| Page Range | 49275-49483 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 49275 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo | |
| 82 FR 49425 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 49300 - Removing Barriers for Religious and Faith-Based Organizations To Participate in HHS Programs and Receive Public Funding | |
| 82 FR 49314 - Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee: Notice of Partially Closed Meeting-Revised | |
| 82 FR 49418 - Agency Information Collection Activities; 30 CFR 550, Subpart C, Pollution Prevention and Control | |
| 82 FR 49475 - Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
| 82 FR 49476 - Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
| 82 FR 49482 - Agency Information Collection Activity: State Application for Interment Allowance Under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 23 | |
| 82 FR 49404 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 82 FR 49410 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 82 FR 49407 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 82 FR 49471 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions of Proposed Highway/Interchange Improvement in Ohio; Statute of Limitations on Claims | |
| 82 FR 49472 - Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety; Listening Session | |
| 82 FR 49375 - Deciding When To Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
| 82 FR 49382 - Deciding When To Submit a 510(k) for a Software Change to an Existing Device; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
| 82 FR 49373 - Breakthrough Devices Program; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
| 82 FR 49370 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 49417 - Call for Nominations and Applications, North Slope Science Initiative, Science Technical Advisory Panel, Alaska | |
| 82 FR 49354 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Meeting | |
| 82 FR 49332 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 49355 - Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 49411 - 30 Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection for Public Comment on the: Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency Service Coordinator (ROSS-SC) Program Evaluation | |
| 82 FR 49414 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HUD Supportive Services Demonstration/Integrated Wellness in Supportive Housing-IWISH | |
| 82 FR 49416 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Form 50900: Elements for the Annual Moving to Work Plan and Annual Moving to Work Report | |
| 82 FR 49413 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Congressional Earmarks | |
| 82 FR 49415 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Record of Employee Interview | |
| 82 FR 49462 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the State of Texas | |
| 82 FR 49470 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 82 FR 49462 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Georgia | |
| 82 FR 49387 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 49387 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 49388 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
| 82 FR 49389 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
| 82 FR 49386 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 49386 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License: Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Multi-Parametric MRI | |
| 82 FR 49425 - Information Collection: Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste; Correction | |
| 82 FR 49377 - Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act; Recommendations; Request for Comments; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 49380 - Animal Drug User Fee Act; Recommendations; Request for Comments; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 49481 - Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee October 25, 2017, Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 49358 - Notice of Orders Issued Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act During July 2017 | |
| 82 FR 49418 - Cancellation of the October 12, 2017, Meeting of the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park Advisory Commission | |
| 82 FR 49398 - Florida; Emergency and Related Determinations | |
| 82 FR 49357 - Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board | |
| 82 FR 49361 - Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board | |
| 82 FR 49395 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 49399 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 49360 - Meeting of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 49356 - Meeting of Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah River Site | |
| 82 FR 49357 - Meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah | |
| 82 FR 49360 - Meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico | |
| 82 FR 49360 - Meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada | |
| 82 FR 49361 - Meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford | |
| 82 FR 49358 - Meeting of the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 49480 - Availability of Draft DOT Strategic Plan for FY 2018-2022 and Request for Public Comment | |
| 82 FR 49356 - Availability of a Draft Integrated Feasibility Report (Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement), Aliso Creek Mainstem Ecosystem Restoration Study, Orange County, California | |
| 82 FR 49356 - Inland Waterways Users Board Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 49425 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-American Society of Mechanical Engineers | |
| 82 FR 49424 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-ASTM International Standards | |
| 82 FR 49370 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
| 82 FR 49394 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 49402 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 49313 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2018 Estimates of Compact of Free Association (COFA) Migrants | |
| 82 FR 49303 - Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding | |
| 82 FR 49354 - Governor's Opt-Out Notice To Conduct State Radio Access Network | |
| 82 FR 49462 - Social Security Ruling 16-3p Titles II And XVI: Evaluation Of Symptoms In Disability Claims | |
| 82 FR 49390 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0057 | |
| 82 FR 49277 - Federal Employees' Retirement System; Government Costs | |
| 82 FR 49393 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0078 | |
| 82 FR 49391 - Meeting of the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 49392 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0062 | |
| 82 FR 49481 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: The PRA Submission Describes the Nature of the Information Collection and its Expected Cost and Burden; it Includes the Actual Data Collection Instrument | |
| 82 FR 49482 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Report of Income From Property or Business | |
| 82 FR 49332 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Boost-Back and Landing of Falcon 9 Rockets | |
| 82 FR 49297 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; State Waters Exemption | |
| 82 FR 49314 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Low-Energy Geophysical Survey in the Northeastern Pacific Ocean | |
| 82 FR 49303 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Individual Bluefin Quota Program; Accountability for Bluefin Tuna Catch | |
| 82 FR 49312 - Meeting of the National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule | |
| 82 FR 49388 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 49388 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 49385 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 49380 - Determination That OVRETTE (Norgestrel) Tablet, 0.075 Milligrams, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness | |
| 82 FR 49473 - Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory; Public Comment | |
| 82 FR 49433 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, To Adopt the CHX Liquidity Enhancing Access Delay on a Pilot Basis | |
| 82 FR 49456 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to a Comprehensive Risk Management Framework | |
| 82 FR 49447 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees | |
| 82 FR 49431 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Transaction Fees for the Exchange's Equity Platform | |
| 82 FR 49450 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees | |
| 82 FR 49453 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees | |
| 82 FR 49426 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges | |
| 82 FR 49428 - Options Price Reporting Authority; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Amendment To Modify the OPRA Fee Schedule To Eliminate the Enterprise Rate Non-Professional Subscriber Fee and Amend the Non-Professional Subscriber Fee | |
| 82 FR 49429 - Options Price Reporting Authority; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Amendment To Modify the OPRA Fee Schedule To Amend the Professional Subscriber Device-Based Fee | |
| 82 FR 49366 - Notice of Application for Surrender of License, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, And Protests; Far West Power Corporation | |
| 82 FR 49363 - Notice of Application for Partial Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests: Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Energy Virginia; Allegheny Generating Company; Bath County Energy, LLC | |
| 82 FR 49362 - Notice of Staff Attendance at the Southwest Power Pool Regional Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee, Members' Committee and Board of Directors' Meetings | |
| 82 FR 49364 - Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date; Southwest Power Pool, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 49364 - Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order; Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC | |
| 82 FR 49361 - Notice of Application; Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP | |
| 82 FR 49364 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Riverdale South to Market Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues; Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC | |
| 82 FR 49422 - Certain Reusable Diapers, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Institution of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 49421 - Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same (II); Institution of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 49420 - Certain Electrochemical Glucose Monitoring Systems and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 49425 - Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting and Agenda | |
| 82 FR 49371 - In Vitro Metabolism- and Transporter-Mediated Drug-Drug Interaction Studies, and Clinical Drug Interaction Studies-Study Design, Data Analysis, and Clinical Implications; Draft Guidances for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 49312 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee To Prepare for Its Public Meeting on Voting Rights | |
| 82 FR 49480 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection Requests | |
| 82 FR 49423 - Certain Circular Welded Wipe and Wube (CWP) From Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews | |
| 82 FR 49469 - Request for Comments and Public Hearing About the Administration's Action Following a Determination of Import Injury With Regard to Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells | |
| 82 FR 49369 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 82 FR 49286 - Rules Regarding Availability of Information | |
| 82 FR 49311 - National Organic Program: Notice of Interim Instruction, Maintaining the Integrity of Organic Imports | |
| 82 FR 49384 - Notice of Interest Rate on Overdue Debts | |
| 82 FR 49385 - Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration; Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority | |
| 82 FR 49367 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 82 FR 49368 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 82 FR 49424 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Records and Supporting Data: Importation, Receipt, Storage, and Disposition by Explosives Importers, Manufacturers, Dealers, and Users Licensed Under Title 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40 Explosives | |
| 82 FR 49282 - Multi-Family Housing Program Requirements To Reduce Financial Reporting Requirements | |
| 82 FR 49287 - Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products | |
| 82 FR 49302 - Voluntary Consensus Standards Update; Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products | |
| 82 FR 49468 - Delegation to the Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs of Authorities for International Fisheries Organizations and Related Issues | |
| 82 FR 49295 - Revisions to the Cost-of-Capital Composite Railroad Criteria | |
| 82 FR 49478 - Establishment of Interim National Multimodal Freight Network | |
| 82 FR 49331 - National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), NIDIS Executive Council Meeting |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Rural Housing Service
Census Bureau
Industry and Security Bureau
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Antitrust Division
Labor Statistics Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule.
The Office of Personnel Management amends this rule to clarify the manner OPM uses for determining a supplemental liability under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), and to clarify the process by which the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) may request reconsideration of OPM's valuation of the supplemental liability. The rule also clarifies the employee categories OPM uses to compute the FERS normal cost percentages. The rule also amends the definitions of actuary, present value factor, and actuarial present value to ensure these definitions are uniform and appropriate.
This rule is effective October 25, 2017.
Roxann Johnson, (202) 606-0299 or
OPM's determination of the FERS normal cost percentage necessary to fund the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) is subject to appeal by agencies with at least 1,000 employees in the general category of employees or 500 employees in any of the special categories of employees. The Secretary of the Treasury or the Postmaster General may request the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System (the Board) to reconsider the amount determined to be payable with respect to any supplemental liability in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 8423(c) and 5 CFR 841.409. The regulations at 5 CFR 841.401 through 5 CFR 841.411 establish the time limits and requirements for an agency appeal of OPM's determination of a normal cost percentage. OPM has added regulations under 5 CFR part 841 to clarify the process by which the Secretary of the Treasury and the Postmaster General may file a request for the Board to reconsider an amount determined to be payable to the CSRDF with respect to a supplemental liability.
OPM's final rule amends its definition of “actuary” provided under 5 CFR 841.402. The prior definition was limited to “an associate or fellow in the Society of Actuaries and one who is enrolled under section 3042 of Public Law 93-406, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974” (ERISA). Because this definition no longer reflected professional standards generally required of an actuary for this subpart, and was overly narrow because it worked to exclude knowledgeable and experienced actuaries who may not be enrolled under ERISA but who are well qualified to issue statements of opinion with regard to the CSRDF, OPM has amended the definition of “actuary” to include those who meet the qualification standards to issue a statement of actuarial opinion in regard to defined benefit retirement plans in the United States.
OPM's final rule amends its regulations under 5 CFR 841.403 to make clear that it determines separate normal cost percentages for employees covered under Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), FERS Revised Annuity Employees (FERS-RAE), and FERS Further Revised Annuity Employees (FERS-FRAE) in compliance with section 5001 of the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,” Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 199 (Feb. 22, 2012), and section 401 of the “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013,” Public Law 113-67, 127 Stat. 1165 (Dec. 26, 2013). This legislation defined FERS-RAE and FERS-FRAE employees for whom increased retirement deductions apply, which results in increased outlays from the CSRDF in refund and lump-sum payments of employee contributions. For that reason, the normal cost percentages for FERS-RAE and FERS-FRAE employees are expected to exceed the normal cost percentages for other FERS employees. The legislation also reduced the benefit accrual rates for Members and Congressional employees (other than Capitol Police) subject to FERS-RAE and FERS-FRAE, resulting in lower associated normal cost percentages. To ensure regulations reflect current statutory language, OPM has amended 5 CFR 841.403 to clearly establish separate normal cost percentages for FERS, FERS-RAE and FERS-FRAE employees within each employee category listed under 5 CFR 841.403.
OPM's final rule amends 5 CFR 841.403 to make clear that it will include members of the Capitol Police as “Congressional Employees” for purposes of deriving separate normal cost percentages for this employee group. OPM includes members of the Capitol Police with Congressional employees when deriving the normal cost percentages for this employee group because, in part, 5 U.S.C. 2107(4) defines “a member or employee of the Capitol Police” as “a Congressional employee.” The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2014 eliminated for FERS-RAE and FERS-FRAE employees the higher annuity accrual rates for Congressional employees provided under 5 U.S.C. 8415(c) (
OPM's final rule amends 5 CFR 841.403 to include U.S. Postal Service employees as a separate category for which OPM will derive normal cost percentages. OPM has determined a Government-wide normal cost percentage for each category of employee, and U.S. Postal Service employees have been included in the category of either “all other employees” or “law enforcement officer” under 5 CFR 841.403(c) and (g). Because of the separate U.S. Postal Service funding provisions established under 5 U.S.C. 8423(b), and as a result of recommendations from the Board, OPM's final rule amends its regulations to provide for the use of U.S. Postal Service-specific assumptions regarding demographic factors in the calculation of the U.S. Postal Service supplemental liability and in the determination of the normal cost percentage for U.S. Postal Service employees who do not fall under the category of “law enforcement officer.” OPM's final rule amends regulations at 5 CFR 841.414, which will provide specific guidance on the calculation of the supplemental liability; and OPM's final rule adds employees of the U.S. Postal Service, who are not “law enforcement officers” under 5 CFR 841.403(c), as a separate category for which OPM will derive normal cost percentages under 5 CFR 841.403. OPM's final rule removes references to the term “Government-wide normal cost percentage” from 5 CFR part 841 in order to conform with the normal cost percentages established for various categories of employees as provided under this part, and to clarify that an agency may appeal a published normal cost percentage even if the normal cost percentage applies to a category of employee that exists predominately or exclusively within a single agency.
OPM's final rule also adds 5 CFR 841.415 through 841.417 to the regulations. These sections establish the procedures and requirements for filing a request for reconsideration of a supplemental liability determination filed by the Secretary of the Treasury or the Postmaster General. Under 5 CFR 841.417, and consistent with recommendations from the Board, OPM's final rule requires that the actuarial analysis submitted with the request for reconsideration must demonstrate a difference in the supplemental liability of at least 2 percent of the present value of future benefits calculated in OPM's computation of the supplemental liability.
Additionally, OPM's final rule refines the definitions of
OPM received comments on its proposed rule from the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the U.S. Postal Service General Counsel's Office (OGC). The U.S. Postal Service OIG indicated that it “support[ed] the Proposed Rule as far as it goes,” and the U.S. Postal Service OGC indicated that OPM's proposed changes were a “welcomed step,” but both organizations recommended that the rule require not only the use of U.S. Postal Service-specific demographic factors but also the use of U.S. Postal Service-specific economic factors related to general salary growth assumptions in determining the normal costs and the supplemental liability.
OPM has determined that this change is unnecessary. Currently, the regulations under 5 CFR 841.405 provide that the normal cost percentages will be based on the economic assumptions determined by the Board, and OPM's final rule amends 5 CFR 841.414 to provide that each supplemental liability will be computed based on the economic assumptions determined by the Board for the most recent valuation of FERS. Therefore, nothing in the regulations would prevent the Board from using general salary growth and wage assumptions specific to U.S. Postal Service employees when, in the Board's judgment, doing so would be appropriate.
OPM disagrees with the U.S. Postal Service OGC's assertion that 5 U.S.C. 8401(27)(A), 8423(b)(1), and 8348(h)(1)(A) require OPM to establish regulations that direct the Board to select general salary growth economic assumptions specific to the U.S. Postal Service for use in determining the normal costs and supplemental liabilities. The provisions under 5 U.S.C. 8401(23), 8401(27)(B)(iv), and 8348(h)(1)(A) require OPM to determine the normal costs and supplemental liabilities by applying “generally accepted actuarial principles,” and 5 U.S.C. 8347(f) and 8423(a)(5) require the Board to “furnish its advice and opinion on matters referred to it by the Office” and to make recommendations that “in the Board's judgment are necessary to protect the public interest and maintain the System on a sound financial basis.” The selection of economic assumptions used to determine the normal costs or the supplemental liability is inherently actuarial in nature. OPM finds that requiring the use of general salary growth economic assumptions specific to the U.S. Postal Service for use in determining the normal costs and supplemental liabilities would unnecessarily limit the Board's discretion in making these determinations. As a result, OPM declines to adopt the U.S. Postal Service OGC's recommendation to require the Board to select U.S. Postal Service-specific economic assumptions for use in determining the normal costs and the supplemental liability. To the extent the U.S. Postal Service would like to submit for the Board's consideration any information regarding the actuarial merits of selecting U.S. Postal Service-specific economic assumptions for use in determining the normal cost and the supplement liability, it may do so in accordance with the requirements of Board meeting notices.
The U.S. Postal Service OGC also requested that OPM make clear in its final rule that, in instances where OPM has computed a separate normal cost percentage, an agency's right to appeal and submit the evidence necessary to support the appeal should be related to OPM's determination of that normal cost percentage rather than any Government-wide normal cost
Finally, the U.S. Postal Service OGC requested that OPM not impose the 2 percent threshold requirement necessary for the Board to sustain a request for reconsideration of its supplemental liability determinations. The amended regulations under 5 CFR 841.147 provide that the Board cannot sustain a request for reconsideration unless the difference in the supplemental liability amount is at least 2 percent of the present value of future benefits calculated in OPM's computation of the supplemental liability. OPM included this threshold requirement as a result of a recommendation from the Board advising OPM that any threshold be set as a difference in present value of future benefits. OPM's actuaries tested the effect of what might be considered substantive changes in the demographic assumptions and produced results within a range of 0 percent to a decrease of 5.9 percent. Therefore, OPM has determined that the 2 percent threshold provided is a reasonable basis for sustaining a request for reconsideration, and therefore, OPM declines to adopt the U.S. Postal Service OGC's recommendation to eliminate this threshold.
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by E.O. 13258 and E.O. 13422.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
Firefighters, Government employees, Income taxes, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement officers, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Retirement.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Employment taxes, Government employees, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Retirement, Social Security.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air traffic controllers, Claims, Disability benefits, Firefighters, Government employees, Income taxes, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement officers, Pensions, Retirement.
Air traffic controllers, Alimony, Firefighters, Law enforcement officers, Pensions, Retirement.
Administrative practice and procedure, Disability benefits, Government employees, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Retirement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of Personnel Management amends 5 CFR parts 831, 839, 841, 842, and 847 as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 8347; Sec. 831.102 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8334; Sec. 831.106 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a; Sec. 831.108 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8336(d)(2); Sec. 831.114 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8336(d)(2), and Sec. 1313(b)(5) of Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; Sec. 831.201(b)(1) also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8347(g); Sec. 831.201(b)(6) also issued under 5 U.S.C. 7701(b)(2); Sec. 831.201(g) also issued under Secs. 11202(f), 11232(e), and 11246(b) of Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251; Sec. 831.201(g) also issued under Sec. 7(b) and (e) of Pub. L. 105-274, 112 Stat. 2419; Sec. 831.201(i) also issued under Secs. 3 and 7(c) of Pub. L. 105-274, 112 Stat. 2419; Sec. 831.204 also issued under Sec. 102(e) of Pub. L. 104-8, 109 Stat. 102, as amended by Sec. 153 of Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321; Sec. 831.205 also issued under Sec. 2207 of Pub. L. 106-265, 114 Stat. 784; Sec. 831.206 also issued under Sec. 1622(b) of Pub. L. 104-106, 110 Stat. 515; Sec. 831.301 also issued under Sec. 2203 of Pub. L. 106-265, 114 Stat. 780; Sec. 831.303 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8334(d)(2) and Sec. 2203 of Pub. L. 106-235, 114 Stat. 780; Sec. 831.502 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8337, and Sec. 1(3), E.O. 11228, 3 CFR 1965-1965 Comp. p. 317; Sec. 831.663 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8339(j) and (k)(2); Secs. 831.663 and 831.664 also issued under Sec. 11004(c)(2) of Pub. L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 412; Sec. 831.682 also issued under Sec. 201(d) of Pub. L. 99-251, 100 Stat. 23; Sec. 831.912 also issued under Sec. 636 of Appendix C to Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763A-164; Subpart P also issued under Sec. 535(d) of Title V of Division E of Pub. L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 2042; Subpart V also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8343a and Sec. 6001 of Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-275; Sec. 831.2203 also issued under Sec. 7001(a)(4) of Pub. L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388-328.
(a) OPM will compute each supplemental liability of the Fund using demographic factors specific to the populations for which the supplemental liability applies.
(b) The supplemental liability will be computed based on the economic assumptions used by the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System for the most recent valuation of the System.
(c) Each supplemental liability shall be rounded to the nearest one hundred million dollars.
(c) * * *
(3) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the term “present value factor” has the same meaning as defined in § 831.603 and “time of retirement” has the same meaning as defined in § 831.2202.
(d) * * *
(3) For the purpose of paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the term “present value
Title II, Pub. L. 106-265, 114 Stat. 770.
5 U.S.C. 8461; Sec. 841.108 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a; Secs. 841.110 and 841.111 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8470(a); subpart D also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8423; Sec. 841.504 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8422; Sec. 841.507 also issued under section 505 of Pub. L. 99-335; subpart J also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8469; Sec. 841.506 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 7701(b)(2); Sec. 841.508 also issued under section 505 of Pub. L. 99-335; Sec. 841.604 also issued under Title II, Pub. L. 106-265, 114 Stat. 780.
(b) * * *
(3) Agency appeals of rate determinations;
(4) Methodology for determining the amount due from each agency; and
(5) Requests for reconsideration of the supplemental liability.
Separate normal cost percentages for FERS, FERS-RAE and FERS-FRAE will be determined for each of the following groups of employees:
(b) Congressional employees, including members of the Capitol Police;
(g) Other employees of the United States Postal Service;
(h) All other employees.
(a) OPM will determine the normal cost percentages for each category of employees. These normal cost percentages will be used by all agencies that have not been granted a single agency rate under § 841.412.
(b) * * *
(1) The normal cost percentages and any single agency rates for each category of employees;
(a) An agency with at least 1,000 employees in the general category of employees or 500 employees in any of the special categories may appeal to the Board the normal cost percentage for that category as applied to that agency.
(b) No appeal will be considered by the Board unless the agency files, no later than 6 months after the date of publication of the notice of normal cost percentages under § 841.407, a petition for appeal that meets
(c) The actuarial report must contain a detailed actuarial analysis of the normal cost of FERS benefits as applied to the employees of that agency in the category of employees for which the agency is appealing. The actuarial report must—
(3) Specifically address and consider each of the demographic factors listed in § 841.404. The appealing agency is responsible for developing data relating to the first nine demographic factors as they relate to the category of agency employees for which the appeal is being filed. OPM's demographic factors (available from OPM) will be presumed to be sufficient and reliable for factors 10 through 13 unless the appealing
(a) The normal cost percentages as published under § 841.407 are presumed to apply to all agencies. Any agency appealing application of a published normal cost percentage to any category of employees in its workforce must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the normal cost percentage for that category of employees in that agency is sufficiently different from the published normal cost percentage.
