is not applicable when reporting a purchased loan for which the institution chooses not to report the age of the applicant or borrower.
The Bureau received one comment discussing this correction. The commenter expressed support for the change and asked for further guidance on reporting an applicant's age for a purchased loan when a financial institution chooses to report age.
The Bureau adopts the technical correction as proposed. Regarding optional reporting of a borrower's age for purchased loans, as explained in comment 4(a)(10)(ii)-1, a financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(10)(ii) by reporting the applicant's age, as of the application date under § 1003.4(a)(1)(ii), as the number of whole years derived from the date of birth as shown on the application form.
HMDA section 304(b)(4) requires the reporting of income level for borrowers and applicants. The 2015 HMDA Final Rule requires in § 1003.4(a)(10)(iii) that a financial institution report the gross annual income relied on in making the credit decision or processing the application if a credit decision was not made.
The Bureau proposed this clarification because it had become aware of uncertainty among financial institutions regarding how to determine which amounts are derived from annuitization or depletion of an applicant's remaining assets. The Bureau explained in the proposal that the use of the modifier “remaining” regarding the assets referred to was meant to specify assets that are not in actual distribution, but are remaining. In addition, the word “derived” was meant to refer to the underwriting method by which hypothetical (not actual) distributions are calculated from the amounts of the remaining assets.
Four industry commenters discussed the proposed clarification, and all four expressed opposition to it. Commenters stated that the provision would require separate tracking of income and hypothetical income formulated from assets for HMDA compliance. One commenter stated that this would make compliance and programming difficult, and another suggested that filers should be able to report either the income and formulated asset depletion together as income or else that the income data point is not applicable when a financial institution relies on formulated asset depletion. Otherwise, one commenter suggested, the institution will be reporting partial information that could incorrectly raise fair lending red flags. Another commenter stated that failure to include the asset depletion information may result in false positives during an underwriting matched pair analysis. One commenter stated that applicants that have reportable income may use assets to qualify for the loan, such as when an applicant will be returning to work from an extended leave or is planning to retire shortly after receiving the loan.
One commenter asked that the Bureau create a special rule for reverse mortgages or else exclude them from the income reporting requirement. Another asked for guidance in reporting income as “0,” such as when an applicant becomes unemployed after applying for the loan.
The Bureau is adopting the clarifying language in comment 4(a)(10)(iii)-4 as proposed, providing that a financial institution does not include as income amounts considered in making a credit decision based on factors in addition to income, such as amounts derived from underwriting calculations of the potential annuitization or depletion of an applicant's remaining assets. The comment further provides that actual distributions from retirement accounts or other assets that are relied on by the financial institution as income should be reported as income. Because the determination of what to exclude depends on the underwriting method the financial institution applies in making the credit decision, the proposed clarification should facilitate implementation of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule.
The commenters' objections to separate tracking of income and asset depletion were not relevant in assessing the proposed clarification. The 2015 HMDA Final Rule income reporting provision already required a separate determination when remaining assets were used, and the April 2017 HMDA Proposal would limit the number of times that separate tracking would be required. Similarly, although the Bureau believes that careful analysis will avoid fair lending misinterpretations, the
Similarly, the Bureau did not propose any change to the treatment of income reporting for reverse mortgages and so has not benefited from notice and comment on this complex issue. In addition, the 2015 HMDA Final Rule preamble noted that the reverse mortgage flag required by § 1003.4(a)(36) will ensure that data reported for reverse mortgages will not be commingled unknowingly with data reported for other covered loans.
Finally, the Bureau notes that the 2015 HMDA Final Rule and the 2018 FIG do not include any language that would bar a financial institution from reporting an applicant's gross annual income as “0” or even a negative number when that is the accurate figure that it relied on.
HMDA section 304(b)(5)(B) requires financial institutions to report mortgage loan information, grouped according to measurements of “the difference between the annual percentage rate associated with the loan and a benchmark rate or rates for all loans.”
The Bureau is adopting an amendment to § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) to clarify that the reporting requirement applies to covered loans and applications that are approved but not accepted. Although the Bureau did not propose to revise § 1003.4(a)(12)(i), it believes this amendment will address potential uncertainty regarding the scope of § 1003.4(a)(12). As discussed above, the 2015 HMDA Final Rule revised § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) to require that financial institutions report, for covered loans subject to Regulation Z, other than assumptions, purchased covered loans, and reverse mortgages, the difference between the covered loan's APR and the APOR for a comparable transaction as of the date the interest rate is set. However, as adopted in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, comments 4(a)(12)-7 and -8 clarify the Bureau's intent that § 1003.4(a)(12) also apply to applications and preapproval requests approved but not accepted. Several other data points revised or adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, such as loan purpose, interest rate, and prepayment penalty, specify that reporting is required for covered loans or applications.
The Bureau calculates APORs on a weekly basis according to a methodology statement that is available to the public and then posts the APORs on the FFIEC Web site. In light of recent variability in the sources of survey data used to calculate APORs and the Bureau's resulting revisions to the methodology statement,
The 2015 HMDA Final Rule revised comment 4(a)(12)-3 to clarify that the requirements of § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) refer to the covered loan's APR. Revised
A few commenters expressed support for the proposed clarification. One national trade association stated that information on rate spread would be more useful if calculated based on the account-specific APR disclosed on the account opening disclosures rather than on the non-specific APR disclosed at the time of application. Another national trade association suggested that a simple approach would be to require reporting based on the APR at the time of closing or account opening, and that in situations where the loan does not close, the lender rely on the last APR disclosed to the borrower. One commenter that supported the proposed clarification stated that account opening disclosures may disclose more than one APR and recommended that the final rule clarify which APR to use in that circumstance. The commenter also sought clarification on whether rate spreads for open-end lines of credit under Regulation C should be calculated in the same manner as set forth in Regulation Z § 1026.32(a).
Final comment 4(a)(12)-3 explains that the requirements of § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) refer to the covered loan's APR. It provides further that, for closed-end mortgage loans, a financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) by relying on the APR for the covered loan, as calculated and disclosed pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.18 or § 1026.38. Final comment 4(a)(12)-3 provides still further that, for open-end lines of credit, a financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) by relying on the APR for the covered loan, as calculated and disclosed pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.6. The comment clarifies that, if multiple APRs are calculated and disclosed pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.6, a financial institution relies on the APR in effect at the time of account opening. It provides that, if an open-end line of credit has a variable-rate feature and a fixed-rate and -term payment option during the draw period, a financial institution relies on the APR in effect at the time of account opening under the variable-rate feature, which would be a discounted initial rate if one is offered under the variable-rate feature. Finally, the comment includes a cross-reference to comment 4(a)(12)-8 for guidance regarding the APR a financial institution relies on in the case of an application or preapproval request that was approved but not accepted.
As to the request for clarification regarding Regulation Z § 1026.32(a) and the calculation of rate spreads for open-end lines of credit, the Bureau believes that existing provisions already address this question. Regulation Z § 1026.14(b) sets forth the method of calculating APR for purposes of the disclosures required under Regulation Z § 1026.6, and Regulation C § 1003.4(a)(12) and its associated commentary set forth the method of calculating rate spread for purposes of Regulation C.
The 2015 HMDA Final Rule adopted new comment 4(a)(12)-5 to clarify that the relevant date to use to determine the APOR for a comparable transaction is the date on which the covered loan's interest rate was set by the financial institution for the final time before closing or account opening. Comment 4(a)(12)-5 includes several illustrative examples. To reflect the renumbering of proposed comment 4(a)-4 to comment 4(a)-2 in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(12)-5.iii to replace the reference to comment 4(a)-4 with a reference to comment 4(a)-2. Comment 4(a)-2 provides guidance on a financial institution's reporting responsibilities when a single transaction involves more than one institution. The Bureau did not receive specific comment on the proposed amendment to comment 4(a)(12)-5.iii. One commenter stated that it agreed that the rate-set date should be the date when the lender last set the rate for the transaction. One commenter expressed concern that a financial institution would need to update its loan/application register when a rate-lock agreement is extended, and another commenter stated that, where a rate-lock agreement is extended, using the date the interest rate was originally locked to determine the APOR would provide more relevant pricing information. One commenter requested further clarification on how a financial institution may exercise discretion in setting the rate before closing.
The Bureau is adopting comment 4(a)(12)-5 as proposed, with minor amendments for further clarity. Final comment 4(a)(12)-5 explains that the relevant date to use to determine the APOR for a comparable transaction is the date on which the interest rate was set by the financial institution for the final time before final action is taken (
As adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, comment 4(a)(12)-8 explains that, in the case of an application or preapproval request that was approved but not accepted, § 1003.4(a)(12) requires the financial institution to report the applicable rate spread. As discussed above, final comment 4(a)(12)-3 provides that, for closed-end mortgage loans, a financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) by relying on the APR for the covered loan as calculated and disclosed pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.18 or § 1026.38 and that, for open-end lines of credit, a financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) by relying on the APR as calculated and disclosed pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.6. The Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(12)-8 to clarify reporting requirements where an application or preapproval request is approved but not accepted and only the early disclosures required under Regulation Z § 1026.18 or § 1026.37 (for closed-end mortgage loans) or § 1026.40 (for open-end lines of credit) are provided. The Bureau is adopting comment 4(a)(12)-8 substantially as proposed, with a clarification to address
A few national trade associations and one large financial institution expressed support for the proposed clarifications to comment 4(a)(12)-8. Several commenters stated, however, that an application or a preapproval request for purposes of Regulation C may not meet the definition of application under Regulation Z, and thus would not trigger the early disclosure requirements under Regulation Z. One national trade association requested further guidance because, in such instances where no Regulation Z disclosures are required, the proposed guidance regarding relying on the APR disclosed pursuant to the early Regulation Z disclosures would not suffice. One large financial institution expressed concern that the proposal would require a financial institution to provide the early Regulation Z disclosures in situations where such disclosures would not otherwise be required under Regulation Z, merely to permit compliance with Regulation C. This commenter, along with a national trade association and another large financial institution, requested that applications or preapproval requests that do not trigger the Regulation Z disclosure requirements be excluded from the reporting requirements in § 1003.4(a)(12).
One national trade association stated that rate spreads should not be required for open-end lines of credit where the account is not opened because the APR disclosed at the time of application is generic and would not provide useful data. Another national trade association stated that rate spreads would only be valuable for covered loans and recommended that this data point not apply to applications that do not result in a covered loan.
The Bureau is adopting comment 4(a)(12)-8 as proposed, with certain minor amendments for clarity and to address an issue discussed by several commenters. Final comment 4(a)(12)-8 provides that, in the case of an application or preapproval request that was approved but not accepted, § 1003.4(a)(12) requires a financial institution to report the applicable rate spread. The comment provides further that, in such cases, the financial institution would provide early disclosures under Regulation Z § 1026.18 or § 1026.37 (for closed-end mortgage loans) or § 1026.40 (for open-end lines of credit), but might never provide any subsequent disclosures. Final comment 4(a)(12)-8 provides still further that, in such cases where no subsequent disclosures are provided, a financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) by relying on the APR for the application or preapproval request, as calculated and disclosed pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.18 or § 1026.37 (for closed-end mortgage loans) or § 1026.40 (for open-end lines of credit), as applicable. Final comment 4(a)(12)-8 includes an additional clarification that, for transactions subject to Regulation C for which no disclosures under Regulation Z are required, a financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) by reporting that the requirement is not applicable.
The Bureau recognizes that an application or a preapproval request as defined under Regulation C may not meet the definition of application under Regulation Z and, in such instances, would not trigger the early Regulation Z disclosures.
The 2015 HMDA Final Rule does not explain how a financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) where a financial institution provides a corrected disclosure under Regulation Z that reflects a corrected APR. Specifically, the 2015 HMDA Final Rule does not clarify whether a financial institution relies on the APR for the covered loan or application approved but not accepted as initially calculated and disclosed or as calculated and disclosed pursuant to the corrected disclosure. The Bureau proposed to add new comment 4(a)(12)-9 to provide that, if a financial institution provides a corrected disclosure under Regulation Z that reflects a corrected APR, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) by comparing the corrected and disclosed APR to the most recently available APOR that was in effect for a comparable transaction as of the rate-set date, so long as the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower before the end of the reporting period in which final action is taken. The Bureau also proposed to amend new comment 4(a)(12)-9, effective January 1, 2020, to include additional guidance pertaining to quarterly reporting. For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is adopting new comment 4(a)(12)-9 effective January 1, 2018, and as amended effective January 1, 2020, substantially as proposed, with certain amendments for clarity.
A few commenters expressed support for the proposal to clarify reporting requirements under § 1003.4(a)(12) when a corrected disclosure is provided pursuant to Regulation Z. One national trade association noted that the proposed comment would apply to applications and preapproval requests that are approved but not accepted and stated that, because only the early Regulation Z disclosures could be provided in such instances, the proposed comment should apply to originated loans. This commenter also stated that the proposed guidance regarding the date on which the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower would be helpful for transactions subject to Regulation Z § 1026.19(f) and requested additional guidance regarding the date on which the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower for transactions subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z § 1026.6(a) or § 1026.19(a). One national trade association that supported the proposal stated that the same guidance regarding the use of a corrected APR would also apply when a lender provides a corrected disclosure reflecting a corrected amount of total points and fees, total loan costs, borrower-paid origination charges, discount points, lender credits, or interest rate. This commenter stated that it would be simpler and more accurate if a financial institution were permitted to use the corrected information disclosed on the corrected disclosure so
The Bureau is adopting new comment 4(a)(12)-9 substantially as proposed, with certain clarifications to address issues discussed by commenters. To correct an oversight in the April 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau is adopting the first sentence of comment 4(a)(12)-9 with revisions to clarify that the guidance in comment 4(a)(12)-9 applies to covered loans and applications that are approved but not accepted. The Bureau recognizes that, where a financial institution provides a corrected version of the disclosures required under Regulation Z § 1026.19(a), pursuant to § 1026.19(a)(2), under Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), pursuant to § 1026.19(f)(2), or under Regulation Z § 1026.6(a), it is often doing so for a covered loan. The Bureau also understands that such corrected disclosures under Regulation Z could be provided in situations where the application is approved but not accepted and the loan is not originated or the account is not opened. Final comment 4(a)(12)-9 does not specifically refer to preapproval requests, which are included in the definition of application, because, in contrast to comment 4(a)(12)-8, the Bureau believes the situations described in comment 4(a)(12)-9 are not likely to arise in connection with preapproval requests.
Final comment 4(a)(12)-9 is also revised to explain that, for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(12), the date the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower is the date the disclosure was mailed or delivered to the borrower in person; the financial institution's method of delivery does not affect the date provided. It includes an illustrative example providing that, where a financial institution provides a corrected version of the disclosures required under Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), pursuant to § 1026.19(f)(2), the date provided is the date disclosed pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.38(a)(3)(i). Final comment 4(a)(12)-9 thus provides guidance applicable to all of the Regulation Z disclosures discussed in the comment regarding the date the corrected version of the disclosures is provided to the borrower for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(12).
In addition, the Bureau is adopting comment 4(a)(12)-9 with a revision to explain that the provision of a corrected disclosure does not affect how a financial institution determines the rate-set date and to include a cross-reference to comment 4(a)(12)-5. The April 2017 HMDA Proposal explained that the corrected disclosure does not affect the rate-set date and cross-referenced comment 4(a)(12)-5. The Bureau recognizes, however, that the rate-set date may be affected in a situation where a corrected disclosure reflects a corrected APR that changed because of a change in the interest rate. Thus, while the provision of a corrected disclosure does not, on its own, affect the rate-set date, the circumstances necessitating the provision of a corrected disclosure could affect the rate-set date. The final rule makes clear that the provision of a corrected disclosure does not change how a financial institution applies the guidance in comment 4(a)(12)-5 to determine the rate-set date.
The Bureau declines to permit financial institutions to update their reporting when a corrected disclosure is provided to the borrower after the end of the reporting period in which final action is taken.
Section 1094(3)(A)(iv) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended section 304(b) of HMDA to require financial institutions to report the credit scores of borrowers and applicants “in such form as the Bureau may prescribe.”
During implementation of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau had become aware that comments 4(a)(15)-2 and -3 might not explain clearly how to report the scoring model for a composite credit score and how to report a single credit score when there are multiple applicants or borrowers. Consequently, the Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(15)-2 to clarify that, when a financial institution uses more than one credit scoring model and combines the scores into a composite credit score, the financial institution should report that score and report that more than one credit scoring model was used. In addition, the Bureau proposed
The Bureau received eight comments on the proposed changes to the credit score commentary. Four commenters expressed support for the changes, and no commenters expressed opposition to them. Two commenters stated that comment 4(a)(15)-3, which in certain situations requires a financial institution to report a credit score for the applicant or, alternatively, for the co-applicant, is not clear on whether the choice of the two alternatives is within the financial institution's discretion. Commenters also stated that, when there are more than two applicants, a median or middle credit score may be used and that our proposal did not address this situation. One commenter said that our proposal would add clarity, but that these clarifications may not reflect how some lenders are programming their systems, and urged the Bureau to allow flexibility in treatment of these issues until the Bureau can propose further amendments to the Regulation C commentary with adequate time for implementation.
Commenters also asked for guidance on two issues not addressed in the April 2017 HMDA Proposal. Three commenters asked for guidance on reporting the credit score when a credit score is ordered but the applicant has no credit score. Another commenter asked that the Bureau adopt an exclusion from credit score reporting for loans to employees of the financial institution to protect their privacy.
The Bureau is adopting the clarifying language to comments 4(a)(15)-2 and -3 largely as proposed, with a small change to comment 4(a)(15)-3 to clarify the discretion a financial institution has in reporting a score for the applicant or, alternatively, the co-applicant, and a minor word edit. The commenters who expressed a position uniformly supported the proposed changes, and the Bureau believes that the adopted language will clarify and facilitate reporting of credit scores. Although there may be implementation challenges, the Bureau believes that financial institutions and their software vendors will have sufficient time to adjust to this minor change and that any such challenges will be outweighed by the implementation benefits of these clarifications.
Comment 4(a)(15)-3 as adopted states that, in a transaction involving two or more applicants or borrowers for whom the financial institution obtains or creates a single credit score and relies on that credit score in making the credit decision for the transaction, the institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(15) by reporting that credit score for the applicant and reporting that the requirement is not applicable for the first co-applicant or, at the institution's discretion, by reporting that credit score for the first co-applicant and reporting that the requirement is not applicable for the applicant. This change to the language of the proposed comment will clarify that a financial institution may use its discretion in deciding whether to disclose a single credit score as the applicant's or co-applicant's score. The Bureau believes that any minor loss in the exactness of credit score reporting caused by this decision will be outweighed by the compliance benefits gained by not requiring financial institutions to calibrate systems and engage in ongoing compliance to account for the various situations likely to arise.
Regarding the comments discussing reporting when a median or middle credit score is relied on, the Bureau notes that comment 4(a)(15)-3 as adopted addresses this situation: A financial institution should report the median or middle credit score for the applicant or, at the financial institution's discretion, for the co-applicant.
Regarding the request for guidance on reporting when a credit score is requested but none is available, § 1003.4(a)(15) requires reporting the credit score or scores relied on in making the credit decision, so a financial institution would report that the requirement is not applicable if it did not rely on a credit score. In regard to the comment on employee loans, the Bureau did not propose or seek comment about an exclusion from credit score reporting for loans to employees, and declines to adopt one.
Section 304(b)(5)(A) of HMDA
Two commenters stated that the proposal to refer to “final action” instead of the date that “closing occurred” regarding reporting total loan costs would create ambiguity in proposed comment 4(a)(17)(i)-3. These commenters requested clarification on whether final action refers to: (1) The
The Bureau is adopting comment 4(a)(17)(i)-3 effective January 1, 2018, and as amended again effective January 1, 2020, substantially as proposed. The Bureau is not adopting the proposal to refer to the date “final action is taken” instead of the date “closing occurs.” The Bureau explained in the April 2017 HMDA Proposal that it believed that referring to the reporting period in which final action is taken, rather than when closing occurred, would improve clarity and consistency with the language used in Regulation C.
Pursuant to HMDA sections 305(a) and 304(b)(5)(D), in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule the Bureau adopted § 1003.4(a)(18) to require financial institutions to report, for covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), the total of all itemized amounts that are designated borrower-paid at or before closing, as disclosed pursuant to § 1026.38(f)(1). Comment 4(a)(18)-3, as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, provides the same guidance concerning reporting of the total of all itemized amounts that are designated borrower-paid at or before closing as provided in comment 4(a)(17)(i)-3 regarding reporting total loan costs in situations where a financial institution has issued a revised Closing Disclosure with a new amount of total borrower-paid origination charges. The Bureau proposed parallel amendments to comment 4(a)(18)-3 to those proposed to comment 4(a)(17)(i)-3. For the reasons discussed above in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.4(a)(17), the Bureau is adopting comment 4(a)(18)-3 effective January 1, 2018, and as amended again effective January 1, 2020, substantially as proposed.
Pursuant to HMDA sections 305(a) and 304(b)(5)(D), in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule the Bureau adopted § 1003.4(a)(19) to require financial institutions to report, for covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), the points paid to the creditor to reduce the interest rate, expressed in dollars, as described in Regulation Z § 1026.37(f)(1)(i) and disclosed pursuant to § 1026.38(f)(1). As adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, comment 4(a)(19)-3 provides the same guidance concerning reporting of discount points as provided in comment 4(a)(17)(i)-3 regarding reporting total loan costs in situations where a financial institution has issued a revised Closing Disclosure with a new amount of discount points. The Bureau proposed parallel amendments to comment 4(a)(19)-3 to those proposed to comment 4(a)(17)(i)-3. For the reasons discussed above in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.4(a)(17), the Bureau is adopting comment 4(a)(19)-3 effective January 1, 2018, and as amended again effective January 1, 2020, substantially as proposed.
Pursuant to HMDA sections 305(a) and 304(b)(5)(D), in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule the Bureau adopted § 1003.4(a)(20) to require financial institutions to report, for covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), the total amount of lender credits, as disclosed pursuant to § 1026.38(h)(3). As adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, comment 4(a)(20)-3 provides the same guidance concerning reporting of lender credits as provided in comment 4(a)(17)(i)-3 regarding reporting total loan costs in situations where a financial institution has issued a revised Closing Disclosure with a new amount of lender credits. The Bureau proposed parallel edits to comment 4(a)(20)-3 to those proposed to comment 4(a)(17)(i)-3. For the reasons discussed above in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.4(a)(17), the Bureau is adopting comment 4(a)(20)-3 effective January 1, 2018, and as amended again effective January 1, 2020, substantially as proposed.
Pursuant to HMDA sections 305(a) and 304(b)(6)(J), the Bureau adopted § 1003.4(a)(21) in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule to require financial institutions to report the interest rate applicable to the approved application or to the covered loan at closing or account opening. Comment 4(a)(21)-1 clarifies the interest rate that financial institutions must report for covered loans or applications subject to the disclosure requirements of Regulation Z § 1026.19(e) or (f). The Bureau proposed to amend comment 4(a)(21)-1 to clarify that, if a financial institution provides a revised or corrected version of the disclosures required under Regulation Z § 1026.19(e) or (f), as applicable, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(21) by reporting the interest rate on the revised or corrected disclosure, provided that the revised or corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower before the end of the reporting period in which final action is taken. The Bureau also proposed certain other minor clarifications to comment 4(a)(21)-1. One national trade association recommended that financial institutions be permitted to report corrected amounts reflected on a corrected disclosure so long as the disclosure was provided to the borrower before the financial institution's submission of its loan/application register. See the discussion above in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.4(a)(12) concerning that comment. The Bureau is adopting comment 4(a)(21)-1 as proposed, with a minor clarification to specify the early and the final disclosure requirements in Regulation Z § 1026.19(e) and (f) and to add an omitted “the.”
Pursuant to its authority under sections 304(b)(6)(J) and 305(a) of HMDA, the Bureau adopted § 1003.4(a)(24) in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule to require, except for purchased covered loans, financial institutions to report the ratio of the total amount of debt secured by the property to the value of the property relied on in making the credit decision. The ratio of the total amount of debt secured by the property to the value of the property relied on in making the credit decision generally is referred to as the combined
A few commenters requested exemptions from the reporting requirements in § 1003.4(a)(24) for reverse mortgages, assumptions, or loans made by credit unions, with one commenter suggesting that the data point be removed entirely. One national trade association requested the Bureau clarify that, in the case of reverse mortgages, the total amount of debt secured by the property is limited to mortgage liens, while another national trade association requested resubmission guidelines for reporting CLTV ratio.