(b) While an agency has an appeal pending, the published normal cost percentage continues to apply to that agency.
(d) * * *
(3) When all relevant factors are considered together, there is a demonstrated difference between the published normal cost percentage being appealed and the normal cost percentage for the group at issue; and
(4) The difference is at least 10 percent of the published normal cost percentage being appealed.
(c) A single agency rate may be higher or lower than the published normal cost percentage and will remain in force for not less than 3 years.
(a) OPM will compute each supplemental liability of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund using demographic factors consistent with those used for the computation of the normal cost percentages under § 841.403.
(b) The supplemental liability will be computed based on the economic assumptions determined by the Board for the most recent valuation of the Federal Employees Retirement System.
(c) Each supplemental liability will be rounded to the nearest one hundred million dollars.
(a) The Secretary of the Treasury or the Postmaster General may request the Board to reconsider a determination of the amount payable with respect to any supplemental liability.
(b) No request for reconsideration will be considered by the Board unless the Secretary of the Treasury or the Postmaster General files, no later than 6 months after the date of receipt of the first notice of the amount payable with respect to the supplemental liability, a request for reconsideration that meets
(a) To request reconsideration of the amount payable with respect to the supplemental liability, the Secretary of the Treasury or the Postmaster General must file with OPM—
(1) A signed letter of appeal summarizing the basis of the request; and
(2) An actuarial report that contains a detailed actuarial analysis of the request.
(b) The actuarial report must—
(1) Be signed by an actuary;
(2) Specifically present any data and development of assumptions related to the request for reconsideration;
(3) Use each of the demographic factors listed in § 841.404; and
(4) Use the economic assumptions under § 841.414(b). When a request is based in whole or in part on a pattern of merit salary increases, the report may include an analysis of the economic assumptions concerning salary and wage growth to take into account the combined effect of merit and general wage and salary growth.
(a) The Board cannot sustain a request for reconsideration unless the Board finds that—
(1) The data used in the actuarial report required by § 841.416 are sufficient and reliable;
(2) The assumptions used in the actuarial report required by § 841.416 are justified; and
(3) The difference in the supplemental liability amount is at least 2 percent of the present value of future benefits calculated in OPM's computation of the supplemental liability.
(b) If the Board sustains a request for reconsideration of the supplemental liability, OPM will recompute the supplemental liability according to the economic and demographic assumptions recommended by the Board.
5 U.S.C. 8461(g); Secs. 842.104 and 842.106 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8461(n); Sec. 842.104 also issued under Secs. 3 and 7(c) of Pub. L. 105-274, 112 Stat. 2419; Sec. 842.105 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8402(c)(1) and 7701(b)(2); Sec. 842.106 also issued under Sec. 102(e) of Pub. L. 104-8, 109 Stat. 102, as amended by Sec. 153 of Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-102; Sec. 842.107 also issued under Secs. 11202(f), 11232(e), and 11246(b) of Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, and Sec. 7(b) of Pub. L. 105-274, 112 Stat. 2419; Sec. 842.108 also issued under Sec. 7(e) of Pub. L. 105-274, 112 Stat. 2419; Sec. 842.109 also issued under Sec. 1622(b) of Public Law 104-106, 110 Stat. 515; Sec. 842.208 also issued under Sec. 535(d) of Title V of Division E of Pub. L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 2042; Sec. 842.213 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8414(b)(1)(B) and Sec. 1313(b)(5) of Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; Secs. 842.304 and 842.305 also issued under Sec. 321(f) of Pub. L. 107-228, 116 Stat. 1383, Secs. 842.604 and 842.611 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8417; Sec. 842.607 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8416 and 8417; Sec. 842.614 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8419; Sec. 842.615 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8418; Sec. 842.703 also issued under Sec. 7001(a)(4) of Pub. L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388; Sec. 842.707 also issued under Sec. 6001 of Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1300; Sec. 842.708 also issued under Sec. 4005 of Pub. L. 101-239, 103 Stat. 2106 and Sec. 7001 of Pub. L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388; Subpart H also issued under 5 U.S.C. 1104; Sec. 842.810 also issued under Sec. 636 of Appendix C to Pub. L. 106-554 at 114 Stat. 2763A-164; Sec. 842.811 also issued under Sec. 226(c)(2) of Public Law 108-176, 117 Stat. 2529; Subpart J also issued under Sec. 535(d) of Title V of Division E of Pub. L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 2042.
When OPM publishes in the
5 U.S.C. 8332(b)(17) and 8411(b)(6) and sections 1131 and 1132 of Pub. L. 107-107, December 28, 2001, 115 Stat 1242; 5 U.S.C. 8347(a) and 8461(g) and section 1043(b) of Pub. L. 104-106, Div. A, Title X, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 434. Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8347(q) and 8461(n).
(b) * * *
* * *
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Rural Housing Service (RHS) is revising its existing regulations regarding financial reporting. This action is necessary to align RHS requirements with those of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) utilizing a risk-based threshold reporting which will reduce the burden on the borrower to produce multiple financial reports; focus on high-risk properties; and, reduce the financial cost of reporting on properties.
This rule is effective November 24, 2017.
Janet Stouder, Deputy Director, Multi-Family Housing Portfolio Management Division, Rural Housing Service, Room 1237S—STOP 0782, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0782, Telephone: (202) 720-9728.
This final rule has been determined to be non-significant and, therefore was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
The Multi-Family Housing program (MFH) is administered, subject to appropriations, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as authorized under Sections 514, 515, 516 and 521 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1484, 1485, 1486, and 1490).
This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, “Environmental Program.” RHS has determined that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
This final rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The undersigned has determined and certified by signature on this document that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since this rulemaking action does not involve a new or expanded program nor does it require any more action on the part of a small business than required of a large entity.
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. This rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local Governments; therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988. In accordance with this rule: (1) Unless otherwise specifically provided, all State and local laws that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule except as specifically prescribed in the rule; and (3) administrative proceedings of the National Appeals Division of the Department of Agriculture (7 CFR part 11) must be exhausted before bringing suit in court that challenges action taken under this rule.
Title II of the UMRA, Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal Governments and on the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, Federal Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and Final Rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one-year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires a Federal Agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal Governments or for the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The information collection requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by OMB and have been assigned OMB control number 0575-0189. This final rule contains no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
RHS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services and for other purposes.
The programs affected by this regulation are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under number 10.405—Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants (Sections 514 and 516); 10.415—Rural Rental Housing Loans (Section 515); and 10.427—Rural Rental Assistance Payments (Section 521).
This executive order imposes requirements on RHS in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. RHS has determined that the final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes. Thus, the final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. If tribal leaders are interested in consulting with RHS on this final rule, they are encouraged to contact USDA's Office of Tribal Relations or Rural Development's Native American Coordinator at (720) 544-2911 or
These loans are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. RHS conducts intergovernmental consultations for each loan in accordance with 2 CFR part 415, subpart C.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Section 515(z)(1) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended states that the Secretary shall require that borrowers in programs authorized by this section maintain accounting records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for all MFH projects that receive funds from loans made or guaranteed by the Secretary. Since RHS considers Sections 514 Farm Labor Housing loans to have similar risks as Section 515 Rural Rental Housing loans, the regulatory accounting requirements apply to both types of loans. See 7 CFR 3560.578.
RHS published the financial reporting proposed rule in the
RHS proposed to remove engagement requirements, as well as unit-based requirements from 7 CFR 3560.11, 3560.301, 3560.302, 3560.303 and 3560.308 and replace it with risk-based requirements for audits utilizing a modified version of the HUD Office of Inspector General's (OIG) Consolidated Audit Guide standard. This proposed change was a result of RHS's participation in the White House's Domestic Policy Council's Rental Policy Working Group (RPWG) on an initiative to reduce duplication of requirements on customers, eliminate conflicting administrative requirements, and align program requirements in the affordable rental housing industry. RHS believes that high-risk properties should receive more stringent evaluation of financial performance and that it can be accomplished in a more cost-effective manner. Implementation of this rule will reduce cost to properties, eliminate duplicate reporting to federal agencies, and further alignment objectives. HUD will accept the RHS audit in compliance
Combined Federal financial assistance includes a combination of any or all of the sources identified below:
• The outstanding beginning principal balance of a USDA Mortgage, a mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or HUD-held mortgages or loans (including flexible subsidy loans);
• Any RHS Rental Assistance or Project-based Section 8 assistance received during the fiscal year;
• Interest reduction payments received during the year (interest subsidy) and/or;
• Federal grant funds received during the year.
The thresholds established in the proposed rule for non-profits are herein modified in order to conform to thresholds established by the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 CFR parts 200 and 400.
The threshold level for the non-profit ownership audit reporting requirement has been changed to $750,000 from $500,000. For non-profit borrowers that receive $750,000 or more in Federal financial assistance, RHS will accept the audit required under 2 CFR part 200 as compliance with RHS financial reporting requirements; non-profit borrowers that receive less than $750,000 in Federal financial assistance must submit owner certified prescribed forms on the accrual method of accounting in accordance with Statements for Account and Review Services promulgated by the Accounting and Review Services Committee of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
There has been no change to the threshold requirement for for-profit ownership entities and it remains at $500,000.
Through this rule change, the Agency has removed requirements for an engagement that examines records using agreed upon procedures established by the Agency as part of the annual financial reporting requirements. Although the Section 514 and Section 515 proposals for new development are still subject to the agreed upon cost certification procedures set-forth in 7 CFR 3560.72(b).
In addition to the changes in the annual reporting requirements outlined herein, the Agency is adding three additional certifications to the Performance Standards required under 7 CFR 3560.308(c). The proposed rule included two certifications: The borrower would be required to certify there have been no changes in project ownership other than those approved by the Agency and identified in the certification; and that real estate taxes are paid in accordance with stateand/or local requirements and are current. This rule adds a third certification that Replacement Reserve accounts were used only for authorized purposes. This revision simply reflects what is required in the borrower's Loan Agreement and therefore does not constitute an additional burden on the borrower.
Two comments received indicated there is disparity and possible confusion in the citation as it relates to the establishment of a project's financial management procedures:
The Agency appreciates the comments received and to alleviate disparity and confusion at both § 3560.302(b)(1) and § 3560.308, RHS has revised § 3560.302(b)(1) to indicate that the accrual accounting method is required. The Agency will revise § 3560.308(a)(1) and (a)(2) to indicate the documentation required to provide a complete financial report under 2 CFR parts 200 and 400. Federal financial assistance is defined in accordance with 2 CFR 200.40.
Five comments were received regarding the requirements of “owner-certified financial statements” and expressed concern about the impact this may have on smaller property owners and the potential of increased CPA fees on project operating budgets.
The Agency agrees with the commenters' concerns and has amended the requirements for those for-profit borrowers receiving less than $500,000 in combined Federal financial assistance, and non-profit borrowers receiving less than $750,000 in combined Federal financial assistance, to a compilation of prescribed forms. The compilation of prescribed forms will include Form RD 3560-7, “
Three comments were received regarding the Agency's modified version of the HUD OIG Consolidated Audit Guide. The comments expressed concern about when the “modified version” of the HUD OIG Consolidated Audit Guide would be released and that it had not been shared in the proposed rule. The commenters felt that it would be beneficial to release, as soon as possible, a draft version of the proposed HUD audit guide in order to better assess any possible changes in audit fees as well as the cost of preparing owner-certified statements.
The HUD OIG Consolidated Audit Guide is not being modified for the purpose of this rule. The Agency anticipates additional cost savings to MFH property owners as the Agency will not utilize the HUD Chart of Accounts, nor will the report require the CPA to review tenant files, as that compliance test is being conducted by MFH field staff during supervisory visits and annual improper payment auditing. HUD has agreed to accept the RHS audit in lieu of a HUD audit for those projects where RHS and HUD have financing in common (
One commenter questioned the requirement within the Audit Guide, wherein CPAs are tasked with assessing housing quality standards as “. . . this is not typically in their skillset.”
The Agency does not expect CPAs to have a skillset that qualifies them to determine whether physical standards are met. However, RHS anticipates that upon determining whether the owner (borrower) or management agent has responded to all Agency management review reports, physical inspections, and inquiries regarding financial statements or monthly accounting reports (reference § 3.5 M. 2. E of the Audit Guide), the auditor can make a reasonable determination that the
Three comments were received regarding the threshold standard. OMB has established a new reporting threshold for non-profit organizations that are required to file a single audit. The audit threshold is $750,000, in accordance with Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, Subpart F Audit Requirements. Commenters believed HUD would likely make changes in guidance to follow that threshold.
The Agency recognizes the change in the reporting threshold. HUD and RHS jointly determined that they would establish similar audit thresholds for financial reporting of its financed or insured properties. Since issuance of the proposed rule, RHS and HUD agreed to modify the threshold to avoid potential conflicts in implementation. The preceding comments reflecting this change are in alignment between the two agencies.
One comment was received requesting clarification of the agreed-upon-procedure (AUP) requirements for annual operating audits and that these will no longer be required.
This is correct. AUPs will no longer be required as part of the annual financial reporting requirements. It is noted, however, new construction projects for Section 514 and Section 515 are still subject to the agreed upon cost certification procedures as set-forth in 7 CFR 3560.72(b). As a result, no changes were made to the proposed rule regarding this comment.
One comment was received regarding “non-cash interest subsidy” and whether this should be included in addition to interest reduction payments as part of the combined Federal financial assistance?
The Agency interprets the `interest reduction payments' to be the equivalent of the “non-cash” interest subsidy the borrower receives annually and is included in the calculation of Federal financial assistance. Since this comment was simply requesting a clarification, no changes have been made to the rule.
One comment was received asking if there was a “. . . minimum amount of combined Federal financial assistance that would not require financial statements presented in accordance with GAAP?”
From earlier comments received in response to the owner-certification requirements, the Agency has agreed to amend the requirements for those for-profit borrowers, and non-profit borrowers receiving less than $750,000 in combined Federal assistance, and with no other audit requirements, to the receipt of a compilation of prescribed forms. As a result the Agency revised the proposed language at 7 CFR 3560.308(a)(2). Please see preceding comments reflecting this change.
One comment was received regarding the Performance Standards at 7 CFR 3560.308(b)(8), which was proposed to read that no unauthorized change in ownership have taken place. The commenter requested the regulation set forth what is expected to be identified as a change (
In accordance with 7 CFR 3560.405(b)(1) and (2), borrowers must notify the Agency prior to the implementation of
One commenter questioned “. . . in a situation where the USDA loan may be below the threshold and is subordinate to a large private mortgage or a Section 538 Guaranteed Rural Housing (GRRH) loan, other funding sources will likely still require an audit. Although not required by the Agency, will the Agency continue to require these same financial reports be provided for review?”
7 CFR 3560.308(d)(3) states, “. . . any audits independently obtained by the borrower must also be submitted to the Agency.” As a note, the existence of the Section 538 GRRH loan constitutes “Federal financial assistance” and should be added to the total when calculating the threshold requirement.
One commenter requested a general clarification of determining combined Federal financial assistance, “. . . should the beginning of the year or end of the year principal balance be used?”
Since the auditor reports on activity from the beginning of the reporting year to the end, it is appropriate that the combined Federal financial assistance shall be deemed the outstanding principal balances at the beginning of the borrower's fiscal reporting period. No change to the rule is needed.
One commenter requested the anticipated implementation date for submission under the new financial reporting requirements.
The Agency anticipates the new rule will be effective for borrowers with fiscal years beginning January 1, 2018 and thereafter. No change is needed to the proposed rule.
One commenter asked whether financial reports would be electronically submitted through the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC).
RHS reports are not submitted to REAC, which is owned by HUD. No change to the rule is needed.
Aged loan programs-Agriculture, loan programs-Housing and Community Development, Low- and moderate-income housing, Public Housing, rent subsidies.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter XXXV, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations will be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1480.
This subpart contains requirements for the financial management of Agency-financed multi-family housing (MFH) projects, including accounts, budgets, and reports. Financial management systems and procedures must cover all housing operations and provide adequate documentation to ensure that program objectives are met.
(a)
(b) * * *
(1) Borrowers are required to use the accrual method of accounting in preparing annual financial reports, as identified in § 3560.308.
(2) Borrowers must describe their accounting, bookkeeping, budget preparation, and financial reporting procedures in their management plan.
(e) * * *
(1) Borrowers must retain all housing project financial records, books, and supporting material for at least three years after the issuance of their financial reports. Upon request, these materials will immediately be made available to the Agency, its representatives, the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG), or the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) * * *
(Q) Professional service contracts (audits, owner-certified submissions in accordance with § 3560.308(a)(2), tax returns, energy audits, utility allowances, architectural, construction, rehabilitation and inspection contracts, etc.)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(2) Non-profit borrowers that receive $750,000 or more in combined Federal financial assistance must meet the audit requirements set forth by OMB, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, found at 2 CFR parts 200 and 400. Borrowers must provide a copy of this audit to RHS in compliance with these financial reporting requirements.
(3) Non-profit borrowers that receive less than $750,000, and for-profit borrowers that receive less than $500,000in combined Federal financial assistance will submit annual owner certified prescribed forms on the accrual method of accounting in accordance with the Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services promulgated by the Accounting and Review Services Committee of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Borrowers may use a CPA to prepare this compilation report of the prescribed forms.
(b)
(8) There have been no changes in project ownership other than those approved by the Agency and identified in the certification.
(9) Real estate taxes are paid in accordance with state and/or local requirements and are current.
(10) Replacement Reserve accounts have been used for only authorized purposes.
(c) * * *
(1) Non-profit and public borrower entities subject to OMB Uniform Guidance: Cost Principles, Audit, and Administrative Requirements for Federal Awards, must submit audits in accordance with 2 CFR parts 200 and 400.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”).
Final rule.
The Board is finalizing its interim final rule amending its regulations for processing requests under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) pursuant to the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (the “Act”). The amendments clarify and update procedures for requesting information from the Board, extend the deadline for administrative appeals, and add information on dispute resolution services. The interim final rule became effective on December 27, 2016. This rulemaking finalizes the interim rule with minor edits.
This final rule is effective on November 24, 2017.
Katherine Wheatley, Associate General Counsel, (202) 452-3779, or Misty Mirpuri, Counsel, (202) 452-2597, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. Users of telecommunications device for the hearing impaired, please call (202) 263-4869.
On December 27, 2016, the Board published an interim final rule
Interested persons were afforded the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process through submission of written comments on the interim final rule during the open comment period. The Board is adopting a minor revision to the interim final rule in response to a comment from the Office of Government Information Services within the National Archives and Records Administration (“OGIS”).
OGIS asked the Board to revise section 261.13(i)(4) of the Rules to require that a determination letter on an appeal inform appellants of the availability of OGIS's dispute resolution services. Although not required by the FOIA statute, this change is consistent with guidance issued by the Department of Justice's Office of Information Policy. Accordingly, the Board has determined to edit the language in paragraph (i)(4) of section 261.13 to notify an appealing party of the availability of OGIS's dispute resolution services as a nonexclusive alternative to litigation.
The Board has determined not to adopt two other suggestions by OGIS. OGIS's proposed amendment would add a statement that “[d]ispute resolution is a voluntary process.” This sentence appears to be unnecessary and repetitive given that the Board is already advising appellants that dispute resolution services are available as a “nonexclusive alternative to litigation.” OGIS also proposed language stating that the Board will “actively engage as a partner to the process in an attempt to resolve the dispute” if the Board participates in the OGIS dispute resolution process. Although active engagement in attempting to resolve a FOIA dispute is of course not unreasonable, the proposed sentence could create additional legal obligations not required under the FOIA. Accordingly, aside from adding in language regarding the availability of OGIS's dispute resolution services as a nonexclusive alternative to litigation, the Board is adopting section 261.13(i)(4) in the final rule without any further change.
As the Board noted in its interim rule, Congress required that the substantive changes to the Board's Rules under the Improvement Act become effective by December 27, 2016, and the other amendments to the Board's Rules were technical in nature. Thus, the Board determined that the prior notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), did not apply to the rule. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, these regulations are not a “rule” as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and no initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Freedom of information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated above, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System adopts the interim final rule published on December 27, 2016, at 81 FR 94932, as final with the following change:
5 U.S.C. 552; 12 U.S.C. 248(i) and (k), 321
(i) * * *
(4) The Board shall make a determination regarding any appeal within 20 working days of actual receipt of the appeal by the Freedom of Information Office. If an adverse determination is upheld on appeal, in whole or in part, the determination letter shall notify the appealing party of the right to seek judicial review and of the availability of dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services as a nonexclusive alternative to litigation.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action on a revision to the formaldehyde standards for composite wood products final rule, published in the
This final rule is effective on December 11, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by November 9, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, the Agency will publish a timely withdrawal in the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0245, is available at
You may be affected by this direct final rule if you manufacture (including import), sell, supply, offer for sale, test, or work with certification firms that certify hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, particleboard, and/or products containing these composite wood materials in the United States. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Veneer, plywood, and engineered wood product manufacturing (NAICS code 3212).
• Manufactured home (mobile home) manufacturing (NAICS code 321991).
• Prefabricated wood building manufacturing (NAICS code 321992).
• Furniture and related product manufacturing (NAICS code 337).
• Furniture merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 42321).
• Lumber, plywood, millwork, and wood panel merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 42331).
• Other construction material merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 423390),
• Furniture stores (NAICS code 4421).
• Building material and supplies dealers (NAICS code 4441).
• Manufactured (mobile) home dealers (NAICS code 45393).
• Motor home manufacturing (NAICS code 336213).
• Travel trailer and camper manufacturing (NAICS code 336214).
• Recreational vehicle (RV) dealers (NAICS code 441210).
• Recreational vehicle merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 423110).
• Engineering services (NAICS code 541330).
• Testing laboratories (NAICS code 541380).
• Administrative management and general management consulting services (NAICS code 541611).
• All other professional, scientific, and technical services (NAICS code 541990).
• All other support services (NAICS code 561990).
• Business associations (NAICS code 813910).