The Bureau is adopting comments 4(a)(24)-2 and -6 as proposed, with technical revisions for clarity. Regarding the calculation of the CLTV ratio, final comment 4(a)(24)-6 clarifies further that § 1003.4(a)(24) does not require a financial institution to use a particular CLTV ratio calculation method but instead requires financial institutions to report the CLTV ratio relied on in making the credit decision. As to commenters' requests for exemptions from § 1003.4(a)(24), the Bureau notes that § 1003.4(a)(24) does not require a financial institution to calculate a CLTV ratio and does not require a financial institution to rely on a CLTV ratio in making a credit decision. If a financial institution makes a credit decision without relying on a CLTV ratio, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(24) by reporting that the requirement is not applicable. The Bureau also notes that, as provided in comment 2(d)-2.i, assumptions are considered extensions of credit even if the new borrower assumes an existing debt obligation. Thus, if a financial institution that grants an assumption of a debt obligation relies on a CLTV ratio in making the credit decision related to the application for the assumption, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(24) by reporting that CLTV ratio. A financial institution that grants an assumption of a debt obligation does not report the CLTV ratio relied on by the originating institution, unless it relied on that CLTV ratio in making the credit decision related to the application for the assumption. The same principles regarding reporting the CLTV ratio apply to reverse mortgages as defined under § 1003.2(q).
The Bureau implemented HMDA section 304(b)(6)(B) in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule by adopting § 1003.4(a)(26) to require that financial institutions collect and report data on the number of months, or proposed number of months in the case of an application, until the first date the interest rate may change after closing or account opening. The Bureau proposed additional commentary to § 1003.4(a)(26) to clarify reporting requirements for non-monthly introductory interest rate periods.
A few commenters expressed support for the proposed clarification regarding non-monthly introductory rate periods, stating that the proposal would help facilitate implementation. A vendor that supported the proposal requested additional clarification on situations where a construction loan that converts to permanent financing features a different interest rate than the permanent financing and where a loan has a temporary buydown agreement that is separate from the note. A large financial institution expressed uncertainty regarding reporting when a variable-rate loan is tied to an index that can change at any time and requested that financial institutions be permitted to report “not applicable” in such circumstances. One national trade association recommended that the Bureau exempt purchases and assumptions of loans secured by multifamily dwellings, stating that reporting such information would provide limited public policy benefits. This commenter also suggested referring to the “initial rate period” instead of to the “introductory” rate to reduce confusion. One national trade association requested that reverse mortgages be exempt from § 1003.4(a)(26).
The Bureau is adopting new comment 4(a)(26)-5 as proposed. Comment 4(a)(26)-5 provides that if a covered loan or application includes an introductory interest rate period measured in a unit of time other than months, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(26) by reporting the introductory interest rate period for the covered loan or application using an equivalent number of whole months without regard for any remainder and provides an example. Regarding requests for further clarifications, § 1003.4(a)(26) requires a financial institution to report the number of months, or proposed number of months in the case of an application, from closing or account opening until the first date the interest rate may change. Regarding the request for additional guidance on reporting when a construction loan converts to permanent financing, § 1003.4(a)(26) provides a single standard for reporting that does not depend on loan type or loan purpose and that applies regardless of how the interest rate adjustment is characterized. Regarding the request for additional guidance on reporting when a loan has a temporary buydown agreement, § 1003.4(a)(26) does not prescribe a specific method by which the change in interest rate must be reflected (
HMDA section 304(b)(6)(F) requires the reporting of, “as the Bureau may determine to be appropriate, a unique identifier that identifies the loan originator as set forth in” the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (SAFE Act).
The preamble to the 2015 HMDA Final Rule stated the Bureau's belief that reporting the NMLSR ID would impose little to no ongoing cost for financial institutions because the information is required to be provided on certain loan documents pursuant to Regulation Z (the loan originator rules).
Seven commenters discussed the NMLSR ID transition rules and all of them expressed support for the changes. Three of these commenters requested that the Bureau extend or make permanent the transitional rule for non-Regulation Z loans. One commenter stated that there will be difficulties when purchasing loans from an originating seller that is not itself a HMDA reporter. Another commenter said that the practical difficulties that the non-Regulation Z transitional rule is meant to allay will still exist after January 1, 2018. A third commenter suggested that the Bureau allow purchasers to report that the requirement is not applicable whenever there is no NMLSR ID on the loan documents.
Commenters also suggested that the transitional rules for purchasers be extended to data points beyond the NMLSR ID. One commenter suggested a transitional rule that would allow purchasers to report whatever data was originally reported on the loan. Another commenter requested a transitional rule for reporting of assumptions.
The Bureau has carefully considered the comments submitted and is adopting comment 4(a)(34)-4 as proposed. Commenters have pointed out that they may purchase after the effective date of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule loans that were originated before Regulation Z's loan originator rules became effective on January 10, 2014. In such cases, the loan documents may not include the NMLSR ID, even when the loan originator had been assigned one. Comment 4(a)(34)-2, however, otherwise provides that § 1003.4(a)(34) requires reporting the NMLSR ID for such loans. In such a circumstance, this reporting may impose considerable challenges to require purchasers to acquire this information. Therefore, the transitional rule in new comment 4(a)(34)-4 explains that, if a financial institution purchases a covered loan that satisfies the coverage criteria of Regulation Z § 1026.36(g) and that was originated before January 10, 2014, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(34) by reporting that the requirement is not applicable.
As explained above, the loan documents for purchased loans that are not covered by Regulation Z but are nevertheless covered loans (
As adopted, new comment 4(a)(34)-4 also makes clear that purchasers of the loans exempted by the transitional rules discussed above may report the NMLSR ID voluntarily. The information may be useful, and the Bureau believes that, if the NMLSR ID is present in the loan data of purchased loans to which the transitional rules apply, it may add burden to require it to be removed.
Commenters' suggestions about transitional rules for other data points and general treatment of purchased loans were not proposed, and the Bureau has not benefited from public comment concerning them. The transitional rules regarding the NMLSR ID are being adopted due to specific documentation issues that will create challenges for purchasers, and the absence of data that will result is reasonably well known and circumscribed. Commenters did not provide specific discussion of the challenges that other transitional rules would address and what potential burdens would exist.
In addition, the Bureau notes that assumptions are reportable under the current HMDA rule and are treated as new extensions of credit, so reporting will not require data from the previous origination of the loan being assumed.
In the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, pursuant to its authority under sections 305(a) and 304(b)(6)(J) of HMDA, the Bureau adopted § 1003.4(a)(35)(i) to require a financial institution to report, except for purchased covered loans, the name of the automated underwriting system (AUS) it used to evaluate the application and the result generated by that AUS. As adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii) provides that an AUS means an electronic tool developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor that provides a result regarding the credit risk of the applicant and whether the covered loan is eligible to be originated, purchased, insured, or guaranteed by that securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor. The Bureau proposed to amend § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii) to clarify
A few commenters supported the proposed clarifications to the definition of AUS and the additional guidance in proposed new comment 4(a)(35)-7. One national trade association stated that the 2015 HMDA Final Rule uses the term securitizer in the present tense, thereby indicating that, if the financial institution that developed the electronic system is no longer securitizing loans, that system would not meet the definition of AUS. It asserted that the proposal to clarify that a person is a securitizer if it has ever securitized a loan is a substantive change that should result in an additional implementation period. A software vendor commenter requested additional guidance on reporting requirements when a financial institution uses Technology Open to Approved Lenders (TOTAL) Scorecard in conjunction with other AUSs.
The Bureau is adopting § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii) and comments 4(a)(35)-2 and -7 as proposed, with minor amendments for clarity in comment 4(a)(12)-2. Accordingly, final § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii) explains that, for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(35), an AUS means an electronic tool developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit that provides a result regarding the credit risk of the applicant and whether the covered loan is eligible to be originated, purchased, insured, or guaranteed by that securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor. Final § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii) explains further that, a person is a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit, respectively, if it has ever securitized, provided Federal government insurance, or provided a Federal government guarantee for a closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit.
The Bureau is adopting conforming amendments to comment 4(a)(35)-2 to reflect final § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii). Final comment 4(a)(35)-2 clarifies that, to be covered by the AUS definition in § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii), a system must be an electronic tool that has been developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or a Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit. Final comment 4(a)(35)-2 provides further that, a person is a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit, respectively, if it has securitized, provided Federal government insurance, or provided a Federal government guarantee for a closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit at any point in time. It provides still further that, a person may be a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit, respectively, for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(35) even if it is not actively securitizing, insuring, or guaranteeing closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit at the time a financial institution uses the system in question. Additionally, final comment 4(a)(35)-2 clarifies that where the person that developed the electronic tool has never been a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit, respectively, at the time a financial institution uses the tool to evaluate an application, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting that the requirement is not applicable because an AUS was not used to evaluate the application. In addition to these conforming amendments, the Bureau is adopting final comment 4(a)(35)-2 with minor technical revisions.
The Bureau is adopting new comment 4(a)(35)-7 to add clarity regarding a financial institution's determination of whether the system it is using to evaluate an application is an electronic tool developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit. Comment 4(a)(35)-7 sets forth the definition of AUS under final § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii). It clarifies that if a financial institution knows or reasonably believes that the system it is using to evaluate an application is an electronic tool that has been developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit, then the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of that system and the result generated by that system. Comment 4(a)(35)-7 explains that knowledge or reasonable belief could, for example, be based on a sales agreement or other related documents, the financial institution's previous transactions or relationship with the developer of the electronic tool, or representations made by the developer of the electronic tool demonstrating that the developer of the electronic tool is a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit.
Additionally, comment 4(a)(35)-7 provides that if a financial institution does not know or reasonably believe that the system it is using to evaluate an application is an electronic tool that has been developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting that the requirement is not applicable, provided that the financial institution maintains procedures reasonably adapted to determine whether the electronic tool it is using to evaluate an application meets the definition in § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii). The comment explains that reasonably adapted procedures include attempting to determine with reasonable frequency, such as annually, whether the developer of the electronic tool is a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit. Finally, comment 4(a)(35)-7 includes illustrative examples demonstrating how a financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) depending on whether it knows or reasonably believes that the system it is using to evaluate an application is an electronic tool that has been developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit.
As to one commenter's statement that the proposal would constitute a substantive change requiring a new implementation period, the Bureau notes that, as discussed in the April 2017 HMDA Proposal, the 2015 HMDA Final Rule did not define the timeframe relevant to the determination of whether a person is a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(35). Thus, the Bureau believes the final rule should facilitate implementation by addressing potential uncertainty while also ensuring the continued availability of reliable AUS data regardless of potential changes in the marketplace that may affect a person's status as an active securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end
The Bureau declines to clarify further reporting requirements when a financial institution uses TOTAL Scorecard to evaluate an application because that scenario is addressed in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule.
Pursuant to HMDA section 305(a), in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule the Bureau adopted § 1003.5(a)(3), effective January 1, 2019, to require financial institutions to provide their Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) when reporting HMDA data and to set forth certain other requirements regarding the information a financial institution must include in its submission. Specifically, § 1003.5(a)(3)(ii) requires a financial institution to provide with its submission the calendar year the data submission covers pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(i) or calendar quarter and year the data submission covers pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii). The Bureau proposed to amend § 1003.5(a)(3)(ii) to reflect the different effective dates for annual reporting requirements in § 1003.5(a)(1)(i) and quarterly reporting requirements in § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii) adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. The Bureau received no comments regarding the proposed amendments and therefore is adopting § 1003.5(a)(3)(ii) as proposed.
Current § 1003.6(b) provides that “bona fide errors” are not violations of HMDA and Regulation C and provides guidance about what qualifies as a bona fide error. Current § 1003.6(b)(2) provides that an incorrect entry for a census tract number is deemed a bona fide error, and is not a violation of HMDA or Regulation C, if the financial institution maintains procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such errors. The Bureau proposed amendments to the commentary to § 1003.6(b) to clarify that incorrect entries reporting the census tract number of a property are not a violation of HMDA or Regulation C if the financial institution properly uses a geocoding tool made available through the Bureau's Web site, the financial institution enters an accurate property address, and the tool provides a census tract number for the property address entered.
To ease the burden associated with reporting the census tract number required by Regulation C, the Bureau plans to make available on its Web site a geocoding tool to provide the census tract based on property addresses entered by users. The Bureau proposed new comment 6(b)-2 to clarify that obtaining census tract information for covered loans and applications from the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site is an example of a procedure reasonably adapted to avoid incorrect entries for a census tract number under § 1003.6(b)(2). The proposed comment stated that a census tract error is not a violation of HMDA or Regulation C if the financial institution obtained the census tract number from the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site after entering an accurate property address. The proposed comment stated, however, that a financial institution's failure to provide the required census tract information for a covered loan or application on its loan/application register because the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site did not provide a census tract for the property address entered by the financial institution is not excused as a bona fide error. The proposed comment also explained that a census tract error caused by a financial institution entering an inaccurate property address into the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site is not excused as a bona fide error. The Bureau also proposed to add to comment 6(b)-1 a cross reference to proposed comment 6(b)-2.
The Bureau received nine comments from trade associations, financial institutions, and other industry participants on the proposed amendments. One commenter supported the safe harbor protections provided by using the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site. Several commenters suggested that the bona fide error should include any error generated by the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site, including the tool's failure to return an address. One vendor commenter opposed providing a safe harbor for the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site unless other geocoding tools receive a similar safe harbor. Several commenters expressed concern that the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site would not be available in a timeframe that would allow for testing and implementation and suggested that the Bureau delay the effective date of the safe harbor provision.
The Bureau is finalizing comments 6(b)-1 and -2 largely as proposed. The Bureau does not agree with commenters that the scope of proposed comment 6(b)-2 is too narrow. To provide protections for all errors generated through the use of the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site, regardless of the reason for the error, would be overbroad. Accurate information about the census tract of the property is essential to HMDA's purposes. Therefore, the Bureau believes that an accurate census tract should be reported in as many cases as possible. At the same time, however, a financial institution should not face compliance risk for inaccuracies resulting from information provided by the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site. The Bureau believes that proposed comment 6(b)-2 appropriately balances those concerns by requiring financial institutions to enter an accurate property address. For the same reason, in cases when the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site does not generate a census tract number for a particular address, the Bureau believes the burden is appropriately placed on financial institutions to, by other means, identify the census tract, as they do when using any other Geocoding Tool. Financial institutions bear the reporting responsibility under HMDA generally, to identify the census tract; financial institutions are in a better position to identify the census tract using other information that they have about property location, such as the local area or parcel number.
The Bureau did not intend, as commenters appear to have inferred, that only census tract errors generated by the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site are bona fide errors. Current § 1003.6 states that an error in
The Bureau declines to delay the effective date of these bona fide error protections, and is making the protections available beginning with data collected during the 2018 calendar year.
Current § 1003.6(b)(3) provides that errors and omissions in data that a financial institution records on its loan/application register on a quarterly basis as required under § 1003.4(a) are not violations of HMDA or Regulation C if the institution makes a good-faith effort to record all required data fully and accurately within thirty calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter and corrects or completes the data before reporting the data to its appropriate Federal agency. In the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau moved the substance of current § 1003.6(b)(3) to new § 1003.6(c)(1) and added new § 1003.6(c)(2) to provide that a similar safe harbor applies to data reported on a quarterly basis pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii). Pursuant to § 1003.6(c)(2), errors and omissions in the data submitted pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii) will not be considered HMDA or Regulation C violations provided the same conditions that currently provide a safe harbor for errors and omissions in quarterly recorded data are satisfied. The Bureau proposed to amend § 1003.6(c)(2) so that its effective date aligns with the effective date for the quarterly reporting requirements in § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii), for which § 1003.6(c)(2) provides a safe harbor. Specifically, the Bureau proposed to remove § 1003.6(c)(2) and to redesignate § 1003.6(c)(1) as § 1003.6(c) effective January 1, 2019. The Bureau proposed to add § 1003.6(c)(2), as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, and to redesignate § 1003.6(c) as § 1003.6(c)(1) effective January 1, 2020. The Bureau received no comments regarding this proposal and therefore is adopting the revisions to § 1003.6(c) effective January 1, 2019, and effective January 1, 2020, as proposed.
HMDA and Regulation C currently require financial institutions to collect the ethnicity, race, and sex of an applicant or borrower for covered loans and applications.
Instruction 8 in revised appendix B provides that financial institutions must report the ethnicity, race, and sex of an applicant as provided by the applicant. The instruction provides the example that, if an applicant selects the Mexican ethnicity subcategory, the financial institution reports Mexican for the ethnicity of the applicant. Instruction 9.i similarly provides that a financial institution must report each ethnicity category and subcategory selected by the applicant. Instruction 9.i further provides that, if an applicant selects the Hispanic or Latino ethnicity category, the applicant may select up to four ethnicity subcategories.
To clarify the circumstances in which an applicant may select a subcategory and to address any perceived inconsistencies, the Bureau proposed to amend instructions 8 and 9.i. Specifically, the Bureau proposed to amend instruction 8 to provide that an applicant may select an ethnicity or race subcategory even if the applicant does not select an aggregate ethnicity or race category. The April 2017 HMDA Proposal also clarified that a financial institution should not report an aggregate category if not selected by the applicant. The Bureau further proposed to amend instruction 9.i to remove language suggesting that the selection of Hispanic or Latino is a precondition to selecting the ethnicity subcategories. For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is adopting instructions 8 and 9.i concerning the selection of ethnicity and race subcategories as proposed with minor revisions for clarity.
The majority of commenters addressing the proposed revisions to instruction 8 and 9.i expressed appreciation for the clarifications. Consumer advocacy groups and an industry commenter also supported the proposal because it would reflect an applicant's preferences and identity.
Some industry commenters opposed the proposed revisions to instruction 8 and 9.i. One commenter argued that the proposed clarifications are contrary to the instructions in revised appendix B and would undermine implementation work already performed. The commenter further asserted that the proposed revisions would not promote
Another industry commenter argued that the proposed revisions would not align with lender systems, which in some cases are programmed to trigger automatically the selection of a main category when a subcategory is selected. The industry commenter explained that permitting automatic selection of the aggregate category would also be important for data analysis. The commenter suggested that, if an applicant selects only a subcategory, the financial institution must also report the aggregate category to which the subcategory belongs.
The Bureau disagrees that the proposed revisions are inconsistent with the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, as revised appendix B does not definitively address the reporting of subcategories alone. Rather, as described above and in the April 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau finds that revised appendix B instructions 8 and 9.i provide potentially inconsistent instructions that may cause uncertainty on whether an applicant may select only a subcategory without the corresponding aggregate category. The Bureau therefore finds it necessary to provide certainty, and indeed several commenters have expressed support for the Bureau's clarification of this issue. The clarification is also consistent with informal guidance provided to date by the Bureau.
The Bureau believes financial institutions can implement and test any adjustments that might be required as a result of the clarification before the effective date. To the extent the clarification requires certain financial institutions to make technical changes, those changes will require only minor adjustments rather than significant system updates. Moreover, commenters who expressed concern about the implementation period may not have expected this rule to be finalized so quickly, providing industry more than four months time for implementation. For these reasons, the Bureau concludes that financial institutions will be capable of making the required changes in the several months remaining before the effective date of January 1, 2018.
The Bureau also disagrees that providing applicants the opportunity to select a subcategory alone will be confusing to applicants, and notes that the commenter provides no testing results or data for such a conclusion. Rather, the Bureau believes that providing applicants with the opportunity to view and select the enumerated subcategories will increase optionality for the applicant and promote self-identification. For example, an applicant may identify as Mexican, but not Hispanic or Latino, and providing the applicant the option to view and choose only Mexican therefore may increase the response rate. The Bureau believes that applicants should always be able to select only a subcategory if it best reflects their self-identification preferences.
The Bureau also declines to adopt the alternative proposed by an industry commenter to require a financial institution to report the corresponding aggregate category if an applicant selects only a subcategory. While the Bureau understands that such a requirement may reflect some institutions' systems, it may not reflect all financial institutions' practices. The Bureau declines as part of this rulemaking to impose an additional requirement on financial institutions to report the aggregate category if a subcategory is selected. Moreover, as discussed above, the Bureau believes that some applicants may self-identify as a subcategory but not the corresponding aggregate category, thus reporting only what the applicant selects would better reflect applicant identity and may increase the response rate. The Bureau also does not believe that such an alternative is necessary for data analysis, as users may roll up the subcategories into their corresponding categories when analyzing the data, irrespective of how the data are reported.
One industry commenter argued that the proposed clarification would result in inconsistent reporting. The commenter noted that the same applicant could be reported as an aggregate category before the effective date and a subcategory after the effective date. The commenter further noted that by removing a requirement to report the aggregate categories, many additional subcategories will be created and therefore dilute the data being reported. The commenter argued that inconsistent reporting would undermine HMDA's purposes and requested that the Bureau provide guidance on how to analyze data collected before and after the effective date.
The Bureau declines to provide such guidance. As noted above, reporting requirements may differ from data analysis methods, and nothing in the revisions to instructions 8 and 9.i would preclude a financial institution from rolling up the subcategories into their corresponding aggregate categories for purposes of data analysis. Moreover, the Bureau sought comment only on the reporting requirements. The Bureau disagrees that the clarification will dilute the data being reported and notes that the commenter provides no evidence to support this conclusion. To the extent the clarification may result in differing reporting before and after the effective date, the Bureau notes that some variation is common during any transition period.
Several commenters asked for clarification concerning how the revisions to instructions 8 and 9.i may affect other requirements of revised appendix B. One industry commenter requested confirmation that the amendments would not alter the requirements in revised appendix B concerning the collection of ethnicity, race, and sex information on the basis of visual observation or surname. The Bureau agrees that the proposed amendments would not alter revised appendix B in this respect.
Another industry commenter requested guidance on how the clarifications would affect applications dated before January 1, 2018. The Bureau believes the commenter is referring to a Bureau approval notice issued on September 23, 2016, concerning the collection of ethnicity and race information in 2017 (Bureau Approval Notice), which provides that, at any time from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017, a creditor may, at its option, permit applicants to self-identify using disaggregated ethnic and racial categories as instructed in revised appendix B.
For the reasons given above, the Bureau is adopting the amendments in instructions 8 and 9.i concerning the selection of ethnicity and race subcategories as proposed with minor revisions for clarity.
Instructions 9.ii and 9.iv in revised appendix B provide instructions for collecting and reporting an Other ethnicity or race subcategory and free-form field. Specifically, instruction 9.ii provides that, if an applicant selects the Other Hispanic or Latino ethnicity subcategory, the applicant may also provide a particular Hispanic or Latino ethnicity not listed in the standard subcategories. Instruction 9.iv similarly provides that, if an applicant selects the Other Asian race subcategory or the Other Pacific Islander race subcategory, the applicant may also provide a particular Other Asian or Other Pacific Islander race not listed in the standard subcategories. The sample data collection form included in revised appendix B provides for an Other ethnicity or race subcategory the applicant can select and a free-form field in which an applicant can provide a particular ethnicity or race. The sample data collection form also includes an American Indian or Alaska Native race category an applicant can select and a free-form field in which an applicant can provide a particular American Indian or Alaska Native enrolled or principal tribe. Instruction 8 provides that only an applicant may self-identify as a particular American Indian or Alaska Native enrolled or principal tribe.
The Bureau proposed to revise instructions 9.ii and 9.iv to clarify that an applicant may provide a particular ethnicity or race in the free-form field, whether or not the applicant selects the Other Hispanic or Latino, Other Asian, or Other Pacific Islander subcategory. Specifically, the Bureau proposed to amend instruction 9.ii to provide that an applicant may select the Other Hispanic or Latino ethnicity subcategory, an applicant may provide a particular Hispanic or Latino ethnicity not listed in the standard subcategories, or an applicant may do both. The Bureau proposed similar revisions to instructions 9.iv, as related to the Other race subcategories.