• Professional organizations (NAICS code 813920).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action, please consult the technical person listed under
EPA is updating the references for multiple voluntary consensus standards that were incorporated by reference in the December 12, 2016 formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products final rule because they have been updated, superseded, and/or withdrawn by their respective organization. Table 1 in this Unit outlines only the voluntary consensus standards being addressed in this rulemaking and their respective updated versions. All other standards in the formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products final rule will continue to be incorporated by reference as they appear in that final rule, and any future versions would be considered in a later rulemaking.
EPA intends to adopt all of the updated versions of the standards referenced in Table 1 at this time. Any future versions or updates to withdrawn/superseded standards will be announced by EPA through a separate
Additionally, EPA is updating the existing reference in the regulatory text from International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 17020: 1998(E)—Conformity assessment—Requirements for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection (
EPA is also revising § 770.20(d)(2)(i) to state that the Agency will allow the correlation of the tests conducted through the quality control methods listed in § 770.20(b) to either ASTM E1333-14 or, upon a showing of equivalence, ASTM D6007-14 test chamber tests. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) under its Air Toxic Control Measure has approved the use of ASTM D6007-14 test chambers that have previously shown equivalence under § 770.20(d) to an ASTM E1333-14 test chamber to be correlated to other mill quality control method tests listed in § 770.20(b). According to CARB staff, this is the commonly used method for conducting correlation between test methods based on the greater availability of ASTM D6007-14 test chambers. Several third-party certifiers, regulated entities and their associations expressed the importance of allowing mill quality control tests to be correlated to ASTM D6007 test chambers. EPA agrees that significant disruptions would occur, including testing and TSCA Title VI product certification capacity shortfalls, if the correlation of mill quality control tests were allowed only through the use of ASTM E1333-14 test chambers. Based on consultations with CARB staff, allowing correlation to be established through the use of ASTM D6007-14 test chambers in addition to the ASTM E1333-14 test chambers does not result in a decrease in testing reliability and yields comparable results if the ASTM D6007 test chambers have shown equivalence to the ASTM E1333 test chambers. To maintain consistency with this revision, EPA is also updating the definition of
• APA—the Engineered Wood Association,
• Composite Panel Association (CPA),
• American National Standards Institute (ANSI),
• American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
• Japanese Standards Association (JIS), and
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) into the regulations at 40 CFR part 770.
EPA is specifically updating the voluntary consensus standards in the formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products final rule to reflect the current editions that are in-use by regulated entities and industry stakeholders. EPA believes that this action is warranted to facilitate regulated entities using the most up-to-date voluntary consensus standards to comply with the final rule.
These regulations are established under authority of Section 601 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2697.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. As addressed in Unit II.A., this action would not materially alter the final rule as published, and will update existing voluntary consensus standards incorporated by reference in the final rule, to their current versions.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action involves technical standards, many of which EPA is directed to use by TSCA Title VI. Technical standards identified in the statute have been updated since publication of the original notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 34795) by the technical standard management bodies which antiquates the statute required versions. Pursuant to NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, EPA has reviewed the updated versions of the technical standards published in the final rule (81 FR 89674) and determined them to be appropriate, and readily available for use by regulated entities.
EPA is updating voluntary consensus standards originally published in the final rule (81 FR 89674) as issued by ASTM International, ANSI, APA, HPVA, NIST, BSI, and JIS. Copies of the standards referenced in the regulatory text have been placed in the docket for this rule. Additionally, each of these standards is available for inspection at the OPPT Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA, West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. The following voluntary consensus standards are being updated:
a.
1. ANSI/APA A190.1-2017,
2. ANSI A208.1-2016,
3. ANSI A208.2-2016,
4. ANSI/HPVA HP-1-2016,
b.
1. ASTM E1333-14,
2. ASTM D6007-14,
3. ASTM D5582-14,
4. ASTM D5456-14b,
5. ASTM D5055-16,
c.
1. BS EN 12460-3: 2015,
2. BS EN 12460-5: 2015,
d.
e.
1. PS 1-09,
2. PS 2-10,
EPA has determined that the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations, as specified in Executive Order 12898. As addressed in Unit II.A., this action would not materially alter the final rule as published, and will update existing voluntary consensus standards incorporated by reference in the final rule, to their current versions.
This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Formaldehyde, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third-party certification, Toxic substances, Wood.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, subchapter
15 U.S.C. 2697(d).
(c) * * *
(3) Structural plywood, as specified in PS 1-09, Structural Plywood (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(4) Structural panels, as specified in PS 2-10, Performance Standard for Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(5) Structural composite lumber, as specified in ASTM D5456-14b, Standard Specification for Evaluation of Structural Composite Lumber Products (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(7) Glued laminated lumber, as specified in ANSI A190.1-2017, Standard for Wood Products—Structural Glued Laminated Timber (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(8) Prefabricated wood I-joists, as specified in ASTM D5055-16, Standard Specification for Establishing and Monitoring Structural Capacities of Prefabricated Wood I-Joists (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
The revisions read as follows:
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) A review of the approach that the TPC laboratory will use for establishing correlation or equivalence between ASTM E1333-14 and ASTM D6007-14, if used, (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) or allowable formaldehyde test methods listed under § 770.20.
(F) A review of the accreditation credentials of the TPC laboratory, including a verification that the laboratory has been accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E) (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) with a scope of accreditation to include this part—Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products and the formaldehyde test methods ASTM E1333-14 and ASTM D6007-14, if used, by an EPA TSCA Title VI Laboratory AB (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(i)
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Be, or have a contract with a laboratory that is, accredited by an EPA TSCA Title VI Laboratory AB to ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E) (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) with a scope of accreditation to include this part—Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products—and the formaldehyde test methods ASTM E1333-14 and ASTM D6007-14, if used (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99);
(v) Have demonstrated experience in performing or verifying formaldehyde emissions testing on composite wood products, including experience with test method ASTM E1333-14 and ASTM D6007-14, if used, (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99), and experience evaluating correlation between test methods. Applicant TPCs that have demonstrated experience with test method ASTM D6007-14 only, must be contracting testing with a laboratory that has a large chamber and demonstrate its experience with ASTM E1333-14.
(2) * * *
(iv) A copy of the TPC laboratory's certificate of accreditation from an EPA TSCA Title VI Laboratory AB to ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E) (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) with a scope of accreditation to include this part—Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products—and the formaldehyde test methods ASTM E1333-14 and ASTM D6007-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99), if used;
(viii) A description of the TPC's experience with test method ASTM E1333-14 and/or ASTM D6007-14, if used, (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99), and experience evaluating correlation between test methods. Applicant TPCs that have experience with test method ASTM D6007-14 only, must be contracting testing with a laboratory that has a large chamber and describe its experience with ASTM E1333-14; and
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Verify each panel producer's quality control test results compared with test results from ASTM E1333-14 and ASTM D6007-14, if used, (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) by having the TPC laboratory conduct quarterly tests and evaluate test method equivalence and correlation as required under § 770.20;
(v) * * *
(C) Notification of a panel producer exceeding its established QCL for more than two consecutive quality control tests within 72 hours of the time that the TPC becomes aware of the second exceedance. The notice must include the product type, dates of the quality control tests that exceeded the QCL, quality control test results, ASTM E1333-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) or ASTM D6007-14 method (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) correlative equivalent values in accordance with § 770.20(d), the established QCL value(s) and the quality control method used.
(b) The emission standards are based on test method ASTM E1333-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99), and are as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) At least five tests conducted under the supervision of an EPA TSCA Title VI TPC pursuant to test method ASTM E1333-14 or ASTM D6007-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99). Test results obtained by ASTM D6007-14 must include a showing of equivalence in accordance with § 770.20(d)(1);
(2) * * *
(iii) At least five tests conducted under the supervision of an EPA TSCA Title VI TPC pursuant to test method ASTM E1333-14 or ASTM D6007-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99). Test results obtained by ASTM D6007-14 must include a showing of equivalence in accordance with § 770.20(d)(1);
(a) * * *
(3) At least one test conducted under the supervision of an EPA TSCA Title VI TPC pursuant to test method ASTM E1333-14 or ASTM D6007-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99). Test results obtained by ASTM D6007-14 must include a showing of equivalence in accordance with § 770.20(d)(1); and
(a) * * *
(3) At least two tests conducted under the supervision of an EPA TSCA Title VI TPC pursuant to test method ASTM E1333-14 or ASTM D6007-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99). Test results obtained by ASTM D6007-14 must include a showing of equivalence in accordance with § 770.20(d)(1); and
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) ASTM D6007-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(ii) ASTM D5582-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(iii) BS EN ISO 12460-3:2015 E (Gas Analysis Method) (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(vi) BS EN ISO 12460-5:2015 E (Perforator Method) (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(vii) JIS A 1460:2015(E) (24-hr Desiccator Method) (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(c) * * *
(1)
(d)
(1)
(i)
(B) For the ASTM D6007-14 method (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99), each comparison sample shall consist of testing specimens representing portions of panels similar to the panels tested in the ASTM E1333-14 method (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) and matched to their respective ASTM E1333-14 method (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) comparison sample result. The ratio of air flow to sample surface area specified in ASTM D6007-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99) must be used.
(C) The five comparison sample must consist of testing a minimum of five sample sets as measured by the ASTM E1333-14 method (incorporated by reference, see § 770.99).
(ii)
Where
(iii)
Where
(2)
(i)
(a)
(5) ANSI A190.1-2017, Standard for Wood Products—Structural Glued Laminated Timber, Approved January 24, 2017, IBR approved for § 770.1(c).
(6) ANSI A208.1-2016, Particleboard, Approved May 12, 2016, IBR approved for § 770.3.
(7) ANSI A208.2-2016, Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) for Interior Applications, Approved May 12, 2016, IBR approved for § 770.3.
(8) ANSI/HPVA HP-1-2016, American National Standard for Hardwood and Decorative Plywood, Approved January 12, 2016, IBR approved for § 770.3.
(b) * * *
(1) ASTM D5055-16, Standard Specification for Establishing and Monitoring Structural Capacities of Prefabricated Wood I-Joists, Approved June 1, 2016, IBR approved for § 770.1(c).
(2) ASTM D5456-14b, Standard Specification for Evaluation of Structural Composite Lumber Products, Approved October 1, 2014, IBR approved for § 770.1(c).
(3) ASTM D5582-14, Standard Test Method for Determining Formaldehyde Levels from Wood Products Using a Desiccator, Approved-August 1, 2014, IBR approved for § 770.20(b).
(4) ASTM D6007-14, Standard Test Method for Determining Formaldehyde Concentrations in Air from Wood Products Using a Small-Scale Chamber, Approved October 1, 2014, IBR approved for §§ 770.3, 770.7(a) through (c), 770.15(c), 770.17(a), 770.18(a), and 770.20(b) through (d).
(5) ASTM E1333-14, Standard Test Method for Determining Formaldehyde Concentrations in Air and Emission Rates from Wood Products Using a Large Chamber, Approved October 1, 2014, IBR approved for §§ 770.3, 770.7(a) through (c), 770.10(b), 770.15(c), 770.17(a), 770.18(a), and 770.20(c) and (d).
(c) * * *
(1) BS EN ISO 12460-3:2015 E, Wood-based panels.—Determination of formaldehyde release—Part 3: Gas analysis method, November 2015, IBR approved for § 770.20(b).
(2) BS EN ISO 12460-5:2015 E, Wood based panels.—Determination of formaldehyde release—Part 5: Extraction method (called the perforator method), December 2015, IBR approved for § 770.20(b).
(f) * * *
(1) JIS A 1460:2015(E), Determination of the emission of formaldehyde from building boards—Desiccator method, First English edition, published 2015-10, IBR approved for § 770.20(b).
(g) * * *
(1) PS 1-09, Structural Plywood, May 2010, IBR approved for §§ 770.1(c) and 770.3.
(2) PS 2-10, Performance Standard for Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels, June 2011, IBR approved for §§ 770.1(c) and 770.3.
Surface Transportation Board.
Final Action.
The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) is adopting a final action to update one of the screening criteria used to create the “composite railroad” for the Board's annual cost-of-capital determination. This final action requires a company's stock to be listed on either the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) or the Nasdaq Stock Market (NASDAQ), rather than on either the NYSE or American Stock Exchange (AMEX), as the AMEX no longer exists.
This action is applicable on November 24, 2017.
Amy C. Ziehm, (202) 245-0391. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
As one of its regulatory responsibilities, the Board determines annually the railroad industry's cost of capital.
The Board determines the railroad industry's cost of capital for a “composite railroad,” which is based on data from a sample of railroads. Pursuant to
On April 18, 2017, the Board issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to update the fourth screening criterion used to create the “composite railroad” for the Board's annual cost-of-capital determination. Specifically, the Board proposed that its fourth screening criterion be modified to require a company's stock to be listed on either the NYSE or the NASDAQ, rather than on either the NYSE or AMEX, as the AMEX is no longer in existence.
The Board sought comments on the NPRM by May 18, 2017, and replies by June 19, 2017. The Board received comments on the proposed action from the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the Western Coal Traffic League (WCTL). No reply comments were filed. After consideration of the comments received, the Board is adopting the changes proposed in the NPRM as a final action.
In its comments, AAR states that it is supportive of the Board's proposal to update the “composite railroad” screening criteria to better reflect the current state of the marketplace. (AAR Comment 2.) AAR requests that the Board move expeditiously to adopt the proposal and prohibit any party from expanding the scope of this proceeding by offering proposals that would “manipulate” the cost-of-capital process. (
WCTL generally supports the Board's proposal and states that expanding the screening criteria to include NASDAQ-listed companies,
Despite its criticisms, WCTL recommends that the Board adopt the proposed change, but “on a tentative or qualified basis that would allow the Board to revisit the matter, and allow parties to present relevant evidence, if inclusion of NASDAQ-traded carriers turns out to undermine the representativeness of the composite sample, or the accuracy of the cost-of-capital” figure. (
To reflect the current marketplace, the Board will adopt the changes proposed in the NPRM and now require, as its fourth screening criterion, that a company's stock be listed on either the NYSE or the NASDAQ. Commenters generally support the Board's proposal and agree that the NASDAQ is a suitable replacement for the AMEX in the cost-of-capital determination. As noted in the NPRM, when the Board's predecessor adopted the fourth screening criterion, it did so to “insure the availability of stock price data.”
Although WCTL supports the Board's proposal and states that expanding the screening criteria to include NASDAQ-listed companies,
In any event, railroads operating in different parts of the United States may confront different markets, traffic mixes, densities, and topography. As a consequence, there are differences in the cost structures of eastern and western carriers. These physical and cost structure differences, however, do not imply variances in the cost of capital on a regional basis. Investors deploy capital around the world, looking to obtain the highest possible return, while incurring the lowest possible risk. WCTL has not provided evidence to demonstrate that there is any difference in the rate of return investors demand—
With respect to WCTL's argument that another “complicating factor” is that the second stage of the Board's MSDCF uses a simple average of the growth rates of individual carriers, such that KCS counts as much as UP, the Board finds such an argument to be outside the scope of this proceeding. The core issue here is whether, for purposes of the cost-of-capital calculation, it is appropriate to replace a defunct stock exchange (AMEX) with a stock exchange in current and prevalent use (NASDAQ). WCTL's growth rate argument does not relate to that issue and is a collateral attack on other components of the Board's approved methodology.
Finally, the Board declines WCTL's request to adopt the final action on a conditional or tentative basis, purportedly to allow parties to present additional evidence after implementation. If parties have concerns in the future that inclusion of NASDAQ-traded carriers ultimately results in a less representative composite sample, they may file a petition to modify or revisit the composite group criteria regulation.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires a description and analysis of new rules that would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In drafting a rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the analysis available for public comment. 5 U.S.C. 601-604. Under § 605(b), an agency is not required to perform an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis if it certifies that the proposed or final rules will not have a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.”
Because the goal of the RFA is to reduce the cost to small entities of complying with federal regulations, the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates those entities. In other words, the impact must be a direct impact on small entities “whose conduct is circumscribed or mandated” by the proposed rule.
In the NPRM, the Board already certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed change would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA. The Board explained that a change in the listing requirement for inclusion in the composite railroad would not have a significant economic impact on the railroads included; likewise, the Board articulated that, whether or not a railroad would be included in the composite group would have no significant economic impact on that individual railroad. A copy of the
The final action changes one of the criteria for a railroad's inclusion in the data sample that the Board uses to calculate the annual cost of capital. By definition, that group of railroads is limited to Class I carriers, which are not small businesses under the Board's definition for RFA purposes.
1. The final action described above is adopted and will be applicable on November 24, 2017.
2. Notice of the action adopted here will be published in the
3. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
4. This decision is effective on the date of service.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS approves and implements an exemption for vessels with Federal Limited Access General Category Individual Fishing Quota permits from the State of Maine and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This exemption enables the vessels to continue fishing in their respective state waters once NMFS has announced that the Federal Northern Gulf of Maine total allowable catch has been fully harvested in a given year. Additionally, Massachusetts has requested that Federal Limited Access General Category Northern Gulf of Maine permits also be included in its exemption. Both states have requested this exemption as part of the Scallop State Water Exemption Program. This program specifies that a state may be eligible for a state waters exemption to specific Federal regulations if it has a scallop fishery and a scallop conservation program that does not jeopardize the biomass and fishing mortality/effort limit objectives of the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan. Based on the information that Maine and Massachusetts have submitted, NMFS has determined that both states qualify for this exemption and that this exemption will not have an impact on the effectiveness of Federal management measures for the scallop fishery overall or within the Northern Gulf of Maine management area.
Effective October 25, 2017.
Documents supporting this action, including the State of Maine and Commonwealth of Massachusetts requests for the exemption, the Categorical Exclusion, and Framework Adjustment 28 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP) are available upon request from John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Copies of the Permit Holder Letter are available from John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298, or available on the Internet at
Shannah Jaburek, Fisheries Management Specialist, 978-282-8456.
The Scallop State Waters Exemption Program, described at § 648.54, specifies that a state with a scallop fishery may be eligible for state waters exemptions if it has a scallop conservation program that does not jeopardize the biomass and fishing mortality and effort limit objectives of the Scallop FMP. Under the Program, if NMFS determines that a state is eligible, federally permitted scallop vessels fishing in state waters may be exempted from specific Federal scallop regulations. One of these exemptions enables some scallop vessels to continue to fish in state waters within the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) management area once the Federal NGOM total allowable catch (TAC) is reached. Any state interested in applying for this exemption must identify the scallop-permitted vessels that would be subject to the exemption (
We received a request from Maine to expand its current exemptions to allow the four IFQ-permitted vessels with Maine state-waters permits to fish in the Maine state-waters portion of the NGOM management area once we project the Federal TAC to be fully harvested. Massachusetts also sent a request to exempt LAGC IFQ and NGOM-federally permitted vessels that also hold a state permit. Only the northern portion of Massachusetts state waters, approximately Boston and north, fall within the NGOM management area. The fishery in this area has traditionally been split between a handful of state-only vessels and 12 vessels with both Federal and state permits to fish for
Scallop effort has increased in the NGOM in recent years as the stock has improved in both state and Federal waters. In 2016, the NGOM management area TAC was fully harvested and was closed for the first time since the management area was created in 2008. In 2017, the area was closed on March 23, just over three weeks into the new fishing year and approximately two months earlier than in 2016. State-only permitted scallop vessels are able to fish in state waters after the Federal closure and this provision would allow those vessels with the requested Federal permit to continue to fish in state waters along with vessels without Federal permits.
Based on the information Maine and Massachusetts submitted regarding their scallop conservation programs, and considering comments received during the public comment period, we determined that both states qualify for the NGOM state waters exemption under the Scallop FMP. Maine's regulations are the same as when they applied for this exemption for NGOM-permitted vessels in 2015. Massachusetts restricts scallop fishing activity in its waters with limited entry by requiring the state Coastal Access Permit, for which there is currently a moratorium and is only transferrable with the approval of the Director of Marine Fisheries. Therefore, increased additional effort in the future is not a significant concern. Vessels fishing for scallops in Massachusetts state waters also have a daily scallop possession limit of 200 lb (90.7 kg). This possession limit is equivalent to the NGOM management area, but more restrictive than the 600-lb (272.2-kg) Federal possession limit for IFQ vessels south of the NGOM area in Federal waters. Both Maine and Massachusetts's scallop fishery restrictions are as restrictive as Federal scallop fishing regulations and this exemption will not jeopardize the biomass and fishing mortality and effort limit objectives of the FMP. Allowing for this NGOM exemption will have no impact on the effectiveness of Federal management measures for the scallop fishery overall or within the NGOM management area because the NGOM Federal TAC is set based only on the Federal portion of the resource. In addition, LAGC IFQ vessels cannot land scallops beyond the vessel's yearly allocation or any additional quota that is leased in. Maine and Massachusetts are the only states that have requested a NGOM closure exemption, and only for state permit holders that also hold a Federal LAGC IFQ or NGOM scallop permit. As such, all other federally permitted scallop vessels would be prohibited from retaining, possessing, and landing scallops from within the NGOM management area, in both Federal and state waters, once the NGOM TAC is fully harvested.
We received eight comments on the proposed rule during the public comment period. Four of the eight comments were from industry members. Two were from industry-based organizations (the Maine Coast Fishermen's Association (MCFA) and The Cape Cod Commercial Fisherman's Alliance (CCCFA)). Two comments from the public had no relevance to the rule and are not addressed further.