Several commenters opposed the proposed amendments to instructions 9.ii and 9.iv. Some commenters stated that the proposal is a departure from revised appendix B and the 2018 FIG, which both indicate that an applicant may provide an Other race or ethnicity in the free-form field if (and arguably, by implication, only if) the applicant selects the associated Other race or ethnicity subcategory. Some commenters also argued that the proposed amendments would be inconsistent with existing industry practice and programming already conducted in preparation for the January 1, 2018, effective date. Another industry commenter stated that the proposal could potentially delay implementation and would not have consumer benefits.
Some commenters expressed particular concern about reporting only a free-form Other ethnicity or race. One commenter expressed uncertainty about how such information would be reported and concern about sending a free-form field with no code or, alternatively, improperly reporting an Other ethnicity or race subcategory code that was not selected by the applicant. A commenter suggested the Bureau amend the rule to provide that, when an applicant provides a specific Other ethnicity or race in the free-form field without selecting the Other ethnicity or race subcategory, a financial institution is permitted to report the associated Other ethnicity or race subcategory in addition to the information the applicant provided.
After consideration of the comments, the Bureau concludes that amendments to instructions 9.ii and 9.iv remain necessary. The Bureau finds that ensuring an applicant has the opportunity to provide a specific Other ethnicity or race not listed in the standard subcategories will encourage self-identification and further the purposes of HMDA by improving the data. While the Bureau acknowledges that the proposed amendments are somewhat of a departure from revised appendix B and certain industry practice, the Bureau believes that an applicant should be provided an opportunity to provide a specific Other ethnicity or race without any preconditions or restrictions. To the extent revised appendix B implied otherwise, it did not do so intentionally.
In response to commenter concerns about reporting a free-form field that is not linked to any associated code, the Bureau will permit a financial institution to select automatically and to report the Other ethnicity or race subcategory if an applicant provides a specific Other ethnicity or race in the free-form field but does not actively select the Other ethnicity or race subcategory. The Bureau finds that the need for such flexibility is greater in the case of the Other race and ethnicity subcategory, as compared to the aggregate category and subcategory issue discussed above, given commenters' concerns and questions about maintaining and reporting a free-form field without linking that field to any associated code. The Bureau believes that such increased burden and uncertainty may undermine the purposes of HMDA and the quality of the data. Accordingly, the Bureau will permit, but not require, financial institutions to report the corresponding Other race or ethnicity subcategory when an applicant provides an Other race or ethnicity not listed in the standard subcategories, even where the applicant did not actively select the Other race or ethnicity subcategory, and final instructions 9.ii and 9.iv so provide. The Bureau believes that such a permissive standard will address industry concerns without imposing any additional regulatory burden on financial institutions.
The Bureau concludes that similar conforming revisions are also necessary in connection with the American Indian or Alaska Native race category and free-form field. Similar to the Other ethnicity or race subcategory, the Bureau believes that an applicant should be provided an opportunity to provide a particular American Indian or Alaska Native enrolled or principal tribe without any preconditions or restrictions. The Bureau further concludes that the same concerns about reporting a free-form field that is not linked to any associated code would also apply to the American
One commenter requested additional clarification on how to count the Other race or ethnicity subcategory for purposes of the five-race or -ethnicity maximum. As described in instructions 9.ii and 9.iv, the Other race or ethnicity field will always constitute one selection for purposes of the five-race or -ethnicity maximum. For example, if an applicant selects only the Other Hispanic or Latino subcategory and does not provide a specific Other race or ethnicity in the free-form field, that selection counts as one selection for purposes of the maximum. Similarly, if an applicant selects the Other Hispanic or Latino ethnicity subcategory and also provides a specific Hispanic or Latino ethnicity in the free-form field, these selections together constitute only one selection. As set forth in final instruction 9.v, the American Indian or Alaska Native field will also always constitute one selection for purposes of the five-race maximum.
For the reasons discussed above, the Bureau is adopting certain revisions to instructions 9.ii and 9.iv to address industry comments and adding instruction 9.v to provide conforming changes to the American Indian and Alaska Native field. Specifically, the Bureau is amending instructions 9.ii and 9.iv to permit, but not require, a financial institution to report an Other Hispanic or Latino, Other Asian, or Other Pacific Islander subcategory, as applicable, if an applicant provides a specific Hispanic or Latino, Asian, or Pacific Islander ethnicity or race in the free-form field. The Bureau is also amending instructions 9.ii and 9.iv to provide examples. Otherwise, the Bureau is adopting the amendments to instructions 9.ii and 9.iv as proposed, with certain other, technical revisions for clarity. The Bureau is also adding instruction 9.v to provide guidance on the collection and reporting of the American Indian and Alaska Native race category and free-form field that mirror the guidance in final instructions 9.ii and 9.iv concerning the reporting of the Other race and ethnicity subcategories, as well as a technical revision to instruction 9.iii.
Instruction 9 in revised appendix B requires that an applicant be offered the option to select more than one ethnicity or race. Instruction 9.i sets forth two aggregate ethnicity categories and four ethnicity subcategories that may be selected by an applicant (for a total of six categories and subcategories). Instruction 9.i requires that a financial institution report each aggregate ethnicity category and each ethnicity subcategory selected by the applicant. As reflected in the 2018 FIG, however, a financial institution may report up to only five-ethnicity codes. While revised appendix B includes a five-race maximum and related instructions for reporting race, revised appendix B did not include a similar five-ethnicity maximum and instructions.
Accordingly, the Bureau proposed to amend instruction 9.i to provide instructions to financial institutions on how to report ethnicity if an applicant selects both aggregate categories and all four subcategories. The proposed revisions mirror the instructions for how to report race when an applicant has selected a total of more than five aggregate race categories and race subcategories. Specifically, the Bureau proposed to revise instruction 9.i to provide that a financial institution must report every aggregate ethnicity category selected by the applicant. The proposed instruction states that a financial institution must also report every ethnicity subcategory selected by the applicant, except that a financial institution must not report more than a total of five aggregate ethnicity categories and ethnicity subcategories combined. The Bureau also proposed amendments to instruction 9.ii to provide that, if an applicant selects the Other Hispanic or Latino subcategory and provides a particular Hispanic or Latino subcategory not listed in the standard subcategories, the financial institution should count the information as one selection for purposes of reporting only up to the five-ethnicity maximum.
Although the Bureau did not receive comments that pertained specifically to ethnicity, it received numerous comments from industry on the maximum generally. The commenters expressed unease about picking for the applicant which subcategories to report where the applicant selects more than five categories and subcategories combined. Some commenters noted that such a limitation is in conflict with other instructions in revised appendix B, which generally permit an applicant to choose as many selections as desired. Commenters expressed concern that, without further guidance, financial institutions may be subject to compliance scrutiny or liability. Other commenters were concerned that allowing the financial institution to choose which subcategories to report could lead to inaccurate results, underreporting, or failure to identify discrimination against specific groups. The commenters requested that the Bureau either permit a financial institution to report all ethnicity and race selections made by the applicant or provide further guidance to financial institutions on how to pick which five-ethnicity or -race selections to report.
For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is adopting instructions 9.i and 9.ii as proposed. Initially, the Bureau notes that many of the commenters' concerns pertain to the five-race maximum, which was not the subject of the April 2017 HMDA Proposal. As discussed in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, to facilitate compliance, the Bureau limited the number of racial designations a financial institution may report.
The Bureau similarly concludes that the likelihood that an applicant will report more than five-ethnicities is also very low. Although 2010 Census reports do not provide data on the number of instances in which a respondent chose multiple ethnicity selections, based on Census race reporting, the Bureau expects that the number of occurrences in which an applicant will select both aggregate ethnicity categories and all four ethnicity subcategories will be extremely low. For example, according to 2010 Census data, 97.1 percent of respondents reported only one aggregate race category.
The Bureau declines to permit unlimited ethnicity category and subcategory reporting. Permitting unlimited reporting would require adding a data field for each additional possible subcategory, therefore expanding the total number of data fields within the HMDA loan/application register. The Bureau believes that doing so would add additional complexity to reporting that may undermine the quality of the data. Given that the Bureau expects an applicant will rarely select more than five-ethnicity designations, the Bureau does not believe the risks and complexity of additional data fields are justified in these circumstances.
Similarly, the Bureau declines to impose additional requirements on how to report ethnicity categories and subcategories when an applicant has selected a total of more than five. Proposed instruction 9.i (as well as instruction 9.iii as related to race) provides substantial guidance. Under those instructions, a financial institution would report all the aggregate categories first, and then any subcategories up to a combined five-ethnicity maximum (or five-race maximum, as applicable to race).
Several commenters submitted comments requesting guidance on whether a particular method of choosing which categories and subcategories to report would be acceptable. Other than as described above, the rule does not place any additional limitations on which five categories and subcategories to report. Thus, to the extent the total categories and subcategories exceed five, a financial institution may choose any method for determining which additional subcategories to choose for reporting, so long as the financial institution initially complies with the instructions provided in revised appendix B. In light of the Bureau's conclusion that applicants will very rarely choose a total of more than five categories and subcategories, the Bureau declines at this time to impose additional reporting limitations and requirements on financial institutions.
Revised appendix B includes a sample data collection form for use in collecting ethnicity, race, and sex information about the applicant. The Bureau proposed to make various technical revisions to the sample data collection form. The Bureau proposed to revise the applicant instructions to provide that an applicant may select one or more designations for “Ethnicity,” rather than one or more Hispanic or Latino origins. The Bureau also proposed to move the instruction to “check one or more” next to the “Ethnicity” heading, rather than next to the Hispanic or Latino category. The Bureau also proposed to add the “check one or more” instructions on the side of the form designated for the collection of a co-applicant's ethnicity and race information, rather than only on the side of the form for the applicant. The Bureau received one comment opposing the additional “check one or more” language added to the sample data collection form. Although the commenter noted generally that the proposed changes to revised appendix B are contrary to the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, will undo work already performed, and would not be in the interests of consumers, the commenter did not provide any specific examples, data, or reasoning as related to the sample data collection form. Accordingly, the Bureau is adopting the corrections to the sample data collection form as proposed.
In the April 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau proposed that the amendments take effect when the related amendments to Regulation C adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule take effect. As discussed more fully above, these amendments to Regulation C make technical corrections to and address certain areas to facilitate implementation of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. For the proposed amendments to have the intended effect, the amendments' effective dates must be synchronized with the related effective dates in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. In the July 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau proposed successive amendments to the provisions in §§ 1003.2(g) and 1003.3(c)(12) and associated commentary to effectuate a temporary increase in the open-end threshold. Accordingly, the Bureau proposed to raise the open-end threshold to 500 loans effective January 1, 2018, and then to lower the open-end threshold back to 100 loans effective January 1, 2020. For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is adopting the effective dates for this final rule as proposed.
Concerning the proposed effective dates included in the April 2017 HMDA Proposal, one national trade association stated that scheduled updates to loan origination software cannot proceed until the proposal is finalized and recommended that the Bureau finalize the proposed amendments quickly if any meaningful burden reduction is to be achieved. A national and State trade association recommended that the effective date for the 2015 HMDA Final Rule be delayed because, they posited, the proposal would not be finalized before January 1, 2018. One national trade association noted that the proposal would provide effective dates of January 1, 2019, or January 1, 2020, to correspond to related effective dates for certain amendments included in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, but recommended that the Bureau delay the effective date of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule until it finalized the clarifications or for at least one year.
Many national and State trade associations, financial institutions, and industry commenters, when commenting on both the April and July 2017 HMDA Proposals, recommended that the Bureau delay the effective date for most amendments included in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2019. Several of these commenters argued that a delay of the general January 1, 2018, effective date for the 2015 HMDA Final Rule was necessary because questions remained regarding collection and reporting of data, the Bureau had not yet released the geocoding tool, edits, or platforms necessary for financial institutions to update their software and run tests, and questions remained regarding implementation of the new Uniform Residential Loan Application (URLA). Some commenters stated that the effective date of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule should be delayed until the Bureau has addressed public disclosure and data resubmission standards for data collected and reported under amended Regulation C. One national trade association recommended that financial institutions have the option to delay reporting of the new data points adopted in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule for one year, while one State trade association recommended that the effective date be delayed for one year but that optional early compliance be permitted. A State trade association suggested the Bureau look for good faith efforts at HMDA compliance as the Bureau explained it would do during implementation of the Integrated Mortgage Disclosures Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) final rule (TILA-RESPA Final Rule). Some trade associations requested that transactional coverage for the 2018 data collection be based on the date an application was received, instead of the final action taken date, so as to allow more time in
The Bureau largely is adopting the effective dates for this final rule as proposed.
Apart from the temporary adjustment to the open-end threshold, the Bureau did not propose, and declines in this final rule, to delay the effective dates for the amendments included in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule or to provide for optional compliance for the 2018 calendar year. As explained in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, “the Bureau believes that these effective dates, which provide an extended implementation period of over two years, is appropriate and will provide industry with sufficient time to revise and update policies and procedures; implement comprehensive systems change; and train staff.”
Morever, commenters' concerns the timing of the release of certain Bureau materials do not justify delaying the effective date. In July of 2017 the Bureau published updates to the 2018 FIG for HMDA data collected in 2018, which includes HMDA edits, and the Bureau is issuing updates to the 2018 FIG related to the amendments adopted in this final rule simultaneous to the release of this rule. Furthermore, the FFIEC agencies published on August 22, 2017, the HMDA Examination Transaction Testing Guidelines for data collected in or after 2018. In addition, the Bureau's new HMDA filing platform is being demonstrated widely through webinars, conferences, and in-person user testing sessions. The platform will be available for wider testing in the Fall of 2017 as an open beta release prior to the start of filing season in 2018. In addition, commenters' concerns about the timing of the Bureau's decisions related to the public disclosure of the HMDA data do not provide a logistical reason to delay the effective date of the new data collection requirements, because, under changes adopted in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, financial institutions will no longer have responsibility for disclosure of the data beginning with data collected for the 2017 calendar year.
Furthermore, the Bureau does not believe that commenters' concerns about the URLA implementation provide a reason to delay the effective date of the data collection requirements. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and the Federal National Mortgage Association (collectively, the Enterprises), under the conservatorship of FHFA, issued a revised and redesigned Uniform Residential Loan Application on August 23, 2016. The Enterprises have not yet provided a date when lenders may begin using the 2016 URLA or the date lenders are required to use the 2016 URLA (the cutover date), but have stated their intention to collaborate with industry stakeholders to help shape the implementation timeline for the 2016 URLA, with a goal to provide lenders with more precise information in 2017 regarding the cutover date.
The Bureau did not propose and also declines to amend the 2015 HMDA Final Rule to provide that data collected in 2018 include only applications received in 2018. The Bureau believes, as stated in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, that collection of the new data should begin with transactions for which final action is taken in 2018. This collection timeframe is consistent with how financial institutions currently determine in which calendar year's data to include a transaction. Moreover, financial institutions already have significant flexibility concerning the collection of the new disaggregated ethnicity and race fields adopted in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. For example, revised comment 4(a)(10)(i)-2 allows financial institutions to collect ethnicity, race, and sex information in accordance with the requirements in effect at that the time the information is collected, even if final action is taken on or after January 1, 2018. The Bureau also issued an approval notice in October 2016 that provides financial institutions the alternative option to begin collecting disaggregated categories in 2017.
Additionally, as discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.6(b) above, the Bureau is not
HMDA provides the public and public officials with information to help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of the communities in which they are located. It assists public officials in their determination of the distribution of public sector investments in a manner designed to improve the private investment environment.
In 2010, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended HMDA and also transferred HMDA rulemaking authority and other functions from the Board to the Bureau.
Since issuing the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau has identified certain technical errors in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule as well as ways to ease the burden of reporting certain data requirements and clarifications of key terms that will facilitate compliance with the Final Rule. On April 25, 2017, the Bureau issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (April 2017 HMDA Proposal) proposing amendments to Regulation C to make technical corrections to and to clarify certain requirements of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. In the April 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau also proposed a new reporting exclusion. Since issuing the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau also has heard concerns that the open-end threshold, which the Bureau set at 100 transactions, is too low. On July 20, 2017, the Bureau published a second proposal (July 2017 HMDA Proposal) to seek comment on addressing the threshold for reporting open-end lines of credit.
In developing this final rule, the Bureau has considered the potential benefits, costs, and impacts.
This final rule amends Regulation C to make technical corrections and clarify certain requirements under the 2015 HMDA Final Rule amending Regulation C. As part of these amendments, the final rule corrects a drafting error and revises both the open-end and closed-end thresholds so that only financial institutions that meet the threshold for two years in a row are required to collect data in the following calendar years. The final rule also temporarily increases the open-end reporting threshold to 500 or more open-end lines of credit for two years (calendar years 2018 and 2019). With these amendments, financial institutions that originated between 100 and 499 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years will not be required to begin collecting data on their open-end lending before January 1, 2020. This temporary increase will provide time for the Bureau to consider the appropriate level for the open-end threshold without requiring financial institutions originating fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit per year to collect and report data with respect to open-end lending in the meanwhile.
In the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau conducted an in-depth Section 1022(b)(2) analysis of the costs and benefits of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. The Bureau used as a baseline for that analysis the state of the world before the implementation in Regulation C of the Dodd-Frank Act provisions. The baseline for the analysis below assumes that the 2015 HMDA Final Rule took effect absent the amendments in this final rule. In other words, the potential benefits and costs of the provisions contained in this final rule are evaluated relative to the state of the world defined by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule.
The amendments that were proposed in the April 2017 HMDA Proposal and adopted substantially in this final rule are largely clarifications and technical corrections that do not change the compliance requirements of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule and should reduce burden by easing compliance. The few minor substantive changes will all reduce burden on industry
To ease the burden associated with obtaining certain information about purchased loans, the final rule establishes certain transitional rules for reporting purchased loans. Financial institutions report that the requirement is not applicable for the loan purpose if the financial institution is reporting a purchased covered loan that was originated prior to January 1, 2018. Financial institutions also may opt not to report that the requirement is not applicable for the unique identifier for the loan originator when reporting purchased loans that were originated prior to January 10, 2014.
The final rule corrects a drafting error and aligns the transactional thresholds included in § 1003.3(c)(11) and (12) under the 2015 HMDA Final Rule with the institutional coverage thresholds in § 1003.2(g). The final rule addresses certain technical aspects of reporting, such as how the reporting requirements for certain data points relate to disclosures required by the Bureau's Regulation Z and how to collect and report certain information about an applicant's race and ethnicity. The final rule also includes a variety of minor changes and technical corrections.
The Bureau sought comment on data to quantify costs and benefits and any associated burden with the proposed changes in its April 2017 HMDA Proposal. Specifically, the Bureau sought information on the projected number of loans that would be originated prior to January 1, 2018, and then purchased by financial institutions after January 1, 2018, and which would be required to be reported according to the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. Similarly, the Bureau sought information on the projected number of loans that would be originated prior to January 10, 2014, and then purchased by financial institutions after January 1, 2018, and which would be required to be reported according to the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. The Bureau also sought information on the projected numbers and characteristics of financial institutions that would opt to report open-end lines of credit or closed-end loans under HMDA even though they would have fallen below the respective loan-volume threshold. The Bureau requested any other data that would assist in quantifying the costs and benefits of the proposal. As described in greater detail below, the Bureau received some public comments estimating the costs of the proposed changes for financial institutions. These comments have been considered in revising the cost-benefit analyses contained in this part. In general, the comments did not provide specific data.
The Bureau believes that the temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold, as proposed in July 2017 HMDA Proposal and finalized in this rule, generally will benefit financial institutions that originate between 100 and 499 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years by, at a minimum, allowing them to delay incurring one-time costs and delay the start of ongoing compliance costs associated with collecting and reporting data on open-end lines of credit, compared to the baseline established by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. The Bureau estimates that roughly 690 such institutions will be able to take advantage of the two-year temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold. The Bureau estimates that the savings on the ongoing costs from the collection and reporting of open-end lines of credit by financial institutions temporarily exempted under this final rule will be at least $6 million per year for two years. The Bureau believes that temporarily increasing the open-end transactional coverage threshold for two years will reduce the benefits to consumers from the open-end reporting provisions of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule as those benefits are described in the rule. However, any such impact should be minimal because approximately three-quarters of all open-end lines of credit will still be reported.
The Bureau sought comment on data that would help to quantify costs and benefits and any associated burden with the proposed temporary increase in open-end reporting threshold in its April 2017 HMDA Proposal. In general, the comments did not provide specific data.
Under the final rule, the open-end reporting threshold will be temporarily increased to 500 for two years (calendar years 2018 and 2019). Compared to the baseline established by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the proposed temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold will generally benefit financial institutions that originate between 100 and 499 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years. Such financial institutions will be able to delay the start of ongoing compliance costs associated with collecting and reporting data on open-end lines of credit for two years. They are also likely able to delay incurring one-time costs of commencing implementation of open-end reporting.
The Bureau can estimate the number of depository institutions that will be able to take advantage of the two-year temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold and the amount that each of these institutions will save in costs. In the July 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau estimated that, in 2015, 289 depository institutions originated 500 or more open-end lines of credit and 980 depository institutions originated at least 100 open-end lines of credit.
The amount that each of these depository institutions will save in costs depends on the level of complexity of their compliance operations as defined in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. The level of complexity in turn is related to the number of loans that an institution must report. In the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau assumed a representative low-complexity (tier 3) open-end reporter would have 150 open-end lines of credit records reportable to HMDA, while the number of open-end lines of credit records for a representative moderate-complexity (tier 2) open-end reporter would be at 1,000. Specifically, in estimating costs specific to collecting and reporting data for open-end lines of credit in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau assumed that institutions that originate more than 7,000 open-end lines of credit are high-complexity or tier 1 institutions; those that originate between 200 and 7,000 such lines of credit are moderate-complexity or tier 2 institutions; and those that originate fewer than 200 such lines of credit are low-complexity or tier 3 institutions. Given the previous results, the Bureau believes that most of the financial institutions that will benefit from the two year temporary increase of the open-end lines of credit threshold are tier 3 institutions, some are tier 2 institutions, and none are tier 1 institutions. Further, the tier 2 institutions most likely to benefit from the final rule are among the smaller ones in tier 2 in terms of open-end lines of credit volume.
In the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau estimated that, for the average tier 3 institution, the ongoing operational costs of open-end reporting will be $8,600 per year; and for the average tier 2 institution, the ongoing operational costs will be $43,400 per year.
The Bureau recognized that the one-time costs of reporting open-end lines of credit could be substantial because most financial institutions do not currently report open-end lines of credit and thus will have to develop completely new reporting infrastructures to begin reporting these data. As a result, there will be one-time costs to create processes and systems to report open-end lines of credit in addition to the one-time costs to modify processes and systems for other mortgage products.
The Bureau believes the temporary increase of the open-end threshold will allow the financial institutions that have open-end lines of credit volume between 100 and 499 per year to delay incurring one-time costs associated with open-end lines of credit reporting. However, for the purpose of this impact analysis, the Bureau is not counting such delay as one-time net cost savings because the threshold increase is only temporary. The Bureau will have the opportunity over the ensuing two-year period to assess whether to adjust the threshold permanently, and, if the Bureau were to adjust the threshold permanently as the result of that reassessment, the permanent reduction in one-time costs of open-end reporting for exempted institutions would be in the scope of a new impact analysis for any such potential rulemaking in the future. If the Bureau were not to adjust the threshold permanently, those temporarily exempted reporters would still incur the one-time costs of open-end reporting.
Some financial institutions may incur costs attributable to the temporary open-end lines of credit reporting threshold increase, because they have already planned to report open-end lines of credit and now will need to change their systems to delay reporting. To the extent institutions that already have incurred costs in preparing for compliance elect to take advantage of the two-year temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold, unless the Bureau elects during the two-year review period to make the increase permanent, these institutions will incur one-time expenses that, when added to expenses already incurred, may be greater than the one-time costs that would have been incurred had the institutions completed their compliance work by January 1, 2018. As noted above, the Bureau estimates that roughly 690 such institutions will be able to take advantage of the two-year temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold. As explained in the July 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau does not have a reliable basis to estimate those costs. However, as discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.3(c)(11) and (12), financial institutions may opt to report open-end lines of credit or closed-end mortgage loans even if the institution may exclude those loans pursuant to the transactional thresholds included in § 1003.3(c)(11) or (12) under the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. Thus, a temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold will obviate the need for institutions that are prepared to report open-end lines of credit to change their systems.