There are no changes from the proposed rule.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not significant according to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
This final rule does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications, as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that the need to implement these measures in an expedited manner, in order to relieve restrictions on the scallop fleet, constitutes good cause, under authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness so that the State Waters Program exemptions become effective upon publication in the
The exemptions approved under this final rule for the State Waters Program will allow Maine and Massachusetts permitted scallop LAGC and NGOM vessels to continue fishing operations that would not be possible without this rule. The NGOM area was closed to fishing by LAGC vessels on March 23, 2017, and without this exemption would remain closed to these vessels
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. As noted above and in the proposed rule, this rule will allow Maine vessels with an LAGC IFQ permit and Massachusetts vessels with LAGC IFQ and NGOM permits to continue fishing in their respective state's waters after the federal NGOM TAC has been harvested. When the NGOM TAC is harvested and the area closes, the LAGC NGOM permitted vessels can no longer fish and the LAGC IFQ vessels must travel further from home in order to harvest scallops; therefore, the vessel's individual income is affected. Massachusetts estimates that with this exemption, vessels could harvest up to an additional 100,000 lb worth an estimated $1.23 million dollars per year at a 2015 average price of $12.26/lb. Maine estimates that with this exemption, the four vessels would save on fuel, food, and maintenance costs associated with steaming to fishing grounds outside of the NGOM management area by fishing closer to individual homeports. These cost savings would vary by individual vessel, the number of vessels that participate in the exemption, and the given fishing year, but will have an overall positive economic benefit.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(4) The Regional Administrator has determined that the State of Maine and Commonwealth of Massachusetts both have a scallop fishery conservation program for its scallop fishery that does not jeopardize the biomass and fishing mortality/effort limit objectives of the Scallop FMP. A vessel fishing in State of Maine waters may fish under the State of Maine state waters exemption, subject to the exemptions specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, provided the vessel is in compliance with paragraphs (e) through (g) of this section. In addition, a vessel issued a Federal Northern Gulf of Maine or Limited Access General Category Individual Fishing Quota permit fishing in State of Maine or Commonwealth of Massachusetts waters may fish under their respective state waters exemption specified in paragraph (d) of this section, provided the vessel is in compliance with paragraphs (e) through (g) of this section.
Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, Office of Intergovernmental and External Affairs, HHS.
Request for information.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is committed to delivering services to the public as efficiently and effectively as possible. Religious and faith-based organizations (hereafter “faith-based organizations”) are important partners with unique expertise that is crucial to advancing HHS's mission of protecting and enhancing the health and well-being of Americans. HHS seeks comment from faith-based organizations and other interested parties to inform HHS on how it may best identify and remove regulatory or other barriers in order for these institutions to participate in HHS-funded or regulated programs, strengthen partnerships with faith-based organizations to improve service delivery to the American people, and ensure faith-based organizations are affirmatively accommodated and not excluded from publicly funded or conducted programs or activities because of HHS requirements that burden or interfere with their religious character or exercise.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 24, 2017.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
3.
4.
Shannon Royce, (202) 690-6060.
All submissions made must include the Agency name HHS-9928-RFI. All comments received may be posted without change to
Executive Orders 13279 and 13559, issued by President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, respectively, direct Federal agencies to “ensure equal protection under the laws for faith-based and community organizations” and “to strengthen the capacity of faith-based and other neighborhood organizations to deliver services effectively to those in need.” Further, in Executive Order 13798, President Donald Trump declared that “the Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views were integral to a vibrant public square, and in which religious people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government . . . Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government. The executive branch will honor and enforce those protections.” The President further declared that it will be “the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law's robust protections for religious freedom.”
This commitment to faith-based organizations has extended across administrations because faith-based organizations have a long history of providing an array of important services to people and communities in need of health care, education, social services, and other charitable services in the United States. Religious faith, in its many expressions, is a key aspect of American life and culture. Because so many people live their lives through their faith commitments, faith-based organizations are uniquely positioned to understand and serve their neighbors and communities in culturally competent ways. These organizations are driven by faith to serve people of all faiths or none with compassion and commitment, and to provide them with food, housing, health care, family support, mental health support, addiction recovery, counseling, education, and other essential services. According to a study by researchers at Georgetown University and the Newseum Institute, over 150 million Americans are members of over 344,000 religious congregations which sponsor a combined 1,621,000 health and social service programs.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS” or “the Department”)—the Federal Government's largest grant-maker and the third largest Federal contracting agency—administers Federal funding with the overarching goal of delivering services, providing access to programs, and funding research that will improve the health and well-being of Americans. HHS's Federal funding opportunities span a wide range of activities: From providing health care services to particular populations, to aiding child welfare programs and providing resources to the elderly, to funding child care and nutrition programs and helping refugees and asylees connect with the resources they need to become self-sufficient, to supporting biomedical and other scientific research.
Faith-based organizations have historically been a crucial component of HHS's efforts by delivering charitable care to Americans in need and engaging in other worthwhile initiatives with the assistance of grant and contract funding provided by the Department. For instance, HHS awarded over $817 million in funding to faith-based organizations across 65 competitive, non-formula grant programs in fiscal year 2007.
HHS is dedicated to engaging in partnerships with a broad range of private sector organizations, some of which are faith-based and some of which are not, and we aim to administer our programs and funding without discrimination on the basis of religion. As part of achieving the Department's overall goals, HHS is fully committed to fostering robust and thriving partnerships with faith-based organizations that serve as either recipients or sub-recipients of Department funding or as partners with state or local agencies funded or regulated by HHS. This commitment is bolstered by the Attorney General's Memorandum for All Executive Departments and Agencies, “Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty,” issued on October 6, 2017 pursuant to Executive Order 13798. The Attorney General instructed that, “to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, religious observance and practice should be reasonably accommodated in all government activity, including employment, contracting, and programming,” provided twenty principles to guide administrative agencies and executive departments in carrying out such tasks, and also provided guidance to such agencies and department in implementing such religious liberty principles.
Given the importance of faith-based organizations in carrying out the Department's mission of improving Americans' health and well-being, and the principles and directives in the Attorney General's Memorandum for All Executive Departments and Agencies, HHS solicits comments, through this request for information, to determine whether its existing regulations and guidance advance the Department's priority of cultivating partnerships with faith-based organizations that provide services to people in need or conduct other meaningful work. Because HHS primarily partners with faith-based organizations through grant and contract funding, HHS specifically seeks to identify any regulatory, guidance-based, or other requirements or conditions for grants or contracts that present barriers for faith-based organizations to participate in HHS-funded programs, and methods to ensure faith-based organizations are affirmatively accommodated, and not excluded from HHS-funded or conducted programs or activities because of HHS requirements that burden or interfere with their religious character or exercise.
In this request for information, HHS seeks input from the public and relevant stakeholders on potential changes that could be made to existing HHS regulations or guidance to ensure that faith-based organizations and their religious beliefs and moral convictions are properly accommodated, that faith-based organizations are not required to act contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions (as a recipient, sub-recipient, contractor, sub-contractor, or otherwise) or are otherwise not restricted, excluded, substantially burdened, discriminated against, or disproportionately disadvantaged in HHS-conducted or funded programs or activities (including those administered by state and local governments) because of their religious character, identity, beliefs, or moral convictions.
HHS also seeks input on whether faith-based organizations could face potential obstacles to participation in state or locally funded programs, or restrictions on their privately funded activities, because of HHS requirements imposed on state and local governments as a condition of receiving HHS funding.
Finally, HHS seeks input on what policies, procedures, and assessment tools HHS should develop to affirmatively further the accommodation, equal treatment, and respect for the religious exercise of faith-based organizations interacting with HHS or HHS-funded entities.
HHS solicits comments on potential changes to existing regulations or guidance that affirmatively assure the equal treatment of faith-based organizations and on the extent to which faith-based organizations are beneficial to furthering the mission of the Department. Specifically, HHS seeks
1. To remove obstacles to participation by faith-based organizations in the delivery of publicly funded services and activities. What changes in HHS regulations, guidance, or other documents (
2. To ensure faith-based organizations—particularly those with a history of providing health, education, and other support to low-income people—are not excluded from eligibility for HHS funding. Which provisions in HHS regulations, guidance, or other documents directly or indirectly inhibit faith-based organizations from receiving HHS funds? How can the Department improve these regulations, guidance, or other documents? Are any faith-based organizations being restricted, excluded, substantially burdened, discriminated against, or disproportionately disadvantaged by HHS, an HHS grantee or contractor, or a state or local government entity administering an HHS-funded program or activity because of their religious character, identity, beliefs, or moral convictions?
3. To ensure that faith-based organizations receive accommodation, equal treatment, and respect for their religious beliefs and moral convictions from HHS or HHS-funded entities. What regulations, guidance documents, policies, procedures, and/or assessment tools should HHS develop to affirmatively further the accommodation, equal treatment, and respect for the religious exercise of faith-based organizations interacting with HHS or HHS funded entities?
4. To improve our understanding of the role of faith-based organizations in implementing programs and activities that advance the goals and objectives of HHS. Describe the value, whether qualitative or quantitative, that faith-based organizations provide in improving the health and well-being of Americans and other populations eligible for public benefits and services. What would the consequences be if these organizations were no longer able to participate in the Department's programs or services or were denied eligibility for Federal funding? Do faith-based organizations provide unique value that could not easily be replicated by other recipients? Would adequate services be available to people in need in the absence of Federal partnerships with faith-based organizations?
This is a request for information only. Respondents are encouraged to provide complete but concise responses to any or all of the questions outlined above. This request for information is issued solely for information and planning purposes; it does not constitute a notice of proposed rulemaking or request for proposals, applications, proposal abstracts, or quotations, nor does it suggest that the Department will undertake any particular action in response to comments. This request for information does not commit the United States Government (“Government”) to contract for any supplies or services or make a grant award. Further, HHS is not seeking proposals through this request for information and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Respondents are advised that the Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this request for information; all costs associated with responding to this request for information will be solely at the interested party's expense. Not responding to this request for information does not preclude participation in any future rulemaking or procurement, if conducted. It is the responsibility of the potential responders to monitor this request for information announcement for additional information pertaining to this request. We also note that HHS will not respond to questions about the policy issues raised in this request for information. HHS may or may not choose to contact individual responders. Such communications would only serve to further clarify written responses. Contractor support personnel may be used to review the responses submitted under this request for information. Responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract or issue a grant. Information obtained as a result of this request for information may be used by the Government for program planning on a non-attribution basis. Respondents should not include any information that might be considered proprietary or confidential. This request for information should not be construed as a commitment or authorization to incur cost for which reimbursement would be required or sought. All submissions become Government property and will not be returned. HHS may publicly post the comments received, or a summary thereof. While responses to this request for information do not bind HHS to any further actions related to the response, all comments may be posted online on
This document does not impose information collection requirements; that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. This request for information constitutes a general solicitation of comments. In accordance with the implementing regulations of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) at 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4), information subject to the PRA does not generally include “facts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to amend the formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products final rule, published in the
Comments must be received on or before November 9, 2017. Comments postmarked after the close of the comment period will be stamped “late” and may or may not be considered by the Agency.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0245, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
For further information about the proposed changes to the voluntary consensus standards and the correlation of quality control test methods, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental protection, Formaldehyde, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third-party certification, Toxic substances, Wood.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration.
A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Advisory Council.
Comments to the Petition must be filed on or before November 9, 2017. Reply Comments must be filed on or before November 20, 2017.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Michael Scott, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, email:
This is a summary of the Commission's document DA 17-980, released October 6, 2017. The full text of the Petition is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554 or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at:
Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments and notice of public hearing.
NMFS proposes to modify the Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) regulations to require vessels in the pelagic longline fishery to account for bycatch of bluefin tuna (bluefin) using Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) on a quarterly basis instead of before commencing any fishing trip with less than the minimum required IBQ balance or with quota debt. Specifically, vessels would be allowed to fish with an IBQ balance below the minimum amount currently required to depart on a fishing trip with pelagic longline gear, or with quota debt incurred by exceeding their IBQ balance, during a given calendar quarter; however, vessels would be required to reconcile quota debt and satisfy the minimum IBQ requirement prior to departing on a pelagic longline fishing trip in the subsequent calendar quarter. The action will further optimize fishing opportunity in the directed pelagic longline fishery for target species such as tuna and swordfish and improve the functionality of the IBQ Program and its accounting provisions, consistent with the objectives of Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP).
Written comments must be received on or before November 24, 2017. NMFS will host an operator-assisted public hearing conference call and webinar on October 31, 2017, from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. EDT, providing an opportunity for individuals from all geographic areas to participate. See
You may submit comments on this document, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0119,” by either of the following methods:
•
•
The public hearing conference call information is phone number (888) 391-7048; participant passcode 8277768. Participants are strongly encouraged to log/dial in 15 minutes prior to the meeting. NMFS will show a brief presentation via webinar followed by public comment. To join the webinar, go to:
Supporting documents, including the Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, may be downloaded from the HMS Web site at
Thomas Warren, 978-281-9260; or Carrie Soltanoff, 301-427-8503.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
Bluefin fishing is managed domestically through a quota system (on a calendar-year basis), in conjunction with other management measures including permitting, reporting, gear restrictions, minimum fish sizes, closed areas, trip limits, and catch shares. NMFS implements the ICCAT U.S. quota recommendation, and divides the quota among U.S. fishing categories (
IBQ share recipients receive an annual allocation of the Longline category quota based on the percentage share they received through Amendment 7 but only if their permit is associated with a vessel in the subject year (
Delayed effective dates for some of the regulations implemented through Amendment 7 assisted in the transition to measures adopted in Amendment 7, which substantially increased individual vessel accountability for bluefin bycatch (landings and dead discards) in the Longline fishery. During 2015, the first year of implementation of the IBQ Program, a pelagic longline vessel that had insufficient IBQ to account for its landings and dead discards (
The IBQ Program has been operating since its implementation (both in 2015 under annual accountability and in 2016 and 2017 under trip-level accountability). Pelagic longline vessel owners have been accounting for bluefin catch using the IBQ Program and leasing quota among themselves (and from Purse Seine fishery participants) as needed in order to fully account for bluefin catch using IBQ. Notably, estimates of 2015 and 2016 dead discards of bluefin (17.1 mt and 22.6 mt, respectively) by the pelagic longline fishery indicate substantial reductions of greater than 50 percent compared to the pre-2015 levels (159.6 mt on average for 2006 through 2014). However, since implementation, pelagic longline fishery participants have consistently requested additional flexibility due to the constraints and costs associated with the accounting and leasing requirements of the IBQ Program, which affects profitability of target species catch (primarily swordfish and yellowfin tuna) and causes uncertainty in a vessel owner's short-term and long-term plans. Vessel owners stated that their ability to account for bluefin using allocated IBQ or IBQ leased at an affordable price is key to the success of the IBQ Program. A vessel that has below the minimum amount of IBQ to fish or is in quota debt is uncertain about their ability to depart on a subsequent fishing trip. Specifically, vessels have been concerned that the IBQ Program, including the trip-level accountability requirements, could negatively impact vessel operations and finances given the timing restrictions, lease pricing of IBQ, the distribution of quota among permit holders as implemented by Amendment 7, and the behavior of some permit holders who, for example, do not appear to be actively fishing nor engaged in any leasing activities. They also say that the expense of leasing IBQ allocation when needed can impact other operational costs such as crew pay. If availability of IBQ is limited, or costs are prohibitive, the operational impacts increase. IBQ Program data generally reflect that, for leasing transactions that occurred, sales revenue received per pound approximated the cost per pound of leasing IBQ. However, IBQ Program participants (which include any permit holder or vessel that leases quota to facilitate pelagic longline operations) and potential lessees have communicated that there were instances where the cost at which lessors were willing to lease their IBQ was prohibitive and leasing did not occur and this information would not be reflected in NMFS data. Furthermore, expanded opportunities to fish with pelagic longline gear within the available swordfish quota are contingent on access to additional quota to account for bluefin bycatch and discards. Longline fishery participants requested that NMFS take further steps to provide more flexibility regarding timing for vessel owners to lease IBQ needed to cover bluefin catch.
Therefore, pelagic longline fishery participants consistently requested additional flexibility in the regulations due to the dynamics and costs associated with leasing IBQ described above, which can affect profitability of target species catch, increase uncertainty, and negatively affect the ability to plan their business. Such effects may be compounded by the impacts of other constraints associated with Amendment 7, including additional gear restricted areas and VMS and electronic monitoring requirements, as well as non-Amendment 7 related constraints (
In light of these challenges facing the fishery, as well as the Amendment 7 objectives which include “minimizing constraints on fishing for target species,” as well as “optimizing fishing opportunities and maintaining profitability,” NMFS has utilized its authority to transfer quota inseason to the Longline category (80 FR 45098; July 29, 2015; 81 FR 19; January 4, 2106; 82 FR 12296; March 2, 2017) to foster conditions in which vessel owners become more willing to lease IBQ, optimize fishing opportunity, and reduce uncertainty in the fishery.
During its May 2017 Advisory Panel Meeting, pelagic longline vessel owners acknowledged the effectiveness of NMFS' actions in support of the IBQ Program objectives, but reiterated the need for additional flexibility and offered suggestions for high priority regulatory changes to achieve such flexibility.
NMFS received requests, among other suggestions about the IBQ Program and management of the pelagic longline fishery, to allow more time for vessel owners to resolve quota debt and achieve a minimum balance of IBQ, rather than require vessels to have a minimum balance of IBQ as a prerequisite of every longline trip. In light of past fishery dynamics under the IBQ Program and public input regarding the need for additional flexibility, this rule proposes to modify the accountability provisions of the IBQ Program as a reasonable means to provide some additional flexibility for individual vessel owners, while achieving a balance among the IBQ Program objectives.
The pelagic longline fishery is a diverse fishing fleet, with a variety of vessel sizes and types of operations distributed from the waters off Nova Scotia to the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, and South America. Timing of fishing trips are typically based on the availability of target species, weather, moon phase, markets, crew and bait availability, and other factors. Quarterly accountability may achieve a better balance between minimizing constraints on fishing for target species and ensuring accountability for incidental bluefin catch, due to the fact that it allows a vessel owner to determine the timing of lease transactions or level of quota debt they are comfortable maintaining over a longer period. Alleviation of the timing constraint associated with trip-level accountability would provide additional flexibility. A vessel owner may need flexibility to pay costs associated with fishing (fuel, bait, ice, labor, repairs, etc.), including the cost of leasing IBQ, on a timeline unique to their operation and finances. The opportunity to fish with a low IBQ balance or with quota debt may enable a vessel owner to continue to obtain revenue during the time period when they are looking for quota to lease and accommodate different types of fishing operations and financial obligations. Quarterly accountability would require vessel owners to resolve quota debt and obtain the minimum amount of IBQ prior to fishing for the first time in a subsequent calendar quarter.
NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule through November 24, 2017. See instructions in
NMFS will hold a public hearing conference call and webinar on October 31, 2017, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. EDT, to allow for an additional opportunity for interested members of the public from all geographic areas to submit verbal comments on the proposed rule.
The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at public hearings and on conference calls to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of the conference call, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (all comments are to be directed to the agency on the proposed
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This action has been preliminarily determined to be categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment in accordance with NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, subject to further consideration after public comment. This action may appropriately be categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare either an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement in accordance with CE A1 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A for an action that is a technical correction or a change to a fishery management action or regulation, which does not result in a substantial change in any of the following: Fishing location, timing, effort, authorized gear types, access to fishery resources or harvest levels. By somewhat altering the timing of the accounting for bluefin tuna by individual pelagic longline vessels, the changes in the proposed action could also be expected to alter some fishing timing, and this is the intent of the additional flexibility offered by the changes proposed in the action. We expect this to result in some minor alterations in fishing trip timing by individual vessel owners. Timing would not, however, be altered in a way that would constitute a substantial change. In practice, this action would give some individual vessels flexibility to alter the timing of some of their fishing trips within a three-month period. Given the size of the fleet and the number of fishing trips taken, such minor variations in individual fishing trips would not result in substantial changes to fishing timing overall. Moreover, the level of fishing remains capped by the U.S. bluefin tuna quota; the timing of the fishing is substantively managed by the various subquota categories, inseason actions (
NMFS has prepared a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), which present and analyze anticipated social and economic impacts of the alternatives contained in this proposed rule. The list of alternatives and their analyses are provided in the draft RIR and are not repeated here in their entirety. A copy of the draft RIR prepared for this proposed rule is available from NMFS (see
An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 603
The goal of the RFA is to analyze the economic burden of federal regulations on small entities. To that end, the RFA directs federal agencies to assess whether the proposed regulation is likely to result in significant economic impacts to a substantial number of small entities, and identify and analyze any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the objectives of applicable statutes and minimizes any significant effects on small entities.
In compliance with section 603(b)(1) of the RFA, the purpose of this proposed rulemaking is, consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP objectives, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and other applicable law, to require vessels in the pelagic longline fishery to account for bycatch of bluefin tuna using IBQ on a quarterly basis instead of before commencing any fishing trip while in quota debt or with less than the minimum required IBQ balance.
Current regulations require permitted Atlantic Tunas Longline vessels to possess a minimum amount of IBQ to depart on a fishing trip with pelagic longline gear and account for bluefin tuna catch (fish retained or discarded dead) using IBQ (0.25 mt for a trip in the Gulf of Mexico and 0.125 mt for a trip in the Atlantic). At the end of a trip on which bluefin tuna are caught, a vessel's IBQ balance is reduced by the amount caught. If the trip catch exceeds the vessel's available quota, the vessel will incur quota debt (
This action would modify these rules to require vessels to resolve quota debt on a quarterly basis (
The rule would provide flexibility for two important operational business decisions made by vessel owners: decisions regarding quota balance and quota debt (subject to full accounting quarterly) and decisions regarding the timing and price at which they lease additional quota. Importantly, this regulatory change would maintain vessel accountability for bluefin tuna catch and the associated incentives for vessel operators to minimize catch of bluefin tuna. By changing the timing of the accountability, however, the
In compliance with section 603(b)(2) of the RFA, the objective of this proposed rulemaking is to provide additional flexibility regarding the timing of accounting for bluefin tuna in the IBQ Program in a manner that maintains accountability for bluefin tuna and a strong incentive for pelagic longline vessels to avoid interactions with bluefin tuna, while minimizing constraints on fishing for target species and, to the greatest extent possible, the socioeconomic impacts on affected fisheries.
The legal basis for this proposed rule stems from the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS must, consistent with ten National Standards, manage fisheries to maintain optimum yield (OY) by rebuilding overfished fisheries and preventing overfishing. Under ATCA, NMFS is authorized to promulgate regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out binding recommendations of ICCAT. Additionally, any management measures must be consistent with other domestic laws including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
Section 603(b)(3) of the RFA requires agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. Provision is made under SBA's regulations for an agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size standards that differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the agency's obligations under the RFA. To utilize this provision, NMFS must publish such size standards in the
In this final rule effective on July 1, 2016, NMFS established a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA compliance purposes. NMFS considers all HMS Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders (280 as of October 2016) to be small entities because these vessels have reported annual gross receipts of less than $11 million for commercial fishing. The average annual gross revenue per active pelagic longline vessel was estimated to be $187,000 based on the 170 active vessels between 2006 and 2012 that produced an estimated $31.8 million in revenue annually. The maximum annual revenue for any pelagic longline vessel between 2006 and 2015 was $1.9 million, well below the NMFS small business size threshold of $11 million in gross receipts for commercial fishing. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders to be small entities.