The Bureau believes that temporarily increasing the open-end transactional coverage threshold for two years will reduce the benefits to consumers from the open-end reporting provisions of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule as those benefits are described in the rule. However, the Bureau believes that such impact should be minimal because the temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold will still result in reporting on approximately three-quarters of all open-end lines of credit. The Bureau recognizes that there may be particular localities where the impact of the temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold will be more pronounced. The Bureau lacks data to be able to estimate the extent to which that may be true. No commenter on the July 2017 HMDA Proposal has provided data or discussion regarding such costs.
This Bureau recognizes that some financial institutions that meet only one threshold may prefer to report loans even if they fall under the other transactional threshold in certain years. Thus, the final rule provides that financial institutions may opt to report open-end lines of credit or closed-end mortgage loans even if the institution may exclude those loans pursuant to the transactional thresholds included in § 1003.3(c)(11) or (12) under the final rule.
Economic theory predicts that a firm will exercise an option when (and only when) the firm benefits from doing so. Thus, an option granted to a financial institution has no impact on those that choose not to exercise the option,
The Bureau believes the financial institutions most likely to choose to report when not required to do so will be low-volume, low-complexity institutions that may have made a one-time investment in reporting infrastructure and prefer to utilize it even though the volatility in their loan production volume may cause them to fall below the relevant mandatory reporting threshold in certain years. Such institutions will only choose to report if the ongoing costs of reporting are less than the costs of switching off their open-end reporting systems but having to maintain the systems and potentially switching them back. In the April 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau sought comments on the data related to the potential number and characteristics of financial institutions that may be interested in opting into either closed-end or open-end HMDA reporting, even if they are not required to report under the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. However, the Bureau received no comments or data to this specific request.
Consumers may benefit from the optional reporting clarification to the extent that low-volume, low-complexity institutions achieve cost reductions and pass them on to their customers. The Bureau believes that any such consumer savings will be small. Consumers may also benefit if low-volume, low-complexity institutions are more willing to originate loans because passing the thresholds will not increase burden if the institutions are already reporting HMDA information.
Three separate amendments provide for some flexibility with regard to reporting on purchased loans. Each of the proposed transitional rules directs or permits reporting that the requirement is not applicable for purchased loans that were originated in a time period prior to the January 1, 2018, effective date for the reportable data points in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. Under the final rule, financial institutions report that the requirement to report the loan purpose under § 1003.4(a)(3) is not applicable if the financial institution is reporting a purchased covered loan that was originated prior to January 1, 2018. The final rule will also provide financial institutions with the option to report that the requirement to report the unique identifier for the loan originator is not applicable when reporting purchased loans that were originated prior to January 10, 2014, when Regulation Z's requirement to include the loan originator's unique identifier on loan documents went into effect. Finally, there is a transitional rule that eases NMLSR ID reporting requirements for purchases of commercial loans originated prior to January 1, 2018. The Bureau believes providing these options to financial institutions will not add costs to financial institutions but will be burden reducing. Without such temporary relief, it would be burdensome for financial institutions to obtain the relevant information on the loan purpose and NMLSR ID of the loans originated during the respective transitional periods.
The extent to which the transitional rules will reduce burden depends on the complexity of the financial institutions and the number of loans affected. The Bureau believes most of the financial institutions that purchase loans and are required to report under HMDA are in the high-complexity tier, with some possibly in the moderate-complexity tier, and very few in the low-complexity tier.
In the April 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau specifically sought information on the projected number of loans that would be originated prior to January 1, 2018, and then purchased by financial institutions after January 1, 2018, and which would be required to be reported according to the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. The Bureau also sought information on the projected number of loans that would be originated prior to January 10, 2014, and then purchased by financial institutions after January 1, 2018, and which would be required to be reported according to the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. However, the Bureau received no comments or data corresponding to these requests.
The Bureau believes that the number of reportable loans purchased after January 1, 2018, and originated before January 1, 2018, will be relatively large in the beginning of 2018 but will diminish over time. The Bureau understands that typically there is some delay between loan origination by small creditors and loan purchase by larger financial institutions. Providing a transitional rule to exempt these purchased loans from loan purpose reporting will therefore reduce the burden on those financial institutions. This will be particularly true during the
Regarding benefits to consumers, the Bureau expects the effects of the transitional rules for purchased loans to be small or nonexistent. HMDA reporting by purchasers does not directly affect consumers. To the extent that the rules create cost reductions relative to the baseline established by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, those reductions may be indirectly passed on to consumers. Standard economic theory predicts that in a market where financial institutions are profit maximizers, the affected financial institutions will pass on to consumers the cost saving per application or origination (
The final rule treats a census tract error as a bona fide error and not a violation of HMDA or Regulation C if the financial institution obtained the incorrect census tract number from the geocoding tool that the Bureau makes available on its Web site, provided that the financial institution entered an accurate property address into the tool and the tool returned a census tract number for the property address.
In the impact analyses in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau discussed implementing several operational enhancements, including working to improve the geocoding process to reduce the burden on financial institutions. The Bureau provided cost estimates on financial institutions with or without those operational enhancements. This final rule further extends the burden reduction by providing a safe harbor for the use of the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site. In the impact analyses of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau breaks down the typical HMDA operational process of financial institutions into 18 operational tasks. The Bureau believes this final rule will reduce the costs of financial institutions on the following tasks: completion of geocoding data, standard annual edit and internal check, internal audit, external audit, exam preparation, and exam assistance on the issues related to geocoding. The Bureau believes the financial institutions that will benefit most from this provision are low-complexity institutions that lack the resources to adopt commercially available geocoding tools.
The Bureau believes that the provision of the safe harbor to financial institutions using the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site will have a small impact on consumers. Consumers will benefit indirectly from the geocoding safe harbor to the extent that low-complexity institutions pass on any cost savings.
The final rule clarifies certain key terms, including temporary financing, automated underwriting system, multifamily dwelling, extension of credit, income, and mixed-use property. The proposal excludes preliminary transactions associated with New York CEMAs to avoid double reporting. The final rule also addresses certain technical aspects of reporting, such as how the reporting requirements for certain data points relate to disclosures required by the Bureau's Regulation Z and how to collect and report certain information about an applicant's race and ethnicity. The final rule also includes a variety of minor changes and technical corrections.
These are all minor or clarifying changes that follow the meaning of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule as issued. The Bureau believes that these clarifications and technical corrections have the potential to reduce reporting burdens on financial institutions, as these amendments will reduce potential confusion related to certain data points and transactions. In particular, the Bureau believes these changes will help reduce the ongoing costs associated with researching questions and resolving question responses.
Some commenters on the proposal noted that even though, in the long run, the proposed changes would reduce the burden on the HMDA reporters, like any changes in regulatory requirements, some institutions could incur a cost to adapt to such changes in the short run, as they might need to invest certain time and resources updating policies and procedures, performing audits, and adjusting system programming. The Bureau acknowledges that such costs could occur. No commenters, however, provided specific estimates on such costs. Overall, the Bureau believes that there will be long-term reduction in compliance costs resulting from this final rule and that the costs for financial institutions to adapt to the changes are minimal. The impact on consumers will also be small. Consumers will benefit to the extent to which financial institutions pass on any cost savings to consumers.
To the extent there are benefits to covered persons resulting from the temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold, the Bureau believes those benefits flow almost exclusively to depository institutions and credit unions with no more than $10 billion in assets, as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act. As discussed above, the institutions that will be temporarily excluded by the open-end threshold change originate between 100 and 499 open-end lines of credit and average fewer than 250 open-end lines of credit per year. In the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau assumed a representative low-complexity, tier 3, open-end reporter would have 150 open-end lines of credit records reportable to HMDA, a representative moderate-complexity, tier 2, financial institutions would have 1000 open-end lines of credit records, while the number of open-end lines of credit records for a representative high-complexity, tier 1, open-end reporters would be at 30,000. Hence, the Bureau believes that, of the financial institutions that would most likely benefit from the two year temporary increase of the open-end lines of credit threshold, some, most likely most, belong to low-complexity, tier 3 institutions, some belong to moderate-complexity, tier 2 institutions, and none belong to high-complexity, tier 1 institutions. The Bureau believes none of the impacted depository institutions have assets over $10 billion. Using the credit union Call Report data, the Bureau was able to verify that none of the credit unions that may benefit from this temporary increase in open-end reporting threshold have assets over $10 billion.
The Bureau believes that some of the other changes in the final rule could benefit depository institutions and credit unions with no more than $10 billion in assets more than larger financial institutions. For instance, the safe harbor for use of the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site mostly benefits financial institutions with assets of $10 billion or less, because those institutions may not use a commercially available geocoder. Furthermore, the
The only changes that could potentially benefit financial institutions with assets over $10 billion relatively more than financial institutions with assets of no more than $10 billion are the transitional rules related to reporting certain data points for purchased loans. Larger institutions will benefit relatively more because they are more likely to be purchasers of loans.
The Bureau does not believe that the proposed temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold will reduce consumer access to consumer financial products and services. It may increase consumer access by decreasing the possibility that certain financial institutions increase their pricing as a result of the requirements of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule or seek to cap the number of open-end lines of credit they originate to stay under the open-end transactional coverage threshold.
As discussed above, the Bureau believes that none of the other changes in this final rule will add additional net costs to financial institutions. Furthermore, the clarifications in the final rule should reduce costs to financial institutions by easing implementation. Thus, all changes have the potential to reduce the costs of HMDA reporting for financial institutions. Further, as discussed above, standard economic theory predicts that in a market where financial institutions are profit maximizers, the affected financial institutions will pass on to consumers the cost saving per application or origination (
The Bureau believes that none of the changes is likely to have an adverse impact on consumers in rural areas. The Bureau believes that, to the extent that consumers in rural areas are more likely to be served by smaller depository institutions and credit unions and the temporary increase in open-end reporting threshold is expected to affect mainly small financial institutions, the benefits from the temporary open-end threshold increase will affect consumers in rural areas positively. The Bureau asked for comments as to the impact on consumers in rural areas in the July 2017 HMDA Proposal. None of the comments the Bureau received has led the Bureau to question this assessment.
The Bureau believes that smaller financial institutions that may opt to report HMDA information even though they fall below the other transaction threshold in certain years are more likely to be located in rural areas. If so, financial institutions and consumers in rural areas may benefit disproportionately from the clarification of options allowing lenders to choose to report. In the April 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau requested comment and data on the likelihood that smaller financial institutions that may opt to report HMDA information even though they may fall below transaction thresholds in certain years are relatively more likely to be located in rural areas. The Bureau received no comment to this request.
The Bureau also believes that rural consumers may benefit more than consumers in urban areas from the safe harbor created for use of the geocoding tool on the Bureau's Web site because properties located in rural areas may face more geocoding challenges. The safe harbor alleviates some of that potential burden. In the April 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau requested comment and data on whether properties located in rural areas face more geocoding challenges and whether the safe harbor would alleviate some of that burden. The Bureau received no comment on this specific request. For the rest of the changes contained in the final rule, the Bureau believes financial institutions based in rural areas and consumers will not face higher burdens.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (the RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and small nonprofit organizations. The RFA defines a “small business” as a business that meets the size standard developed by the Small Business Administration pursuant to the Small Business Act.
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In the absence of such a certification, the Bureau also is subject to certain additional procedures under the RFA involving the convening of a panel to consult with small business representatives prior to proposing a rule for which an IRFA is required.
In the April 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau concluded that the proposal, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and that an IRFA was therefore not required. The Bureau requested comment on the analysis under the RFA and any relevant data. The Bureau did not receive any comments on the analysis or data. This final rule adopts the proposed rule substantially as proposed, and, as discussed above, the Bureau believes that none of the changes will create a significant economic impact on any covered persons, including small entities. Therefore, a FRFA is not required.
In the July 2017 HMDA Proposal, the Bureau concluded that the proposal, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and that an IRFA was therefore not required. The Bureau requested comment on the analysis under the RFA and any relevant data. The Bureau did not receive any comments on the analysis or data. This final rule adopts the proposed rule as proposed, and as discussed above, the Bureau believes that none of the changes would create a significant economic impact on any covered persons, including small entities. Therefore, a FRFA is not required.
Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Bureau has determined that the final rule will not impose any new recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on members of the public that will constitute collections of information requiring approval under the PRA. The final rule does, however, make a temporary modification to a previously-approved information collection by including a temporary increase in the open-end reporting threshold for two years. The Bureau estimates that this temporary modification will save financial institutions between $6 million and $30 million per year for two years on ongoing operational cost related to open-end lines of credit reporting to HMDA. Using the hourly wage of $33 that was used in 2015 Final Rule and its PRA analysis, the Bureau estimates that the final rule will reduce the recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on members of the public associated with open-end reporting by approximately between 180,000 and 900,000 hours each year for two years during which the temporary threshold change is in effect.
The Bureau has a continuing interest in the public's opinions regarding this determination. At any time, comments regarding this determination may be sent to: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, or by email to
Banks, Banking, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2803, 2804, 2805, 5512, 5581.
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(A) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at least 25 closed-end mortgage loans that are not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10) or (13); or
(B) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at least 500 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10); and
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at least 25 closed-end mortgage loans that are not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10) or (13); or
(B) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at least 500 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10).
(c) * * *
(11) A closed-end mortgage loan, if the financial institution originated fewer than 25 closed-end mortgage loans in either of the two preceding calendar years; a financial institution may collect, record, report, and disclose information, as described in §§ 1003.4 and 1003.5, for such an excluded closed-end mortgage loan as though it were a covered loan, provided that the financial institution complies with such requirements for all applications for closed-end mortgage loans that it receives, closed-end mortgage loans that it originates, and closed-end mortgage loans that it purchases that otherwise would have been covered loans during the calendar year during which final action is taken on the excluded closed-end mortgage loan;
(12) An open-end line of credit, if the financial institution originated fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years; a financial institution may collect, record, report, and disclose information, as described in §§ 1003.4 and 1003.5, for such an excluded open-end line of credit as though it were a covered loan, provided that the financial institution complies with such requirements for all applications for open-end lines of credit that it receives, open-end lines of credit that it originates, and open-end lines of credit that it purchases that otherwise would have been covered loans during the calendar year during which final action is taken on the excluded open-end line of credit; or
(13) A transaction that provided or, in the case of an application, proposed to provide new funds to the applicant or borrower in advance of being consolidated in a New York State consolidation, extension, and modification agreement classified as a supplemental mortgage under New York Tax Law section 255; the transaction is excluded only if final action on the consolidation was taken in the same calendar year as final action on the new funds transaction.
(a) * * *
(2) Whether the covered loan is, or in the case of an application would have been, insured by the Federal Housing Administration, guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, or guaranteed by the Rural Housing Service or the Farm Service Agency.
(12)(i) For covered loans and applications that are approved but not accepted, and that are subject to Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, other than assumptions, purchased covered loans, and reverse mortgages, the
(ii) “Average prime offer rate” means an annual percentage rate that is derived from average interest rates and other loan pricing terms currently offered to consumers by a set of creditors for mortgage loans that have low-risk pricing characteristics. The Bureau publishes tables of average prime offer rates by transaction type at least weekly and also publishes the methodology it uses to derive these rates.
(35)(i) Except for purchased covered loans, the name of the automated underwriting system used by the financial institution to evaluate the application and the result generated by that automated underwriting system.
(ii) For purposes of this paragraph (a)(35), an “automated underwriting system” means an electronic tool developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit that provides a result regarding the credit risk of the applicant and whether the covered loan is eligible to be originated, purchased, insured, or guaranteed by that securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor. A person is a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit, respectively, if it has ever securitized, provided Federal government insurance, or provided a Federal government guarantee for a closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit.
8. You must report the ethnicity, race, and sex of an applicant as provided by the applicant. For example, if an applicant selects the “Asian” box the institution reports “Asian” for the race of the applicant. Only an applicant may self-identify as being of a particular Hispanic or Latino subcategory (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Other Hispanic or Latino) or of a particular Asian subcategory (Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Other Asian) or of a particular Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander subcategory (Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan, Other Pacific Islander) or of a particular American Indian or Alaska Native enrolled or principal tribe. An applicant may select an ethnicity or race subcategory even if the applicant does not select an aggregate ethnicity or aggregate race category. For example, if an applicant selects only the “Mexican” box, the institution reports “Mexican” for the ethnicity of the applicant but does not also report “Hispanic or Latino.”
9. * * *
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
The alphabetic characters are not case-sensitive and each letter, whether it is capitalized or in lower-case, is equal to the same value as each letter illustrates in the conversion table. For example, A and a are each equal to 10.
Alternatively, to calculate without using the modulus operator, divide the numbers in step 2 above by 97. Truncate the remainder to three digits and multiply it by 97. Round the result to the nearest whole number.
For example, assume the LEI for a financial institution is 10Bx939c5543TqA1144M and the financial institution assigned the following string of characters to identify the covered loan: 999143X. The combined string of characters is 10Bx939c5543TqA1144M999143X.
Alternatively, to calculate without using the modulus operator, divide the numbers in step 2 above by 97. The result is 1042617929129312294946332267952920.618556701030928. Truncate the remainder to three digits, which is .618, and multiply it by 97. The result is 59.946. Round this result to the nearest whole number, which is 60.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
2.
i.
ii.
2.
3.
5.
4.
2(j) Home Purchase Loan
3.
3.
i. Lender A extends credit in the form of a bridge or swing loan to finance a borrower's down payment on a home purchase. The borrower pays off the bridge or swing loan with funds from the sale of his or her existing home and obtains permanent financing for his or her new home from Lender A or from another lender. The bridge or swing loan is excluded as temporary financing under § 1003.3(c)(3).
ii. Lender A extends credit to a borrower to finance construction of a dwelling. The borrower will obtain a new extension of credit for permanent financing for the dwelling, either from Lender A or from another lender, and either through a refinancing of the initial construction loan or a separate loan. The initial construction loan is excluded as temporary financing under § 1003.3(c)(3).
iii. Assume the same scenario as in comment 3(c)(3)-1.ii, except that the initial construction loan is, or may be, renewed one or more times before the separate permanent financing is obtained. The initial construction loan, including any renewal thereof, is excluded as temporary financing under § 1003.3(c)(3).
iv. Lender A extends credit to finance construction of a dwelling. The loan automatically will convert to permanent financing extended to the same borrower with Lender A once the construction phase is complete. Under § 1003.3(c)(3), the loan is not designed to be replaced by separate permanent financing extended to the same borrower, and therefore the temporary financing exclusion does not apply.
v. Lender A originates a loan with a nine-month term to enable an investor to purchase a home, renovate it, and re-sell it before the term expires. Under § 1003.3(c)(3), the loan is not designed to be replaced by separate permanent financing extended to the same borrower, and therefore the temporary financing exclusion does not apply. Such a transaction is not temporary financing under § 1003.3(c)(3) merely because its term is short.
2.
3.
i. A closed-end mortgage loan or an open-end line of credit to purchase or to improve a multifamily dwelling or a single-family investment property, or a refinancing of a closed-end mortgage loan or an open-end line of credit secured by a multifamily dwelling or a single-family investment property;
ii. A closed-end mortgage loan or an open-end line of credit to improve a doctor's office or a daycare center that is located in a dwelling other than a multifamily dwelling; and
iii. A closed-end mortgage loan or an open-end line of credit to a corporation, if the funds from the loan or line of credit will be used to purchase or to improve a dwelling, or if the transaction is a refinancing.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
3.
4.
1.
6.
6.
9.
3.
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
5.
i.
ii.
iii.
8.
9.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
2.
6.
5.
4.
2.
7.
i. In the course of renewing an annual sales agreement the developer of the electronic tool represents to the financial institution that it has never been a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit. On this basis, the financial institution does not know or reasonably believe that the system it is using to evaluate an application is an electronic tool that has been developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or Federal government guarantor of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit and complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting that the requirement is not applicable.
ii. Based on their previous transactions a financial institution is aware that the developer of the electronic tool it is using to evaluate an application has securitized a closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit in the past. On this basis, the financial institution knows or reasonably believes that the developer of the electronic tool is a securitizer and complies with § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of that system and the result generated by that system.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) The calendar year the data submission covers pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section;
(c)
1.
2.
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(B) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at least 100 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10); and
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at least 100 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10).
(c) * * *
(12) An open-end line of credit, if the financial institution originated fewer than 100 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years; a financial institution may collect, record, report, and disclose information, as described in §§ 1003.4 and 1003.5, for such an excluded open-end line of credit as though it were a covered loan, provided that the financial institution complies with such requirements for all applications for open-end lines of credit that it receives, open-end lines of credit that it originates, and open-end lines of credit that it purchases that otherwise would have been covered loans during the calendar year during which final action is taken on the excluded open-end line of credit; or
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) The calendar year the data submission covers pursuant to
(c)
(2) If a financial institution required to comply with § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii) makes a good-faith effort to report all data required to be reported pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii) fully and accurately within 60 calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter, and some data are nevertheless inaccurate or incomplete, the inaccuracy or omission is not a violation of the Act or this part provided that the institution corrects or completes the data prior to submitting its annual loan/application register pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(i).
The revisions read as follows:
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
9.
i. In the case of a financial institution's annual loan/application register submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(i), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), that reflects a corrected annual percentage rate, the financial institution reports the difference between the corrected annual percentage rate and the most recently available average prime offer rate that was in effect for a comparable transaction as of the rate-set date only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which final action is taken.
ii. In the case of a financial institution's quarterly submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), that reflects a corrected annual percentage rate, the financial institution reports the difference between the corrected annual percentage rate and the most recently available average prime offer rate that was in effect for a comparable transaction as of the rate-set date only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the quarter in which final action is taken. The financial institution does not report the difference between the corrected annual percentage rate and the most recently available average prime offer rate that was in effect for a comparable transaction as of the rate-set date if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower after the end of the quarter in which final action is taken, even if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the deadline for timely submission of the financial institution's quarterly data. However, the financial institution reports the difference between the corrected annual percentage rate and the most recently available average prime offer rate that was in effect for a comparable transaction as of the rate-set date on its annual loan/application register, provided that the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which final action is taken.
3.
i. In the case of a financial institution's annual loan/application register submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(i), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of total loan costs only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurs.
ii. In the case of a financial institution's quarterly submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of total loan costs only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the quarter in which closing occurs. The financial institution does not report the corrected amount of total loan costs in its quarterly submission if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower after the end of the quarter in which closing occurs, even if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the deadline for timely submission of the financial institution's quarterly data. However, the financial institution reports the corrected amount of total loan costs on its annual loan/application register, provided that the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurs.
3.
i. In the case of a financial institution's annual loan/application register submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(i), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of borrower-paid origination charges only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurs.
ii. In the case of a financial institution's quarterly submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of borrower-paid origination charges only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the quarter in which closing occurs. The financial institution does not report the corrected amount of borrower-paid origination charges in its quarterly submission if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower after the end of the quarter in which closing occurs, even if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the deadline for timely submission of the financial institution's quarterly data. However, the financial institution reports the corrected amount of borrower-paid origination charges on its annual loan/application register, provided that the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurs.
3.
i. In the case of a financial institution's annual loan/application register submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(i), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of discount points only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurred.
ii. In the case of a financial institution's quarterly submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of discount points only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the quarter in which closing occurred. The financial institution does not report the corrected amount of discount points in its quarterly submission if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower after the end of the quarter in which closing occurred, even if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the deadline for timely submission of the financial institution's quarterly data. However, the financial institution reports the corrected amount of discount points on its annual loan/application register, provided that the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurred.
3.
i. In the case of a financial institution's annual loan/application register submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(i), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of lender credits only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurred.
ii. In the case of a financial institution's quarterly submission made pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii), if the financial institution provides a corrected disclosure to the borrower to reflect a refund made pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(v), the financial institution reports the corrected amount of lender credits only if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the quarter in which closing occurred. The financial institution does not report the corrected amount of lender credits in its quarterly submission if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower after the end of the quarter in which closing occurred, even if the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the deadline for timely submission of the financial institution's quarterly data. However, the financial institution reports the corrected amount of lender credits on its annual loan/application register, provided that the corrected disclosure was provided to the borrower prior to the end of the calendar year in which closing occurred.
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 |