NMFS has determined that this proposed rule would apply to the small businesses associated with the 136 Atlantic Tunas Longline permits with IBQ shares and the additional permitted Atlantic Tunas Longline vessels that fish with quota leased through the IBQ Program. NMFS has determined that this action would not likely directly affect any small organizations or small government jurisdictions defined under the RFA.
Section 603(b)(4) of the RFA requires agencies to describe any new reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. This proposed rule does not contain any new collection of information, reporting, or record-keeping requirements but only modifies existing requirements.
Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, agencies must identify, to the extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and other FMPs. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, MMPA, ESA, NEPA, Paperwork Reduction Act, and CZMA. This proposed action has been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any of these statutes or Federal rules.
One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The analysis shall discuss significant alternatives such as:
1. Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;
2. Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;
3. Use of performance rather than design standards; and
4. Exemptions from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
NMFS analyzed several different alternatives in this proposed rulemaking, and the rationale that NMFS used to determine the alternative for achieving the desired objectives is described below.
The first alternative is the “no action” (status quo) alternative. The second alternative, the preferred alternative, would adjust the Atlantic HMS regulations to require the pelagic longline fishery to account for bycatch of bluefin tuna using IBQ on a quarterly basis instead of before embarking on a trip after incurring quota debt. The third alternative would adjust the Atlantic HMS regulations to require the pelagic longline fishery to account for bycatch of bluefin tuna using IBQ on an annual basis instead of before embarking on a trip after incurring quota debt. The economic impacts of these three alternatives are detailed below. Under all three alternatives, a vessel's IBQ balance would be reduced to account for bluefin tuna discarded dead or retained immediately after the catch is reported in the IBQ system. The difference among the alternatives is the timing of when quota debt or a low balance of IBQ precludes fishing and must be resolved prior to departing on a subsequent trip using pelagic longline gear (trip level, quarterly, or annually).
Under the “no action” alternative, NMFS would maintain the current regulations regarding accounting for bluefin tuna catch and prerequisites for departing on a fishing trip with pelagic longline gear on board. Current regulations require permitted Atlantic Tunas Longline vessel owners (or vessel operators, where applicable) to possess a minimum amount of IBQ to depart on a fishing trip with pelagic longline gear and account for bluefin tuna caught (retained or discarded dead) using IBQ at the end of the trip. Therefore, at the end of a trip on which bluefin tuna are caught, a vessel owner's balance of IBQ would be reduced, possibly below the minimum amount needed for a subsequent trip, or the vessel owner may incur quota debt by exceeding their IBQ balance. In either of these cases, the vessel owner must obtain additional IBQ through leasing in order to satisfy the minimum requirement (and resolve any quota debt they may have) prior to departing on another trip using pelagic longline gear. The net effect of these rules is that a pelagic longline vessel owner that takes multiple sequential trips must account for bluefin tuna in real-time, which NMFS refers to as “trip-level accountability.”
This approach was implemented by Amendment 7, but effectiveness was delayed until January 1, 2016, in contrast to most of the other Amendment 7 measures that were effective on January 1, 2015. During 2016, there were 1,025 pelagic longline trips by 85 vessels, which deployed 6,885 sets and 5,217,547 hooks. During 2016, there were 81 IBQ lease transactions with a total of 141,183 lb IBQ leased and an average price of $ 2.52 per pound (weighted average). There were a total of 17 vessels that incurred quota debt at some time during the year, with a total amount of 40,237 lb of debt incurred and resolved. Mean revenue per trip during 2016 based on logbook, dealer, and weigh out data was $ 24,707.
During 2016, pelagic longline vessel owners successfully accounted for bluefin tuna catch using the IBQ Program and leasing quota among themselves (and from Purse Seine fishery participants) as needed in order to fully account for bluefin tuna catch using IBQ. However, since implementation, pelagic longline fishery participants have consistently requested some additional flexibility due to the costs associated with leasing IBQ, which can affect profitability of target species catch, as well as the concern that vessel owners appear to be unwilling to lease IBQ at certain times, uncertainties regarding the availability of IBQ to lease, and the impacts of other constraints associated with Amendment 7, including additional gear restricted areas and VMS and electronic monitoring requirements. The ability of vessel owners to account for bluefin tuna using allocated quota or IBQ leased at an affordable price is key to the success of the IBQ Program. A trend that may in part reflect the uncertainties and constraints associated with trip-level accountability is the lower amount of fishing effort in 2016 compared to 2015 (despite the active IBQ leasing market in 2016). For example, the number of trips, active vessels, longline sets and hooks fished were all lower in 2016 than they were in 2015. The No Action alternative would not, however, provide the timing flexibility benefits that could facilitate better operational and economic decisions and options for individual vessel owners who need to lease IBQ, and NMFS therefore does not prefer the no action alternative.
Under the second alternative (preferred), NMFS would adjust the Atlantic HMS regulations to require the pelagic longline fishery to account for bycatch of bluefin tuna using IBQ on a quarterly basis instead of before commencing any fishing trip while in quota debt or with less than the minimum required IBQ balance. The preferred alternative would provide flexibility for two important operational business decisions made by vessel owners. First, decisions regarding quota balance and quota debt (subject to full accounting quarterly); and second, decisions regarding the timing and price at which they lease additional quota. It is likely that the vessels would take advantage of increased operational flexibility as a result of removal of the constraints associated with the trip-level accountability. Specifically, operational flexibility associated with the preferred alternative may enable vessels to fish at more optimal times and avoid delay in the timing of a trip due to a low IBQ balance and issues related to availability of quota to lease; lease IBQ at a lower price by providing the flexibility for a vessel owner to `shop around'; reduce uncertainty in the IBQ market such that vessels are willing to plan and undertake fishing trips they previously may not have; and improve their cash flow by allowing fishing while in quota debt (
NMFS used the available data on the IBQ lease markets to estimate the potential reduction in transaction costs (mainly labor costs) associated with moving from trip-level accountability to quarterly accountability. There were 33 vessels that leased quota in 2016 and they were involved in 81 transactions. On average, that is almost 2.5 transactions per vessel that entered the IBQ lease market. Under the quarterly accountability requirement of Alternative 2, these vessels might be able to reduce their number of lease transactions to one lease per quarter, which would reduce business costs and have economic and operational benefits. Based on data from 2016 and the first-half of 2017, quarterly accountability could lead to 51 fewer lease transactions if vessel owners reduced their number of lease transaction to one per quarter under this alternative. Each lease transaction costs vessel owners additional labor time to search for available IBQ, contact potential lessors, negotiate prices, and complete the transactions. NMFS estimates that could
Although it is not possible to precisely quantify the economic impacts of the preferred alternative, the no action alternative with trip-level accountability (
Under the third alternative, there would be no minimum amount of IBQ required to fish and vessels would only be required to account for their catch at the end of the year. The third alternative is the same as the IBQ accounting regulations that were in effect during 2015. During 2015, there were 1,124 pelagic longline trips, by 104 vessels, which deployed 7,769 sets and 5,549,451 hooks. During 2015, there were 49 IBQ lease transactions from 24 distinct vessels with a total of 126,407 lb IBQ leased, and an average price of $3.46 per pound (weighted average). There were a total of 16 vessels that incurred quota debt, with a total amount of 42,746 lb. The mean revenue per trip during 2015 based on dealer data was $17,603 (not including bluefin tuna or dolphin revenue). Although it is possible to glean some insights from data from 2015 as the basis for evaluating potential economic impacts of the third alternative, the fishing behavior of the pelagic longline fleet during 2015, the first year of Amendment 7 regulations, was likely heavily influenced by the newness of the regulations and the relatively high amount of uncertainty in 2015.
There were approximately 2.0 lease transactions per vessel in 2015 versus 2.5 leases per vessel in 2016. Assuming the 33 vessels that leased in 2016 only leased 2 times per year under annual accountability, the number of leases would be reduced from 81 to 66, a reduction of 15 transactions. This reduction in 15 transactions taking approximately 4 hours of an owner's time would be worth $1,380 in labor costs per year (15 × 4 hours × $23/hr). Given the 33 vessels that leased in 2016, the per vessel cost savings would be approximately $42 per vessel per year. Alternatively, if vessel owners could reduce the number of leases to one per year, the number of lease transactions could be reduced down to 33 transactions based on 2016 lease activity. This would result in 48 fewer transactions, and would result in a savings of up to $4,416 per year for the whole fleet or $134 per vessel that leased. However, based on the 2015 IBQ lease data under annual accountability that year, it is unlikely that the number of lease transactions would be reduced by this much. It is likely that there would be more leasing activity associated with this alternative than occurred during 2015, since 2015 was the initial implementation of the IBQ Program and participants were just learning how the IBQ lease market worked and which IBQ Program participants were interested in leasing IBQ, as well as a lower average price per pound for leased IBQ.
There is uncertainty as to the full impact of moving from trip-level accountability to annual accountability. Annual accountability might cause vessel owners to wait until December to try to lease quota. Quota available for lease in December might become scarcer and this holiday period might cause fewer IBQ shareholders to participate in the market. This increased scarcity of IBQ available for lease and the tight end of the year timeframe might result in spikes in the price for IBQ, thus driving up costs and potentially leaving some vessel owners unable to resolve their quota debt at the last minute as the year ends. NMFS prefers to incrementally move to quarterly accountability under Alternative 2 to avoid some of the risks associated with Alternative 3.
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 971
(b) * * *
(3)
(i) First fishing trip in a calendar year quarter. Before departing on the first fishing trip in a calendar year quarter, a vessel with an eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit that fishes with or has pelagic longline gear onboard must have the minimum IBQ allocation for either the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic, depending on fishing location. The minimum IBQ allocation for a vessel fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, or departing for a fishing trip in the Gulf of Mexico, is 0.25 mt ww (551 lb ww). The minimum IBQ allocation for a vessel fishing in the Atlantic or departing for a fishing trip in the Atlantic is 0.125 mt ww (276 lb ww). A vessel owner or operator may not declare into or depart on the first fishing trip in a calendar year quarter with pelagic longline gear onboard unless it has the relevant required minimum IBQ allocation for the region in which the fishing activity will occur.
(ii) Subsequent fishing trips in a calendar year quarter. Subsequent to the first fishing trip in a calendar year quarter, a vessel owner or operator may declare into or depart on other fishing trips with pelagic longline gear onboard with less than the minimum IBQ allocation, but only within that same calendar year quarter.
(4)
(ii) If the amount of bluefin tuna catch on a particular trip exceeds the amount of the vessel's IBQ allocation or results in an IBQ balance less than the minimum amount described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the vessel may continue to fish, complete the trip, and depart on subsequent trips within the same calendar year quarter. The vessel must resolve any quota debt (see paragraph (b)(5) of this section) before declaring into or departing on a fishing trip with pelagic longline gear onboard in a subsequent calendar year quarter by acquiring adequate IBQ allocation to resolve the debt and acquire the needed minimum allocation through leasing, as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(5) * * *
(i)
(ii)
(8) * * *
(i)
(b) * * *
(48) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel with a pelagic longline on board without accounting for bluefin caught as specified in § 635.15(b)(4).
(56) Fish with or have pelagic longline gear on board if any quota debt associated with the permit from a preceding calendar year quarter has not been settled as specified at § 635.15(b)(5)(i).
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of availability of interim instruction with request for comments.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing the availability of an interim instruction document intended for use by USDA-accredited organic certifying agents (certifiers). The interim instruction is entitled as follows: Maintaining the Integrity of Organic Imports (NOP 4013). This interim instruction explains the USDA organic regulations' current requirements for certifiers engaged in the oversight of organic products imported into the United States. It also recommends best practices that certifiers may use in order to comply with the existing regulations. AMS invites organic handlers, certifying agents, importers, consumers, and other interested parties to submit comments on the interim instruction. Specifically, comments should address the parts of the instruction that recommend best practices that certifiers may use to ensure compliance with the USDA organic regulations. This document is not intended to request comments on the existing USDA organic regulations found at 7 CFR part 205.
Comments must be submitted on or before December 26, 2017.
Submit written requests for hard copies of this interim instruction to Paul I. Lewis, Ph.D., Standards Division Director, National Organic Program (NOP), USDA-AMS-NOP, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 2646—So., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250-0268. See the
You may submit comments on this interim instruction by any of the following methods:
•
•
USDA intends to make available all comments, including names and addresses when provided, regardless of submission procedure used, on
Paul I. Lewis, Ph.D., Standards Division Director, National Organic Program (NOP), USDA-AMS-NOP, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 2646—So., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250-0268; Telephone: (202) 720-3252; Fax: (202) 260-9151; Email:
The interim instruction announced via this notice explains the current regulatory requirements for organic certification and documentation needed to import organic products into the United States, and certifiers' responsibilities in reviewing or issuing import related documents. The instruction also recommends best practices that certifiers may use in order to comply with existing regulatory requirements.
The USDA AMS National Organic Program (NOP) facilitates international trade of organic products by authorizing certifiers around the world to certify farms and businesses to the USDA organic regulations and by establishing trade arrangements with foreign countries. Foreign operations are subject to the same requirements as domestic operations, and organic products verified to be in compliance with these regulations or arrangements can be imported for sale into the United States.
The interim instruction is available from AMS on its Web site at
This interim instruction is being issued in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget Bulletin on Agency Good Guidance Practices (GGPs) (January 25, 2007, 72 FR 3432-3440).
The purpose of GGPs is to ensure that program guidance documents are developed with adequate public participation, are readily available to the public, and are not applied as binding requirements. The interim instruction represents AMS' efforts to clarify and strengthen compliance with existing regulations on these topics. It does not create or confer any rights for, or on, any person and does not operate to create additional regulatory requirements that legally bind AMS or the public. Guidance documents are intended to provide a uniform method for achieving compliance with the USDA organic regulations, thereby reducing the
Persons with access to Internet may obtain the interim instruction at either AMS' Web site at
7 U.S.C. 6501-6522.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meetings.
The National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule Committee (Committee) will meet in El Dorado Hills, California. Attendees may also listen via webinar and conference call. The Committee operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Additional information relating to the Committee, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at:
The meetings will be held in-person and streamed via webinar/conference call on the following dates and times:
All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meetings prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Express & Suites, 4360 Town Center Boulevard, El Dorado Hills, California 95762. For anyone who would like to attend via webinar and/or conference call, please visit the Web site listed above or contact the person listed in the section titled
Crystal Merica, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 202-205-3562, or by email at
The purpose of this meeting is to provide:
1. Continued deliberations on formulating advice for the Secretary,
2. Discussion of Committee work group findings,
3. Hearing public comments, and
4. Administrative tasks.
This meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral comments of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral comment should submit a request in writing by November 3, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Crystal Merica, USDA Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 14th Street SW., Mail Stop 1104, Washington, DC 20250-1104, or by email at
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 that the Indiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday November 1, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. EST for the purpose of approving a project proposal and preparing for its public meeting on voting rights issues in the state.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 1, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. EST.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-397-0292, conference ID: 2237390. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Census Bureau, 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.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before December 26, 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(s) and instructions should be directed to Oliver P. Fischer via U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Room 6H189, Washington, DC 20233, or (301) 763.6249, or by email at
The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request clearance from the Office of Management and Budget to survey residents of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) to collect basic demographic data to meet the needs of the Compact of Free Association (COFA).
The COFA defines the relationship between the United States Government and the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. The COFA became effective for the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia in 1986 and for the Republic of Palau in 1994.
The 2003 COFA Amendments Act appropriated $30 million annually in funding “to aid in defraying costs incurred by affected jurisdictions as a result of increased demands. . .due to the residence in affected jurisdictions of qualified nonimmigrants from the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.” The “affected jurisdictions” in the 2003 COFA Amendments Act are American Samoa, CNMI, Guam, and Hawaii.
COFA migrants (also referred to as qualified nonimmigrants) are migrants, or their children under the age of 18, admitted or resident in one of the affected jurisdictions, who migrated from the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of the Marshall Islands during or after 1986, and from the Republic of Palau during or after 1994.
In order to disburse the appropriated funds to the affected jurisdictions, the COFA Amendments Act of 2003 requires an enumeration of COFA migrants residing within the affected jurisdictions no less than every five years. The most recent enumeration of COFA migrants took place in 2013. The 2013 estimates of COFA migrants were derived using data from the 2010 Decennial Census for American Samoa, CNMI, and Guam, and 2009—2011 American Community Survey (ACS) data for Hawaii. These data sources were determined by stakeholders to produce the most accurate, reliable, and cost-effective estimates for the purposes of the 2013 enumeration. The next enumeration is set to take place in 2018. The Department of the Interior has provided the Census Bureau funding for the work required to produce the estimates.
The Census Bureau proposes that the 2018 Estimates of COFA migrants follow the methodology used to produce the 2008 Estimates of COFA migrants. The approach is three-pronged due to differences between the jurisdictions in overall population, expected number of COFA migrants, and currently available data.
The methodology consists of the following:
1. Conduct independent sample surveys for CNMI and Guam. Field enumeration will be required for CNMI and Guam since the Census Bureau has no other reliable up-to-date demographic data source for these areas beyond the 2010 Decennial Census. The survey for CNMI will only include Saipan since the 2010 Decennial Census data indicates low numbers of COFA migrants living in others parts of CNMI. The sample surveys will obtain data on place of birth, residential tenure, age, sex, and relationship to head of household of all members of selected households. The sample will be designed to yield estimates with a margin of error similar to that of three years of ACS data.
2. Perform special tabulations on a three-year average of results from 2015 to 2017 ACS data to create estimates for Hawaii (all islands).
3. Use the 2010 Decennial Census results for American Samoa, and CNMI's Rota and Tinian islands as estimates of the 2018 counts. It would not be cost effective to conduct an independent survey in these areas due to the low numbers of COFA migrants as indicated by the 2010 Decennial Census and the negligible impact these
In Guam, approximately 45 sample blocks totaling about 3,300 sample addresses will be listed and enumerated. In CNMI, approximately 30 sample blocks totaling about 2,000 sample addresses will be listed and enumerated. The data will be collected via in-person interviews. A content re-interview will be conducted to assess the accuracy and reliability of the data collected. For the re-interview, a sample of approximately 400 respondents will be selected and contacted for a follow-up interview via a telephone number they provided during the original interview.
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.
The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet on November 1 and 2, 2017, 9:00 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to information systems equipment and technology.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 27, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 (l0)(d))), that the portion of the meeting concerning trade secrets and commercial or financial information deemed privileged or confidential as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and the portion of the meeting concerning matters the disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and l0(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) to incidentally harass, by Level A and Level B harassment, marine mammals during a low-energy marine geophysical survey in the northeastern Pacific Ocean.
This Authorization is valid from September 22, 2017, through September 19, 2018.
Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal 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 March 20, 2017, NMFS received a request from SIO for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to conducting a low-energy marine geophysical survey in the northeastern Pacific Ocean. On July 5, 2017, we deemed SIO's application for authorization to be adequate and complete. SIO's request is for take of a small number of 27 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment and Level A harassment. Neither SIO nor NMFS expects mortality to result from this activity, and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. The planned activity is not expected to exceed one year, hence, we do not expect subsequent MMPA incidental harassment authorizations would be issued for this particular activity.
A detailed description of SIO's low-energy geophysical survey is provided in the
NMFS published a notice of proposed IHA in the
L-DEO's application (LGL, 2017) describes their approach to modeling Level A and Level B harassment zones. In summary, L-DEO acquired field measurements for several array configurations at shallow, intermediate, and deep-water depths during acoustic verification studies conducted in the
In 2015, L-DEO explored the question of whether the Gulf of Mexico calibration data described above adequately informs the model to predict exclusion isopleths in other areas by conducting a retrospective sound power analysis of one of the lines acquired during L-DEO's seismic survey offshore New Jersey in 2014 (Crone, 2015). NMFS presented a comparison of the predicted radii (
The following is a summary of two additional analyses of in-situ data that support L-DEO's use of the modeled Level A and Level B harassment zones zones in this particular case. In 2010, L-DEO assessed the accuracy of their modeling approach by comparing the sound levels of the field measurements acquired in the Gulf of Mexico study to their model predictions (Diebold
NMFS continues to work with L-DEO to address the issue of incorporating site-specific information for future authorizations for seismic surveys. However, L-DEO's current modeling approach (supported by the three data points discussed previously) represents the best available information for NMFS to reach determinations for this IHA. As described earlier, the comparisons of L-DEO's model results and the field data collected in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore Washington State, and offshore New Jersey illustrate a degree of conservativeness built into L-DEO's model for deep water, which NMFS expects to offset some of the limitations of the model to capture the variability resulting from site-specific factors. Based upon the best available information (
L-DEO has conveyed to NMFS that additional modeling efforts to refine the process and conduct comparative analysis may be possible with the availability of research funds and other resources. Obtaining research funds is typically accomplished through a competitive process, including those submitted to U.S. Federal agencies. The use of models for calculating buffer and exclusion zone radii and for developing take estimates is not a requirement of the MMPA incidental take authorization process. Furthermore, NMFS does not provide specific guidance on model parameters nor prescribe a specific model for applicants as part of the MMPA incidental take authorization process at this time, although we do review methods to ensure adequate for prediction of take. There is a level of variability not only with parameters in the models, but also the uncertainty associated with data used in models, and therefore, the quality of the model results submitted by applicants. NMFS considers this variability when evaluating applications and the take estimates and mitigation measures that the model informs. NMFS takes into consideration the model used, and its results, in determining the potential impacts to marine mammals; however, it is just one component of the analysis during the MMPA authorization process as NMFS also takes into consideration other factors associated with the activity (
Section 4 of the IHA application summarizes 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' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the northeastern Pacific Ocean and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (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' 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' 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' U.S. Pacific SARs (
All species that could potentially occur in the planned survey area are included in Table 1. However, as described below, the spatial occurrence of the North Pacific right whale and dwarf sperm whale are such that take is not expected to occur for these species. The North Pacific right whale is one of the most endangered species of whale in the world (Carretta
A detailed description of the of the species likely to be affected by SIO's survey, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
The effects of underwater noise from marine geophysical survey activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment and, in a limited number of instances, auditory injury (PTS) of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' 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 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).
Authorized takes are primarily by Level B harassment, as use of the seismic airguns have the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily for high frequency cetaceans and phocid pinnipeds. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for low- and mid-frequency species given very small modeled zones of injury for those species. The mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent practicable. As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or 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 permanent 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 exposure estimate and associated numbers of take authorized.
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
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 3 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:
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 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
• 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): 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 (2016) for a review of available information. Twenty four marine mammal species (all cetaceans) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the planned survey activities. Please refer to Table 1. Of the cetacean species that may be present, 6 are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.
The planned survey would entail the use of a 2-airgun array with a total discharge of 90 cubic inches (in
For modeling of radial distances to predicted isopleths corresponding to harassment thresholds in deep water (>1,000 m), LDEO used the deep-water radii for various Sound Exposure Levels obtained from LDEO model results down to a maximum water depth of 2,000 m (see Figure 2 in the IHA application). Radial distances to predicted isopleths corresponding to harassment thresholds in intermediate water depths (100-1,000 m) were derived by LDEO from the deep-water distances by applying a correction factor (multiplication) of 1.5, such that observed levels at very near offsets fall below the corrected mitigation curve (Fig. 16 in Appendix H of NSF-USGS 2011). LDEO's modeling methodology is described in greater detail in the IHA application (LGL 2017) and we refer the reader to that document rather than repeating it here.
Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary based on marine mammal functional hearing groups (Table 2), were calculated based on modeling performed by LDEO using the Nucleus software program and the NMFS User Spreadsheet, described below. The updated acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds (such as airguns) contained in the Technical Guidance (NMFS 2016) were presented as dual metric acoustic thresholds using both cumulative sound exposure level (SEL
The values for SEL
In order to more realistically incorporate the Technical Guidance's weighting functions over the seismic array's full acoustic band, unweighted spectrum data for the
Note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used, isopleths produced may be overestimates to some degree, which will ultimately 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 mobile sources, such as the planned seismic survey, the User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which a stationary animal would not incur PTS if the sound source traveled by the animal in a straight line at a constant speed.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations.
The best available scientific information was considered in conducting marine mammal exposure estimates (the basis for estimating take). For most cetacean species, densities calculated by Barlow (2016) were used. These represent the most comprehensive and recent density data available for cetacean species in slope and offshore waters of Oregon and Washington and are based on data collected via NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) ship-based surveys in 1991, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2005, 2008, and 2014. The surveys were conducted up to ~556 km from shore from June or August to November or December. The densities from NMFS SWFSC vessel-based surveys were corrected by the authors for both
Systematic, offshore, at-sea survey data for pinnipeds are more limited than those for cetaceans. Densities for pinnipeds were calculated as the estimated number of animals at sea divided by the area encompassing their range. Densities for the Steller sea lion, California sea lion, northern elephant seal, and northern fur seal were calculated using the methods in U.S. Navy (2010) with updated abundance estimates from Carretta
In the
There is some uncertainty related to the estimated density data and the assumptions used in their calculations, as with all density data estimates. However, the approach used is based on the best available data.
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate. In order to estimate the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels that would result in Level A harassment or Level B harassment, radial distances from the airgun array to predicted isopleths corresponding to the Level A harassment threshold and Level B harassment threshold are calculated, as described above. Those radial distances are then used to calculate the area(s) around the airgun array predicted to be ensonified to sound levels that exceed the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds. The area estimated to be ensonified to those thresholds in a single day of the survey is then calculated (Table 7), based on the areas predicted to be ensonified around the array and the estimated trackline distance traveled per day. This number is then multiplied by the number of survey days (
Take estimates for Dall's porpoise and harbor porpoise have been been revised from those reflected in the
Take estimates for harbor porpoise and California sea lion have been also been revised based on use of revised density estimates for these species as described above. As noted above, in response to concerns raised by the Commission, density estimates used to estimate take for harbor seal and California sea lion have been revised to reflect the best available information on the range of those species (represented by U.S. Navy (2014)). As areas representing the range of the species for harbor seal and California sea lion reported in U.S. Navy (2014) were greater than those reported in U.S. Navy (2010), and estimates of the numbers of animals at sea remained the same for both species, this resulted in lower estimated densities, and lower estimated take numbers, for both species. For Caifornia sea lion, density was revised from 283.3 animals per 1,000 km
No density data were available for the false killer whale or the bottlenose dolphin in the planned survey area, as these species are not typically observed in the planned survey area (Carretta
It should be noted that the take numbers shown in Table 8 are believed to be conservative for several reasons. First, in the calculations of estimated take, 25 percent has been added in the form of operational survey days (equivalent to adding 25 percent to the planned line km to be surveyed) to account for the possibility of additional seismic operations associated with airgun testing, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard. Additionally, marine mammals would be expected to move away from a loud sound source that represents an aversive stimulus, potentially reducing the number of Level A takes. However, the extent to which marine mammals would move away from the sound source is difficult to quantify and is therefore not accounted for in take estimates shown in Table 8.
For some marine mammal species, we authorize a different number of incidental takes than the number of incidental takes requested by SIO (see Table 7 in the IHA application for requested take numbers). For instance, for several species, SIO increased the take request from the calculated take number to 1 percent of the estimated population size. However, we do not believe it is likely that 1 percent of the estimated population size of those species will be taken by SIO's planned survey, therefore we authorize take numbers as shows in Table 8, which we believe are based on the best available information.
To calculate distances to isopleths corresponding to Level A harassment thresholds using Peak SPL
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
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.
SIO has reviewed mitigation measures employed during seismic research surveys authorized by NMFS under previous incidental harassment authorizations, as well as recommended best practices in Richardson
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli associated with the activities, SIO will implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
(1) Vessel-based visual mitigation monitoring;
(2) Establishment of an exclusion zone and buffer zone;
(3) Shutdown procedures;
(4) Ramp-up procedures; and
(5) Ship strike avoidance measures.
In addition to these measures, NMFS proposed the following additional mitigation measures:
(1) Shutdown for a killer whale observed at any distance; and
(2) Shutdown for a north Pacific right whale observed at any distance.
Protected Species Observer (PSO) observations will take place during all daytime airgun operations and nighttime start ups (if applicable) of the airguns. If airguns are operating throughout the night, observations will begin 30 minutes prior to sunrise. If airguns are operating after sunset, observations will continue until 30 minutes following sunset. Following a shutdown for any reason, observations will occur for at least 30 minutes prior to the planned start of airgun operations. Observations will also occur for 30 minutes after airgun operations cease for any reason. Observations will also be made during daytime periods when the
During seismic operations, at least three visual PSOs will be based aboard the
The
The PSOs must have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, record observational data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation requirements. PSO resumes have been be provided to NMFS for approval. At least one PSO must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working as PSOs during a seismic survey. One “experienced” visual PSO will be designated as the lead for the entire protected species observation team. The lead will serve as primary point of contact for the vessel operator.
The PSOs must have successfully completed relevant training, including completion of all required coursework and passing a written and/or oral examination developed for the training program, and must have successfully attained a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the natural sciences and a minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the biological sciences and at least one undergraduate course in math or statistics. The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has acquired the relevant skills through alternate training, including (1) secondary education and/or experience comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous work experience conducting academic, commercial, or government-sponsored marine mammal surveys; or (3) previous work experience as a PSO; the PSO should demonstrate good standing and consistently good performance of PSO duties.
An EZ is a defined area within which occurrence of a marine mammal triggers mitigation action intended to reduce the potential for certain outcomes,
The 100 m radial distance of the standard EZ is precautionary in the sense that it would be expected to contain sound exceeding peak pressure injury criteria for all marine mammal hearing groups (Table 6) while also providing a consistent, reasonably observable zone within which PSOs would typically be able to conduct effective observational effort. In this case, the 100 m radial distance would also be expected to contain sound that would exceed the Level A harassment threshold based on sound exposure level (SEL
Our intent in prescribing a standard exclusion zone distance is to (1) encompass zones within which auditory injury could occur on the basis of instantaneous exposure; (2) provide additional protection from the potential for more severe behavioral reactions (
PSOs will also establish and monitor a 200 m buffer zone. During use of the acoustic source, occurrence of marine mammals within the buffer zone (but outside the exclusion zone) will be communicated to the operator to prepare for potential shutdown of the acoustic source. The buffer zone is discussed further under
If a marine mammal is detected outside the EZ but is likely to enter the EZ, and if the vessel's speed and/or course cannot be changed to avoid having the animal enter the EZ, the airguns will be shut down before the animal is within the EZ. Likewise, if a marine mammal is already within the EZ when first detected, the airguns will be shut down immediately.
Following a shutdown, airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the 100 m EZ. The animal will be considered to have cleared the 100 m EZ if the following conditions have been met:
• It is visually observed to have departed the 100 m EZ, or
• it has not been seen within the 100 m EZ for 15 minutes in the case of small odontocetes, or
• it has not been seen within the 100 m EZ for 30 minutes in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales.
This shutdown requirement will be in place for all marine mammals, with the exception of small delphinoids under certain circumstances. As defined here, the small delphinoid group is intended to encompass those members of the Family Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily approach the source vessel for purposes of interacting with the vessel and/or airgun array (
We include this small delphinoid exception because shutdown requirements for small delphinoids under all circumstances represent practicability concerns without likely commensurate benefits for the animals in question. Small delphinoids are generally the most commonly observed marine mammals in the specific geographic region and would typically be the only marine mammals likely to intentionally approach the vessel. As described below, auditory injury is extremely unlikely to occur for mid-frequency cetaceans (
A large body of anecdotal evidence indicates that small delphinoids commonly approach vessels and/or towed arrays during active sound production for purposes of bow riding, with no apparent effect observed in those delphinoids (
At any distance, shutdown of the acoustic source will also be required upon observation of any of the following:
• A killer whale;
• a large whale (
• a north Pacific right whale; or
• an aggregation of large whales of any species (
These are the only potential situations that would require shutdown of the array for marine mammals observed beyond the 100 m EZ. Killer whales belonging to the Southern Resident
As described above, we do not expect the survey to encounter a north Pacific right whale and take of north Pacific right whales is not authorized. However, in the extremely rare event that a north Pacific right whale was observed at any distance, the array would be shut down and would not be activated until 30 minutes had elapsed since the most recent sighting.
Ramp-up of an acoustic source is intended to provide a gradual increase in sound levels following a shutdown, enabling animals to move away from the source if the signal is sufficiently aversive prior to its reaching full intensity. Ramp-up will be required after the array is shut down for any reason. Ramp-up will begin with the activation of one 45 in
PSOs are required to monitor during ramp-up. During ramp up, the PSOs will monitor the EZ, and if marine mammals were observed within or approaching the 100 m EZ, a shutdown will be implemented as though the full array were operational. If airguns have been shut down due to PSO detection of a marine mammal within or approaching the 100 m EZ, ramp-up will not be initiated until all marine mammals have cleared the EZ, during the day or night. Criteria for clearing the EZ will be as described above.
Thirty minutes of pre-clearance observation are required prior to ramp-up for any shutdown of longer than 30 minutes (
The operator will be required to notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead PSO; the notification time should not be less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up. A designated PSO must be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed. The operator must provide information to PSOs documenting that appropriate procedures were followed. Following deactivation of the array for reasons other than mitigation, the operator is required to communicate the near-term operational plan to the lead PSO with justification for any planned nighttime ramp-up.
If a marine mammal is detected outside the EZ, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter the EZ, the vessel's speed and/or direct course could be changed. This will be done if operationally practicable while minimizing the effect on the planned science objectives. The activities and movements of the marine mammal (relative to the seismic vessel) will then be closely monitored to determine whether the animal is approaching the EZ. If the animal appears likely to enter the EZ, a shutdown of the seismic source will cocur. Typically, during seismic operations, the source vessel is unable to change speed or course and one or more alternative mitigation measures (as described above) will need to be implemented.
Based on our evaluation of the mitigation measures as described above, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 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 planned 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.
SIO submitted a marine mammal monitoring and reporting plan in section XIII of their IHA application. Monitoring that is designed specifically to facilitate mitigation measures, such as monitoring of the EZ to inform potential shutdowns of the airgun array, are described above and are not repeated here.
SIO's monitoring and reporting plan includes the following measures:
As described above, PSO observations will take place during daytime airgun operations and nighttime start ups (if applicable) of the airguns. During seismic operations, three visual PSOs will be based aboard the
PSOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate numbers of animals potentially `taken' by harassment (as defined in the MMPA). They will also provide information needed to order a shutdown of the airguns when a marine mammal is within or near the EZ. When a sighting is made, the following information about the sighting will be recorded:
1. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (
2. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, visibility, and sun glare.
All observations and shutdowns will be recorded in a standardized format. Data will be entered into an electronic database. The accuracy of the data entry will be verified by computerized data validity checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database. These procedures will allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program and will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, and other programs for further processing and archiving. The time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, visibility, and sun glare will also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch, and during a watch whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.
Results from the vessel-based observations will provide:
1. The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun shutdown);
2. Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS;
3. Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted;
4. Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity; and
5. Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity.
A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities). The report will also include estimates of the number and nature of exposures that occurred above the harassment threshold based on PSO observations, including an estimate of those on the trackline but not detected.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, our analysis applies to all the species listed in Table 1, given that NMFS expects the anticipated effects of the planned seismic survey to be similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified species-specific factors to inform the analysis.
NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality will occur as a result of SIO's planned seismic survey, even in the absence of mitigation. Thus the authorization does not authorize any mortality. As discussed in the
We authorize a limited number of instances of Level A harassment (Table 8) for four species. However, we believe that any PTS incurred in marine mammals as a result of the planned activity will be in the form of only a small degree of PTS, not total deafness, and would be unlikely to affect the fitness of any individuals, because of the constant movement of both the
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed previously in this document (see
The activity is expected to impact a very small percentage of all marine mammal stocks affected by SIO's planned survey (less than 7 percent each for all marine mammal stocks). Additionally, the acoustic “footprint” of the planned survey will be very small relative to the ranges of all affected marine mammals . Sound levels will increase in the marine environment in a relatively small area surrounding the vessel compared to the range of the marine mammals within the planned survey area. The seismic array will be active 24 hours per day throughout the duration of the planned survey. However, the very brief overall duration of the planned survey (five days) will further limit potential impacts that may occur as a result of the planned activity. As noted above, take estimates for four species have been revised since we published the proposed IHA. Our analysis reflects these revised numbers (Table 8).
The mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or severity of takes by allowing for detection of marine mammals in the vicinity of the vessel by visual and acoustic observers, and by minimizing the severity of any potential exposures via shutdowns of the airgun array. Based on previous monitoring reports for substantially similar activities that have been previously authorized by NMFS, we expect that the mitigation measures will be effective in preventing at least some extent of potential PTS in marine mammals that may otherwise occur in the absence of the mitigation measures.
Of the marine mammal species under our jurisdiction that are likely to occur in the project area, the following species are listed as endangered under the ESA: Humpback, blue, fin, sei, and sperm whales. Population estimates for humpback whales for the North Pacific have increased substantially from 1,200 in 1966 to approximately 18,000-20,000 whales in 2004 to 2006 (Calambokidis
NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks due to SIO's planned seismic survey will result in only short-term (temporary and short in duration) effects to individuals exposed, or some small degree of PTS to a very small number of individuals of four species. Animals may temporarily avoid the immediate area, but are not expected to permanently abandon the area. Major shifts in habitat use, distribution, or foraging success are not expected. NMFS does not anticipate the take estimates to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the marine mammal species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• The anticipated impacts of the planned activity on marine mammals will primarily be temporary behavioral changes due to avoidance of the area around the survey vessel. The relatively short duration of the planned survey (5 days) will further limit the potential impacts of any temporary behavioral changes that may occur;
• The number of instances of PTS that may occur are expected to be very small in number (Table 8). Instances of PTS that are incurred in marine mammals would be of a low level, due to constant movement of the vessel and of the marine mammals in the area, and the nature of the survey design (not concentrated in areas of high marine mammal concentration);
• The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during the planned survey to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity;
• The planned survey area does not contain areas of significance for feeding, mating or calving;
• The potential adverse effects on fish or invertebrate species that serve as prey species for marine mammals from the planned survey would be temporary and spatially limited;
• The mitigation measures, including visual and acoustic monitoring and shutdowns, are expected to minimize potential impacts to marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned 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; 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 qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities. Table 8 provides numbers of take by Level A harassment and Level B harassment authorized. These are the numbers we use for purposes of the small numbers analysis.
The numbers of marine mammals that we authorize to be taken, for all species and stocks, would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations (less than 7 percent for all species and stocks). Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity (including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size 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 will 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 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
The NMFS Permits and Conservation Division are authorizing the incidental take of 5 species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA: The humpback whale (Mexico DPS), sei whale, fin whale, blue whale and sperm whale. Under Section 7 of the ESA, we initiated consultation with the NMFS OPR Interagency Cooperation Division for the issuance of this IHA. In September, 2017, the NMFS OPR Interagency Cooperation Division issued a Biological Opinion with an incidental take statement, which concluded that the issuance of the IHA was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the humpback whale (Mexico DPS), sei whale, fin whale, blue whale and sperm whale. The Biological Opinion also concluded that the issuance of the IHA would not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for these species.
NMFS has issued an IHA to the SIO for the potential harassment of small numbers of 27 marine mammal species incidental to a low-energy marine geophysical survey in the northeast Pacific Ocean, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Climate Program Office (CPO), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of open meeting.
The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) Program Office will hold an organizational meeting of the NIDIS Executive Council on October 24, 2017.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 24, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. EST to 4:00 p.m. EST. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change.
The meeting will be held at the National Association of Counties, 660 North Capitol St. NW., Washington, DC 20001.
Veva Deheza, NIDIS Executive Director, David Skaggs Research Center, Room GD102, 325 Broadway, Boulder CO 80305. Email:
The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) was established by Public Law 109-430 on December 20, 2006, and reauthorized by Public Law 113-86 on March 6, 2014, with a mandate to provide an effective drought early warning system for the United States; coordinate, and integrate as practicable, Federal research in support of a drought early warning system; and build upon existing forecasting and assessment programs and partnerships.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Groundfish Plan Team will meet November 13 through November 17, 2017.
The meeting will be held on Monday, November 13, 2017 to Friday, November 17, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Time.
The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fishery Science Center, Traynor Room 2076, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Building 4, Seattle, WA 98115.
Diana Stram or Jim Armstrong, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The Plan Teams will compile and review the annual Groundfish Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports, (including the Economic Report, the Ecosystems/assessment and status report, and the stock assessments for BSAI and GOA groundfishes), and recommend final groundfish harvest specifications for 2017/2018.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
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 Space Exploration Technology Corporation (SpaceX) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to boost-back and landing of Falcon 9 rockets at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and at contingency landing locations in the Pacific Ocean. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to SpaceX to incidentally take marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, during the specified activity. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than November 24, 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
Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application 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 MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal 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
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process in making a final decision on the IHA request.
NMFS received a request from SpaceX for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities, including in-air boost-back maneuvers and landings of the First Stage of the Falcon 9 rocket at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in California, and at contingency landing locations offshore. SpaceX's request was for harassment only and NMFS concurs that mortality is not expected to result from this activity. Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
SpaceX's application for incidental take authorization was received on July 11, 2017. SpaceX submitted a revised version of the request on October 13, 2017. This revised version of the application was deemed adequate and complete. The planned activity may exceed one year, hence subsequent MMPA incidental harassment authorizations may be requested for this particular activity.
The planned activities include in-air boost-back maneuvers and landings of the First Stage of the Falcon 9 rocket. The action may occur as many as 12 times and may occur at any time of year. Species that are expected to be taken by the planned activity include harbor seal, California sea lion, Steller sea lion, northern elephant seal, northern fur seal, and Guadalupe fur seal. SpaceX's activities are expected to produce noise, in the form of sonic booms, that are expected to result in harassment of marine mammals that are hauled out of the water. Take by Level B harassment only is expected; no injury or mortality of marine mammals is expected to result from the proposed activity.
If issued, this would be the second IHA issued for this activity. SpaceX applied for, and was granted, an IHA in 2016 that was valid from June 30, 2016 through June 29, 2017 (81 FR 34984, June 30, 2016). SpaceX complied with all the requirements (
The Falcon 9 is a two-stage rocket designed and manufactured by SpaceX for transport of satellites and SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft into orbit. SpaceX currently operates the Falcon Launch Vehicle Program at Space Launch Complex 4E (SLC-4E) at VAFB. SpaceX proposes regular employment of First Stage recovery by returning the Falcon 9 First Stage to SLC-4 West (SLC-4W) at VAFB for potential reuse, up to twelve times per year. This includes performing boost-back maneuvers (in-air) and landings of the Falcon 9 First Stage on the pad at SLC-4W. The reuse of the Falcon 9 First Stage enables SpaceX to efficiently conduct lower cost launch missions from VAFB in support of commercial and government clients.
Although SLC-4W is the preferred landing location, SpaceX has identified the need for contingency landing locations should it not be feasible to land the First Stage at SLC-4W. The first contingency landing option is on a barge located at least 27 nautical miles (nm) (50 kilometers (km) offshore of VAFB. The second contingency landing option is on a barge within the Iridium Landing Area, an area approximately 33,153 square kilometers (km
During descent, a sonic boom (overpressure of high-energy impulsive sound) would be generated when the First Stage reaches a rate of travel that exceeds the speed of sound. Sonic booms would occur in proximity to the landing areas and may be heard during or briefly after the boost-back and landing, depending on the location of the observer. Sound from the sonic boom would have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals, either on the mainland at or near VAFB, or at the Northern Channel Islands (NCI), as described in more detail later in this document.
The planned project would occur from December 1, 2017 through November 30, 2018. Up to twelve Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities would occur per year. Precise dates of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities are not known. Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities may take place at any time of year and at any time of day. The IHA, if issued, would be valid from December 1, 2017 through November 30, 2018.
Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities will originate at VAFB. Areas potentially affected include VAFB, areas on the coastline surrounding VAFB and the NCI. VAFB operates as a missile test base and aerospace center, supporting west coast space launch activities for the U.S. Air Force (USAF), Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and commercial contractors. VAFB is the main west coast launch facility for placing commercial, government, and military satellites into polar orbit on expendable (unmanned) launch vehicles, and for testing and evaluating intercontinental ballistic missiles and sub-orbital target and interceptor missiles.
VAFB occupies approximately 99,100 acres of central Santa Barbara County, California. VAFB is divided by the Santa Ynez River and State Highway 246 into two distinct parts: North Base and South Base. SLC-4W is located on South Base, approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) inland from the Pacific Ocean (see Figure 1-2 in SpaceX's IHA application). SLC-4E, the launch facility for SpaceX's Falcon 9 program, is located approximately 427 meters (m) to the east of SLC-4W, the proposed landing site for the Falcon 9 First Stage
Although SLC-4W is the preferred landing location, SpaceX has identified the need for a contingency landing option. As described above, a contingency landing would occur on a barge located either at a pre-determined location at least 27 nautical miles (nm) (50 km) offshore of VAFB (see Figure 1-7 in the IHA application) or within the Iridium Landing Area located approximately 122 nm (225 km) southwest of San Nicolas Island and 133 nm (245 km) southwest of San Clemente Island (see Figure 1-8 in the IHA application). The NCI are also considered part of the project area for the purposes of this proposed authorization, as landings at VAFB could result in sonic booms that impact the NCI. The NCI are four islands (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Anacapa) located approximately 50 km south of Point Conception, which is located on the mainland approximately 6.5 km south of the southern border of VAFB. The closest part of the NCI to VAFB (Harris Point on San Miguel Island (SMI)) is located more than 55 km south-southeast of SLC-4E, the launch facility for the Falcon 9 rocket.
The Falcon 9 is a two-stage rocket designed and manufactured by SpaceX for transport of satellites and SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft into orbit. The First Stage of the Falcon 9 is designed to be reusable, while the second stage is not reusable. The Falcon 9 First Stage is 12 feet (ft.) in diameter and 160 ft. in height, including the interstage that would remain attached during landing. The proposed action includes up to twelve Falcon 9 First Stage recoveries, including in-air boost-back maneuvers and landings of the First Stage, at VAFB or at a contingency landing location as described above.
After launch of the Falcon 9, the boost-back and landing sequence begins when the rocket's First Stage separates from the second stage and the Merlin engines of the First Stage cut off. After First Stage engine cutoff, rather than dropping the First Stage in the Pacific Ocean, exoatmospheric cold gas thrusters would be triggered to flip the First Stage into position for retrograde burn. Three of the nine First Stage Merlin engines would be restarted to conduct the retrograde burn in order to reduce the velocity of the First Stage and to place the First Stage in the correct angle to land. Once the First Stage is in position and approaching its landing target, the three engines would cut off to end the boost-back burn. The First Stage would then perform a controlled descent using atmospheric resistance to slow the stage down and guide it to the landing pad target. The First Stage is outfitted with grid fins that allow cross range corrections as needed. The landing legs on the First Stage would then deploy in preparation for a final single engine burn that would slow the First Stage to a velocity of zero before landing on the landing pad at SLC-4W.
During descent, a sonic boom (overpressure of high-energy impulsive sound) would be generated when the First Stage reaches a rate of travel that exceeds the speed of sound. Sonic booms would occur in proximity to the landing area with the highest sound levels generated from sonic booms generally focused in the direction of the landing area, and may be heard during or briefly after the boost-back and landing, depending on the location of the observer. Sound from the sonic booms would have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals, as described in greater detail later in this document. Based on model results, a boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W would produce sonic booms with overpressures that would potentially be as high as 8.5 pounds per square foot (psf) at VAFB and potentially as high as 3.1 psf at the NCI. Sonic boom modeling indicates that landings that occur at either of the proposed contingency landing locations offshore would result in sonic booms below 1.0 psf. Take of marine mammals that are hauled out of the water are expected to occur only when those hauled out marine mammals experience sonic booms greater than 1.0 psf (this is discussed in greater detail below in the section on Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment). Therefore, take of marine mammals may occur as a result of landings that occur at VAFB; however, take of marine mammals is not expected to occur as a result of landings that occur at either of the proposed contingency landing locations offshore. Please see Figure 1-4 in the IHA application for a graphical depiction of the boost-back and landing sequence, and see Figure 1-5 in the IHA application for an example of the boost-back trajectory of the First Stage and the second stage trajectory.
As a contingency action to landing the Falcon 9 First Stage on the SLC-4W pad at VAFB, SpaceX proposes to return the Falcon 9 First Stage booster to a barge in the Pacific Ocean (Figure 1-6 in the IHA application). The barge is specifically designed to be used as a First Stage landing platform and would be located at least 27 nm (50 km) offshore of VAFB (Figure 1-7 in the IHA application) or within the Iridium Landing Area (Figure 1-8 in the IHA application). These contingency landing locations would be used when landing at SLC-4W would not be feasible. The maneuvering and landing process described above for a pad landing would be the same for a barge landing. Three vessels would be required to support a barge landing, if it were required: A barge/landing platform (300 ft long and 150 ft wide); a support vessel (165 ft long research vessel); and an ocean tug (120 ft long open water commercial tug).
Landing noise would be generated during each boost-back event. SpaceX proposes to use a three-engine burn during landing. This engine burn, lasting approximately 17 seconds, would generate noise between 70 and 110 decibels (dB) re 20 µPa (non-pulse, in-air noise) centered on SLC-4W, but affecting an area up to 15 nm (27.8 km) offshore of VAFB (Figure 2-10 in the IHA application). This landing noise event would be of short duration (approximately 17 seconds). Although, during a landing event at SLC-4W, landing noise between 70 and 90 dB would be expected to overlap pinniped haulout areas at and near Point Arguello and Purisima Point, no pinniped haulouts would experience landing noises of 90 dB or greater (see Figure 2-10 in the IHA application).
NMFS's recommended acoustic thresholds for in-air acoustic impacts assume that Level B harassment of harbor seals occurs at 90 dB rms re 20 µPa and Level B harassment of all other pinnipeds occurs at 100 dB rms re 20 µPa (Table 1). Therefore, harassment of marine mammals hauled out at VAFB from engine noise generated during landings is not expected to occur. Engine noise would also be produced during a contingency barge landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage. Engine noise during a barge landing is expected to be between 70 and 110 dB re 20 µPa affecting a radial area up to 15 nm (27.8 km) around the contingency landing location (Figure 2-11 in the IHA application) and the Iridium 38 Landing Area (Figure 2-12 in the IHA application). No pinniped haulouts are located within the areas predicted to experience engine noise of 90 dB and above during Falcon 9 First Stage landings at contingency landing locations and the Iridium Landing Area (Figures 2-11 and 2-12 in the IHA application). Therefore, the likelihood
In the event of an unsuccessful barge landing, the First Stage would explode upon impact with the barge. The direct sound from an explosion would last less than a second. Furthermore, the proposed activities would be dispersed in time, with maximum of twelve barge landing attempts occurring within a twelve month time period. If an explosion occurred on the barge, as in the case of an unsuccessful barge landing attempt, some amount of the explosive energy would be transferred through the ship's structure and would enter the water and propagate away from the ship.
There is very little published literature on the ratio of explosive energy that is absorbed by a ship's hull versus the amount of energy that is transferred through the ship into the water. However, based on the best available information, we have determined that exceptionally little of the acoustic energy from the explosion would transmit into the water (Yagla and Stiegler, 2003). An explosion on the barge would create an in-air blast that propagates away in all directions, including toward the water's surface; however the barge's deck would act as a barrier that would attenuate the energy directed downward toward the water (Yagla and Stiegler, 2003). Most sound enters the water in a narrow cone beneath the sound source (within 13 degrees of vertical). Since the explosion would occur on the barge, most of this sound would be reflected by the barge's surface, and sound waves would approach the water's surface at angles higher than 13 degrees, minimizing transmission into the ocean. An explosion on the barge would also send energy through the barge's structure, into the water, and away from the barge. This effect was investigated in conjunction with the measurements described in Yagla and Steigler (2003). Yagla and Steigler (2003) reported that the energy transmitted through a ship to the water for the firing of a typical 5-inch round was approximately six percent of that from the air blast impinging on the water (Yagla and Stiegler, 2003). Therefore, sound transmitted from the blast through the hull into the water was a minimal component of overall firing noise, and would likewise be expected to be a minimal component of an explosion occurring on the surface of the barge.
Depending on the amount of fuel remaining in the booster at the time of the explosion, the intensity of the explosion would likely vary. Based on previous Falcon 9 boost-back and landing activities, the explosive equivalence of the First Stage with maximum fuel and oxidizer would be expected to be approximately 500 lb. of trinitrotoluene (TNT). Explosion shock theory has proposed specific relationships for the peak pressure and time constant in terms of the charge weight and range from the detonation position (Pater 1981; Plotkin
As discussed above, in the event of an unsuccessful contingency landing attempt, the First Stage would be expected to explode upon impact with the barge. SpaceX has experience performing recovery operations after water and unsuccessful barge landings for previous Falcon 9 First Stage landing attempts. This experience, in addition to the debris catalog that identifies all floating debris, has revealed that approximately 25 pieces of debris remain floating after an unsuccessful barge landing. The approximately 25 pieces of debris would primarily be made of Carbon Over Pressure Vessels (COPVs), the liquid oxygen fill line, and carbon fiber constructed legs. The vast majority of debris would be recovered. All other debris is expected to sink to the bottom of the ocean. Denser debris that would not float on the surface would sink relatively quickly and is composed of inert materials which would not affect water quality or bottom substrate potentially used by marine mammals. The rate of deposition would vary with the type of debris; however, none of the debris is so dense or large that benthic habitat would be degraded.
The surface area potentially impacted with debris would be less than 0.46 km
In the event that a contingency landing action is required, there is the potential that the Falcon 9 First Stage would miss the barge entirely and land instead in the ocean. However, the likelihood of the First Stage missing the barge entirely and landing in the Pacific Ocean is considered so unlikely as to be discountable. This is supported by several previous attempts by SpaceX at Falcon 9 First Stage barge landings, none of which have missed the barge. Therefore, the likelihood of take of marine mammals associated with a Falcon 9 First Stage landing in the ocean is considered so low as to be discountable, and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage in the ocean is not considered further in this document.
NMFS has previously issued regulations and Letters of Authorization (LOA) that authorize the take of marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to launches of up to 50 rockets per year (including the Falcon 9) from VAFB (79 FR 10016, February 24, 2014). The regulations, titled “
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see “Proposed Mitigation” and “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting”).
There are six marine mammal species with expected occurrence in the project area (including at VAFB, on the NCI, and in the waters surrounding VAFB, the NCI and the contingency landing location) that are expected to be affected by the specified activities. These include the Steller sea lion (
There are an additional 28 species of cetaceans with expected or possible occurrence in the project area. However, we have determined that the only potential stressor associated with the activity that could result in take of marine mammals (sonic booms) only has the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals that are hauled out of the water. Therefore, we have concluded that the likelihood of the proposed activities resulting in the harassment of any cetacean to be so low as to be discountable. As we have concluded that the likelihood of any cetacean being taken incidentally as a result of SpaceX's proposed activities to be so low as to be discountable, cetaceans are not considered further in this proposed authorization. Please see Table 3-1 in SpaceX's IHA application for a complete list of species with expected or potential occurrence in the project area.
Table 2 lists the marine mammal species with expected potential for occurrence in the vicinity of the project during the project timeframe that are likely to be affected by the specified activities, and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including PBR, where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). For status of species, we provide information regarding U.S. regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA. Abundance estimates presented here represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study 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. PBR, 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, is considered in concert with known sources of ongoing anthropogenic mortality to assess the population-level effects of the anticipated mortality from a specific project (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
All values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in NMFS's SARs (
Harbor seals inhabit coastal and estuarine waters and shoreline areas of the northern hemisphere from temperate to polar regions. The eastern North Pacific subspecies is found from Baja California north to the Aleutian Islands and into the Bering Sea. Multiple lines of evidence support the existence of geographic structure among harbor seal populations from California to Alaska (Carretta
Pacific harbor seals are nonmigratory, with local movements associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp 1944, Fisher 1952, Bigg 1969, 1981, Hastings
Harbor seals are the most common marine mammal inhabiting VAFB, congregating on multiple rocky haulout sites along the VAFB coastline. They are local to the area, rarely traveling more than 50 km from haul-out sites. There are 12 harbor seal haulout sites on south VAFB; of these, 10 sites represent an almost continuous haulout area which is used by the same animals. Virtually all of the haulout sites at VAFB are used during low tides and are wave-washed or submerged during high tides. Additionally, the harbor seal is the only species that regularly hauls out near the VAFB harbor. The main harbor seal haulouts on VAFB are near Purisima Point and at Lion's Head (approximately 0.6 km south of Point Sal) on north VAFB and between the VAFB harbor north to South Rocky Point Beach on south VAFB (ManTech 2009).
Pups are generally present in the region from March through July. Within the affected area on VAFB, a total of up to 332 adults and 34 pups have been recorded, at all haulouts combined, in monthly counts from 2013 to 2015 (ManTech 2015). Harbor seals also haul out, breed, and pup in isolated beaches and coves throughout the coasts of San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands (Lowry 2002). During aerial surveys conducted by NMFS in May 2002 and May and June of 2004, between 521 and 1,004 harbors seals were recorded at SMI, between 605 and 972 at Santa Rosa Island, and between 599 and 1,102 Santa Cruz Island (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data).
The harbor seal population at VAFB has undergone an apparent decline in recent years (USAF 2013b). This decline has been attributed to a series of natural landslides at south VAFB, resulting in the abandonment of many haulout sites. These slides have also resulted in extensive down-current sediment deposition, making these sites accessible to coyotes, which are now regularly seen in the area. Some of the displaced seals have moved to other sites at south VAFB, while others likely have moved to Point Conception, about 6.5 km south of the southern boundary of VAFB.
Pacific harbor seals frequently use haul-out sites on the NCI, including San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz; and Anacapa. On SMI, they occur along the north coast at Tyler Bight and from Crook Point to Cardwell Point. Additionally, they regularly breed on SMI. On Santa Cruz Island, they inhabit small coves and rocky ledges along much of the coast. Harbor seals are scattered throughout Santa Rosa Island and also are observed in small numbers on Anacapa Island.
California sea lions range from the Gulf of California north to the Gulf of Alaska, with breeding areas located in the Gulf of California, western Baja California, and southern California. Five
Beginning in January 2013, elevated strandings of California sea lion pups were observed in southern California, with live sea lion strandings nearly three times higher than the historical average. Findings to date indicate that a likely contributor to the large number of stranded, malnourished pups was a change in the availability of sea lion prey for nursing mothers, especially sardines. The Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events determined that the ongoing stranding event meets the criteria for an Unusual Mortality Event (UME) and declared California sea lion strandings from 2013 through 2017 to be one continuous UME. The causes and mechanisms of this event remain under investigation. For more information on the UME, see:
Rookery sites in southern California are limited to SMI and the southerly Channel Islands of San Nicolas, Santa Barbara, and San Clemente (Carretta
California sea lions are common offshore of VAFB and haul out on rocks and beaches along the coastline of VAFB. At south VAFB, California sea lions haul out on north Rocky Point, with numbers often peaking in spring. They have been reported at Point Arguello and Point Pedernales (both on south VAFB) in the past, although none have been noted there over the past several years. Individual sea lions have been noted hauled out throughout the VAFB coast; these were transient or stranded specimens. They regularly haul out on Lion Rock, north of VAFB and immediately south of Point Sal, and occasionally haul out on Point Conception, south of VAFB. In 2014, counts of California sea lions at haulouts on VAFB increased substantially, ranging from 47 to 416 during monthly counts. Despite their prevalence at haulout sites at VAFB, California sea lions rarely pup on the VAFB coastline (ManTech 2015); no pups were observed in 2013 or 2014 (ManTech 2015) and 1 pup was observed in 2015 (VAFB, unpubl. data).
Pupping occurs in large numbers on SMI at the rookeries found at Point Bennett on the west end of the island and at Cardwell Point on the east end of the island (Lowry 2002). Sea lions haul out at the west end of Santa Rosa Island at Ford Point and Carrington Point. A few California sea lions have been born on Santa Rosa Island, but no rookery has been established. On Santa Cruz Island, California sea lions haul out from Painted Cave almost to Fraser Point, on the west end. Fair numbers haul out at Gull Island, off the south shore near Punta Arena. Pupping appears to be increasing there. Sea lions also haul out near Potato Harbor, on the northeast end of Santa Cruz. California sea lions haul out by the hundreds on the south side of East Anacapa Island.
During aerial surveys conducted by NMFS in February 2010 of the NCI, 21,192 total California sea lions (14,802 pups) were observed at haulouts on SMI and 8,237 total (5,712 pups) at Santa Rosa Island (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data). During aerial surveys in July 2012, 65,660 total California sea lions (28,289 pups) were recorded at haulouts on SMI, 1,584 total (3 pups) at Santa Rosa Island, and 1,571 total (zero pups) at Santa Cruz Island (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data).
Northern elephant seals range in the eastern and central North Pacific Ocean, from as far north as Alaska and as far south as Mexico. They spend much of the year, generally about nine months, in the ocean. They spend much of their lives underwater, diving to depths of about 1,000 to 2,500 ft (330-800 m) for 20- to 30-minute intervals with only short breaks at the surface, and are rarely seen at sea for this reason. Northern elephant seals breed and give birth in California and Baja California (Mexico), primarily on offshore islands, from December to March (Stewart et al. 1994). Adults return to land between March and August to molt, with males returning later than females. Adults return to their feeding areas again between their spring/summer molting and their winter breeding seasons.
Populations of northern elephant seals in the U.S. and Mexico are derived from a few tens or hundreds of individuals surviving in Mexico after being nearly hunted to extinction (Stewart
Northern elephant seals haul out sporadically on rocks and beaches along the coastline of VAFB; monthly counts in 2013 and 2014 recorded between 0 and 191 elephant seals within the affected area (ManTech 2015) and northern elephant seal pupping at VAFB was documented for the first time in January 2017 (Pers. comm., R. Evans, United States Air Force, to J. Carduner, NMFS, February 1, 2017). The nearest regularly used haul-out site on the mainland coast is at Point Conception. Eleven northern elephant seals were observed during aerial surveys of the Point Conception area by NMFS in February of 2010 (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data).
Point Bennett on the west end of SMI is the primary northern elephant seal rookery in the NCI, with another rookery at Cardwell Point on the east end of SMI (Lowry 2002). They also pup and breed on Santa Rosa Island, mostly on the west end. Northern elephant seals are rarely seen on Santa Cruz and Anacapa Islands. During aerial surveys of the NCI conducted by NMFS in February 2010, 21,192 total northern elephant seals (14,802 pups) were recorded at haulouts on SMI and 8,237 total (5,712 pups) were observed at Santa Rosa Island (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data). None were observed at Santa Cruz Island (M. Lowry, NOAA Fisheries, unpubl. data).
Steller sea lions are distributed mainly around the coasts to the outer continental shelf along the North Pacific rim from northern Hokkaido, Japan through the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea, Aleutian Islands and central Bering Sea, southern coast of Alaska and south to California (Loughlin
Prior to 2012, there were no records of Steller sea lions observed at VAFB. In April and May 2012, Steller sea lions were observed hauled out at North Rocky Point on VAFB, representing the first time the species had been observed on VAFB during launch monitoring and monthly surveys conducted over the past two decades (Marine Mammal Consulting Group and Science Applications International Corporation 2013). Since 2012, Steller sea lions have been observed frequently in routine monthly surveys, with as many as 16 individuals recorded. In 2014, up to five Steller sea lions were observed in the affected area during monthly marine mammal counts (ManTech 2015) and a maximum of 12 individuals were observed during monthly counts in 2015 (VAFB, unpublished data). However, up to 16 individuals were observed in 2012 (SAIC 2012). Steller sea lions once had two small rookeries on SMI, but these were abandoned after the 1982-1983 El Niño event (DeLong and Melin 2000; Lowry 2002); these rookeries were once the southernmost colonies of the eastern stock of this species. In recent years, between two to four juvenile and adult males have been observed on a somewhat regular basis on SMI (pers. comm. Sharon Melin, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, to J. Carduner, NMFS, Feb 11, 2016). Steller sea lions are not observed on the other NCI.
Northern fur seals occur from southern California north to the Bering Sea and west to the Okhotsk Sea and Honshu Island, Japan. Due to differing requirements during the annual reproductive season, adult males and females typically occur ashore at different, though overlapping, times. Adult males occur ashore and defend reproductive territories during a three month period from June through August, though some may be present until November (well after giving up their territories). Adult females are found ashore for as long as six months (June-November). After their respective times ashore, fur seals of both sexes spend the next seven to eight months at sea (Roppel 1984). Peak pupping is in early July and pups are weaned at three to four months. Some juveniles are present year-round, but most juveniles and adults head for the open ocean and a pelagic existence until the next year. Northern fur seals exhibit high site fidelity to their natal rookeries. Two stocks of northern fur seals are recognized in U.S. waters: An eastern Pacific stock and a California stock (formerly referred to as the San Miguel Island stock). Only the California stock is considered in this proposed authorization due to its geographic distribution.
Northern fur seals have rookeries on SMI at Point Bennett and on Castle Rock. Comprehensive count data for northern fur seals on SMI are not available. SMI is the only island in the NCI on which northern fur seals have been observed. Although the population at SMI was established by individuals from Alaska and Russian Islands during the late 1960s, most individuals currently found on San Miguel are considered resident to the island. No haulout or rookery sites exist for northern fur seals on the mainland coast. The only individuals that appear on mainland beaches are stranded animals.
Guadalupe fur seals are found along the west coast of the United States. They were abundant prior to seal exploitation, when they were likely the most abundant pinniped species on the Channel Islands, but are considered uncommon in Southern California. They are typically found on shores with abundant large rocks, often at the base of large cliffs (Belcher and Lee 2002). Increased strandings of Guadalupe fur seals started occurring along the entire coast of California in early 2015. This event was declared a marine mammal UME. Strandings were eight times higher than the historical average, peaking from April through June 2015, and have since lessened but continue at a rate that is well above average. Most stranded individuals have been weaned pups and juveniles (1-2 years old). For more information on this UME, see:
Comprehensive survey data on Guadalupe fur seals in the NCI is not readily available. On SMI, one to several male Guadalupe fur seals had been observed annually between 1969 and 2000 (DeLong and Melin 2000) and juvenile animals of both sexes have been seen occasionally over the years (Stewart
• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 hertz (Hz) to 86 kilohertz (kHz), with best hearing between 1-50 kHz;
• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): 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 (2016) for a review of available information. Of the six marine mammal species that may be affected by the proposed activities, four are classified as otariids and two are classified as phocids.
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. Potential effects of the proposed action include acoustic effects as well as visual stimuli.
This section contains a brief technical background on sound, the characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals found later in this document.
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in Hz or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave (length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths than lower frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the “loudness” of a sound and is typically described using the relative unit of the dB. A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a measured pressure and a reference pressure and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, a relatively small change in dB corresponds to large changes in sound pressure. The source level (SL) represents the SPL referenced at a distance of 1 m from the source while the received level is the SPL at the listener's position. Note that all airborne sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 µPa.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 μPa
A-weighting is applied to instrument-measured sound levels in an effort to account for the relative loudness perceived by the human ear, as the ear is less sensitive to low audio frequencies, and is commonly used in measuring airborne noise. The relative sensitivity of pinnipeds listening in air to different frequencies is more-or-less similar to that of humans (Richardson
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and human activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types: Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). The distinction between
Pulsed sound sources (
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (
The effects of sounds on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including the species, size, behavior (feeding, nursing, resting, etc.), and, if underwater, depth of the animal; the intensity and duration of the sound; and the sound propagation properties of the environment. Impacts to marine species can result from physiological and behavioral responses to both the type and strength of the acoustic signature (Viada
The effects of sounds from the proposed activities are expected to result in behavioral disturbance of marine mammals. Due to the expected sound levels of the activities proposed and the distance of the activity from marine mammal habitat, the effects of sounds from the proposed activities are not expected to result in temporary or permanent hearing impairment (TTS and PTS, respectively), non-auditory physical or physiological effects, or masking in marine mammals. Data from monitoring reports associated with IHAs issued previously for similar activities in the same location as the planned activities provides further support for the assertion that TTS, PTS, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, and masking are not likely to occur (USAF 2013b; SAIC 2012). Therefore, TTS, PTS, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, and masking are not discussed further in this section.
Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and reactions, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals have shown pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud underwater sound sources (Ridgway
The onset of noise can result in temporary, short term changes in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area. These behavioral changes may include: Reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior; avoidance of areas where sound sources are located; and/or flight responses (Richardson
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 potentially be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to predict (Southall
Marine mammals that occur in the project area could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with Falcon 9 boost-back and landing activities that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment, depending on an animal's distance from the sound. Airborne sound could potentially affect pinnipeds that are hauled out. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon their habitat and move further from the source. Hauled out pinnipeds may flush from a haulout into the water. Though pup abandonment could theoretically result from these reactions, site-specific monitoring data (described below) indicate that pup abandonment is not likely to occur as a result of the specified activity.
This section includes a discussion of the active acoustic sound sources associated with SpaceX's proposed activity and the likelihood for these sources to result in harassment of
As described above, during descent when the First Stage is supersonic, a sonic boom would be generated. The USAF has monitored pinniped responses to rocket launches from VAFB for nearly 20 years. Though rocket launches are not part of the proposed activities (as described above), the acoustic stimuli (sonic booms) associated with launches is expected to be substantially similar to those expected to occur with Falcon 9 boost-backs and landings; therefore, we rely on observational data on responses of pinnipeds to sonic booms associated with rocket launches from VAFB in making assumptions about expected pinniped responses to sonic booms associated with Falcon 9 boost-backs and landings.
Observed reactions of pinnipeds at the NCI to sonic booms have ranged from no response to heads-up alerts, from startle responses to some movements on land, and from some movements into the water to occasional stampedes (especially involving California sea lions on the NCI). We therefore assume sonic booms generated during the return flight of the Falcon 9 First Stage may elicit an alerting or other short-term behavioral reaction, including flushing into the water if hauled out.
Data from launch monitoring by the USAF on the NCI has shown that pinniped reactions to sonic booms are correlated with the level of the sonic boom. Low energy sonic booms (<1.0 psf have resulted in little to no behavioral responses, including head raising and briefly alerting but returning to normal behavior shortly after the stimulus (Table 5). More powerful sonic booms have resulted in pinnipeds flushing from haulouts. No pinniped mortalities have been associated with sonic booms. No sustained decreases in numbers of animals observed at haulouts have been observed after the stimulus. Table 5 presents a summary of monitoring efforts at the NCI from 1999 to 2014. These data show that reactions to sonic booms tend to be insignificant below 1.0 psf and that, even above 1.0 psf, only a portion of the animals present have reacted to the sonic boom. Time-lapse video photography during four launch events revealed that harbor seals that reacted to the rocket launch noise but did not leave the haul-out were all adults.
Data from previous monitoring also suggests that for those pinnipeds that flush from haulouts in response to sonic booms, the amount of time it takes for those animals to begin returning to the haulout site, and for numbers of animals to return to pre-launch levels, is correlated with sonic boom sound levels. Pinnipeds may begin to return to the haul-out site within 2-55 min of the launch disturbance, and the haulout site usually returned to pre-launch levels within 45-120 min. Monitoring data from launches of the Athena IKONOS rocket from VAFB, with 107.3 and 107.8 dB (A-weighted SEL) recorded at the closest haul-out site, showed seals that flushed to the water on exposure to the sonic boom began to return to the haul-out approximately 16-55 minutes post-launch (Thorson
Monitoring data has consistently shown that reactions among pinnipeds vary between species, with harbor seals and California sea lions tending to be more sensitive to disturbance than northern elephant seals and northern fur seals (Table 5). Because Steller sea lions and Guadalupe fur seals occur in the project area relatively infrequently, no data has been recorded on their reactions to sonic booms). At VAFB, harbor seals generally alert to nearby launch noises, with some or all of the animals going into the water. Usually the animals haul out again from within minutes to two hours or so of the launch, provided rising tides or breakers have not submerged the haul-out sites. Post-launch surveys often indicate as many or more animals hauled out than were present at the time of the launch, unless rising tides, breakers or other disturbances are involved (SAIC 2012). When launches occurred during high tides at VAFB, no impacts have been recorded because virtually all haul-out sites were submerged.
At the Channel Islands, California sea lions have been observed to react more strongly to sonic booms than other species present there. Pups sometimes react more than adults, either because they are more easily frightened or because their hearing is more acute. Harbor seals generally appear to be more sensitive to sonic booms than most other pinnipeds, often startling and fleeing into the water. Northern fur seals generally show little or no reaction. Northern elephant seals generally exhibit no reaction at all, except perhaps a heads-up response or some stirring, especially if sea lions in the same area or mingled with the elephant seals react strongly to the boom. Post-launch monitoring generally reveals a return to normal patterns within minutes up to an hour or two of each launch, regardless of species (SAIC 2012).
Table 5 summarizes monitoring efforts at San Miguel Island during which acoustic measurements were successfully recorded and during which pinnipeds were observed. During more recent launches, night vision equipment was used. The table shows only launches during which sonic booms were heard and recorded. The table shows that little or no reaction from the four species usually occurs when overpressures are below 1.0 psf. In general, as described above, elephant seals do not react unless other animals around them react strongly or if the sonic boom is extremely loud, and northern fur seals seem to react similarly. Not enough data exist to draw conclusions about harbor seals, but considering their reactions to launch noise at VAFB, it is likely that they are also sensitive to sonic booms (SAIC 2012).
To determine if harbor seals experience changes in their hearing sensitivity as a result of sounds associated with rocket launches (including sonic booms), Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) testing was conducted on 14 harbor seals following four launches of the Titan IV rocket, one launch of the Taurus rocket, and two launches of the Delta IV rocket from VAFB, in accordance with NMFS scientific research permits. ABR tests have not yet been performed following Falcon 9 rocket landings nor launches, however results of ABR tests that followed launches of other rockets from VAFB are nonetheless informative as the sound source (sonic boom) is expected to be the same as that associated with the activities proposed by SpaceX.
Following standard ABR testing protocol, the ABR was measured from one ear of each seal using sterile, sub-dermal, stainless steel electrodes. A conventional electrode array was used, and low-level white noise was presented to the non-tested ear to reduce any electrical potentials generated by the non-tested ear. A computer was used to produce the click and an eight kHz tone burst stimuli, through standard audiometric headphones. Over 1,000 ABR waveforms were collected and averaged per trial. Initially the stimuli were presented at SPLs loud enough to obtain a clean reliable waveform, and then decreased in 10 dB steps until the response was no longer reliably observed. Once response was no longer reliably observed, the stimuli were then increased in 10 dB steps to the original SPL. By obtaining two ABR waveforms at each SPL, it was possible to quantify the variability in the measurements.
Good replicable responses were measured from most of the seals, with waveforms following the expected pattern of an increase in latency and decrease in amplitude of the peaks, as the stimulus level was lowered. Detailed analysis of the changes in waveform latency and waveform replication of the ABR measurements for the 14 seals showed no detectable changes in the seals' hearing sensitivity as a result of exposure to the launch noise. The delayed start (1.75 to 3.5 hours after the launches) for ABR testing allows for the possibility that the seals may have recovered from a TTS before testing began. However, it can be said with confidence that the post-launch tested animals did not have permanent hearing changes due to exposure to the launch noise from the sonic booms associated with launches of the rockets from VAFB (SAIC 2013).
We also note that stress from long-term cumulative sound exposures can result in physiological effects on reproduction, metabolism, and general health, or on the animals' resistance to disease. However, this is not likely to occur as a result of the proposed activities because of the infrequent nature and short duration of the noise (up to twelve sonic booms annually). Research indicates that population levels at these haul-out sites have remained constant in recent years (with decreases only noted in some areas because of the increased presence of coyotes), giving support to this conclusion.
In conclusion, based on data from numerous years of monitoring of similar activities to the activities proposed by SpaceX, in the same geographic area as the geographic area of the SpaceX's proposed activities, we expect that any behavioral responses by pinnipeds to sonic booms resulting from the proposed activities would range from no response to heads-up alerts, startle responses, some movements on land, and some movements into the water (flushing).
This section includes a discussion of potential effects of SpaceX's proposed activity other than those related to sound.
Visual stimuli resulting from Falcon 9 First Stage landings would have the
We do not anticipate that the proposed activities would result in any temporary or permanent effects on the habitats used by the marine mammals in the proposed area, including the food sources they use (
The proposed activities would not result in in-water acoustic stimuli that would cause significant injury or mortality to prey species and would not create barriers to movement for marine mammal prey. As described above, in the event of an unsuccessful barge landing and a resulting explosion of the Falcon 9 First Stage, up to 25 pieces of debris would likely remain floating. SpaceX would recover all floating debris. Denser debris that would not float on the surface is anticipated to sink relatively quickly and would be composed of inert materials. The area of benthic habitat impacted by falling debris would be very small (approximately 0.000706 km
In summary, since the acoustic impacts associated with the proposed activities are of short duration and infrequent (up to twelve events annually), the associated behavioral responses in marine mammals are expected to be temporary. Therefore, the proposed activities are unlikely to result in long term or permanent avoidance of the exposure areas or loss of habitat. The proposed activities are also not expected to result in any reduction in foraging habitat or adverse impacts to marine mammal prey. Thus, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' 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 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).
All 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 sounds associated with the planned activities. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment, serious injury, and mortality are neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
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; (2) the area 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 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 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). As described above, Level A harassment is not expected to occur as a result of the proposed activities and we do not propose to authorize take by Level A harassment, thus criteria and thresholds for Level A harassment are not discussed further. Thresholds have been developed identifying the received level of in-air sound above which exposed pinnipeds would likely be behaviorally harassed. In this case, we are concerned only with in-air sound as the proposed activities are not expected to result in harassment of marine mammals that are underwater. Thus only in-air thresholds are discussed further.
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 (
Typically, NMFS relies on the acoustic criteria shown in Table 1 to estimate take as a result of exposure to airborne sound from a given activity. However, in this case we have the
As described above, data from launch monitoring by the USAF on the NCI and at VAFB have shown that pinniped reactions to sonic booms are correlated to the level of the sonic boom. Low energy sonic booms (<1.0 psf) have typically resulted in little to no behavioral responses, including head raising and briefly alerting but returning to normal behavior shortly after the stimulus. More powerful sonic booms have flushed animals from haulouts (but not resulted in any mortality or sustained decreased in numbers after the stimulus). Table 5 presents a summary of monitoring efforts at the NCI from 1999 to 2014. These data show that reactions to sonic booms tend to be insignificant below 1.0 psf and that, even above 1.0 psf, only a portion of the animals present react to the sonic boom. Therefore, for the purposes of estimating the extent of take that is likely to occur as a result of the proposed activities, we assume that Level B harassment occurs when a pinniped (on land) is exposed to a sonic boom at or above 1.0 psf. Therefore the number of expected takes by Level B harassment is based on estimates of the numbers of animals that would be within the areas exposed to sonic booms at levels at or above 1.0 psf.
The data recorded by USAF at VAFB and the NCI over the past 20 years has also shown that pinniped reactions to sonic booms vary between species. As described above, little or no reaction has been observed in northern fur seals and northern elephant seals when overpressures were below 1.0 psf. At the NCI sea lions have reacted more strongly to sonic booms than most other species. Harbor seals also appear to be more sensitive to sonic booms than most other pinnipeds, often resulting in startling and fleeing into the water. Northern fur seals generally show little or no reaction, and northern elephant seals generally exhibit no reaction at all, except perhaps a heads-up response or some stirring, especially if sea lions in the same area mingled with the elephant seals react strongly to the boom. No data is available on Steller sea lion or Guadalupe fur seal responses to sonic booms.
As described above, modeling was performed to estimate overpressure levels that would be created during the return flight of the Falcon 9 First Stage. The predicted acoustic footprint of the sonic boom was computed using the computer program PCBoom (Plotkin and Grandi 2002; Page et al. 2010). As described above, the highest sound generated by a sonic boom would generally be focused on the area where the Falcon 9 ultimately lands. Based on model results, a boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W would produce a sonic boom with overpressures as high as 8.5 psf at SLC-4W, which would attenuate to levels below 1.0 psf at approximately 15.90 mi. (25.59 km) from the landing area (Figure 2-2 in the IHA application). This estimate is based, in part, on actual observations from Falcon 9 boost-back and landing activities at Cape Canaveral, Florida. A boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W would produce a sonic boom with overpressures up to 3.1 psf on the NCI (San Miguel Island, Santa Rosa Island, and Santa Cruz Island) based on model results.
During a contingency barge landing event, sonic boom overpressure would be directed at the ocean surface while the first-stage booster is supersonic. Model results indicate that sonic booms would not exceed 1.0 psf on any part of the NCI during a boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at the contingency landing location at least 27 nm (50 km) offshore (Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7 in the IHA application). Additionally, First Stage boost-backs and landings within the Iridium Landing Area would not likely produce measurable overpressures at any land surface (Figure 2-8 and Figure 2-9 in the IHA application). Therefore, take of marine mammals is not expected to occur as a result of boost-back and landing activities at the contingency landing location at least 27 nm (50 km) offshore, nor within the Iridium Landing Area. Estimated takes are therefore based on the possibility of boost-back and landing activities occurring at SLC-4W.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations. Data collected from marine mammal surveys, including monthly marine mammal surveys conducted by the USAF at VAFB as well as data collected by NMFS, represent the best available information on the occurrence of the six pinniped species expected to occur in the project area. The quality and amount of information available on pinnipeds in the project area varies depending on species; some species are surveyed regularly at VAFB and the NCI (
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
NMFS currently uses a three-tiered scale to determine whether the response of a pinniped on land to acoustic or visual stimuli is considered an alert, a movement, or a flush. NMFS considers the behaviors that meet the definitions of both movements and flushes to qualify as behavioral harassment. Thus a pinniped on land is considered by NMFS to have been behaviorally harassed if it moves greater than two times its body length, or if the animal is already moving and changes direction and/or speed, or if the animal flushes from land into the water. Animals that become alert without such movements are not considered harassed. See Table 4 for a summary of the pinniped disturbance scale.
As described above, the likelihood of pinnipeds exhibiting responses to sonic booms that would be considered behavioral harassment (based on the levels of pinniped disturbance as shown in Table 4) is dependent on both the species and on the intensity of the sonic boom. Data from rocket launch monitoring by the USAF at VAFB and the NCI show that pinniped reactions to sonic booms are correlated to the level of the sonic boom, with low energy sonic booms (<1.0 psf) typically resulting in little to no behavioral responses, and higher energy sonic booms resulting in responses ranging from no response to heads-up alerts, startle responses, some movements on land, and some movements into the water (flushing). Based on model results, a boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W would produce a sonic boom with greater intensity at VAFB (overpressures potentially as high as 8.5 psf) than at the NCI (overpressures potentially as high as 3.1 psf). Responses of pinnipeds to
Take estimates were calculated by overlaying the modeled acoustic footprints of sonic booms from boost-back and landing events at SLC-4W with known pinniped haulouts on the mainland (including those at VAFB) and the NCI to determine the pinniped haulouts that would potentially be affected by sonic booms with overpressures of 1.0 psf and above. Only haulouts along northeastern San Miguel Island, northern and northwestern Santa Rosa Island, and northwestern Santa Cruz Island would be expected to experience overpressures greater than 1.0 psf during a boost-back and landing at SLC-4W (Figure 2-3, 2-4, 2-5 and 2-6 in the IHA application). Take estimates also account for the likely intensity of the sonic boom as well as the relative sensitivity of the marine mammal species present, based on monitoring data as described above.
A boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W that results in a sonic boom of 1.0 psf and above at VAFB was conservatively estimated to result in behavioral harassment of 100 percent of all species hauled out at or near VAFB and Point Conception (Table 6). A boost-back and landing of the Falcon 9 First Stage at SLC-4W that results in a sonic boom of 1.0 psf and above at the NCI was estimated to result in the behavioral harassment of 100 percent of California sea lions, harbor seals, and Steller sea lions that are hauled out at the NCI and of five percent of northern elephant seals, northern fur seals, and Guadalupe fur seals that are hauled out at the NCI. The five percent adjustment in the take estimates for these species at the NCI is also considered conservative, as launch monitoring data shows that elephant seals and fur seals sometimes alert to sonic booms but have never been observed flushing to the water or responding in a manner that would be classified as behavioral harassment even when sonic booms were measured at >1.0 psf (see Table 5 for a summary of launch monitoring data).
The take calculations presented in Table 6 are based on the best available information on marine mammal populations in the project location and responses among marine mammals to the stimuli associated with the proposed activities.
Take estimates are believed to be conservative based on the assumption that all twelve Falcon 9 First Stage recovery actions would result in landings at SLC-4W, with no landings occurring at the contingency barge landing location. However, some or all actual landing events may ultimately occur at the contingency landing location or within the Iridium Landing Area; as described above, landings at the contingency landing location or within the Iridium Landing Area would be expected to result in no takes of marine mammals. However, the number of landings at each location is not known in advance, therefore we assume all landings would occur at SLC-4W. In addition, as described above, it is conservatively assumed that 100 percent of all any species of pinnipeds hauled out on the mainland (VAFB and Point Conception) and 100 percent of harbor seals, California sea lions and Steller sea lions hauled out at the NCI would be harassed (Level B harassment only) by a Falcon 9 boost-back and landing events at SLC-4W that result in a psf of <1.0. However, it is possible that less than this percentage of hauled out pinnipeds will be behaviorally harassed by a Falcon 9 boost-back and landing at SLC-4W. While there may be some limited behavioral harassment of pinnipeds that occurs at psf levels <1.0, we account for that in the overall conservativeness of the total take number, as described above.
Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound. In practice, depending on the amount of information available to characterize daily and seasonal movement and distribution of affected marine mammals, it can be difficult to distinguish between the number of individuals harassed and the instances of harassment and, when duration of the activity is considered, it can result in a take estimate that overestimates the number of individuals harassed. For instance, an individual animal may accrue a number of incidences of harassment over the duration of a project, as opposed to each incident of harassment accruing to a new individual. This is especially likely if individual animals display some degree of residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site is stronger than the deterrence presented by the harassing activity.
Take estimates shown in Table 6 are considered reasonable estimates of the number of instances of marine mammal exposures to sound resulting in Level B harassment that are likely to occur as a result of the proposed activities, and not necessarily the number of individual animals exposed.
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 impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully balance two primary factors: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat—which considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as well as the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented; and the likelihood of effective implementation, 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.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
SpaceX's IHA application contains descriptions of the mitigation measures proposed to be implemented during the specified activities in order to effect the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitats.
It should be noted that it would not be feasible to stop or divert an inbound Falcon 9 First Stage booster. Once the boost-back and landing sequence is underway, there would be no way for SpaceX to change the trajectory of the Falcon 9 First Stage to avoid potential impacts to marine mammals. The proposed mitigation measures include the following:
• Unless constrained by other factors including human safety or national security concerns, launches would be scheduled to avoid boost-backs and landings during the harbor seal pupping season of March through June, when practicable.
Based on our evaluation of SpaceX's proposed mitigation measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable
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.
SpaceX submitted a monitoring plan as part of their IHA application. SpaceX's proposed marine mammal monitoring plan was created with input from NMFS and was based on similar plans that have been successfully implemented by other action proponents under previous authorizations for similar projects, specifically the USAF's monitoring of rocket launches from VAFB. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period.
SpaceX would determine a monitoring location for each boost-back and landing activity, taking into consideration predictions of the areas likely to receive the greatest sonic boom intensity as well as current haulout locations and the distribution of pinniped species and their behavior. The selection of the monitoring location would also be based on what species (if any) have pups at haulouts and which of those species would be expected to be the most reactive to sonic booms. SpaceX prioritizes the selection of rookery locations if they are expected to be impacted by a sonic boom and prioritizes the most reactive species if there are multiple species that are expected to be hauled out in the modeled sonic boom impact area. For instance, if harbor seals were pupping, SpaceX would tend to select a harbor seal rookery for monitoring because they tend to be the most reactive species to sonic booms. There is also thought given to the geography and wind exposure of the specific beaches that are predicted to be impacted, to avoid inadvertently selecting a portion of a beach that tends to be abandoned by pinnipeds every afternoon as a result high winds. As VAFB is an active military base, the selection of appropriate monitoring locations must also take into account security restrictions and human safety as unexploded ordnance is present in some areas.
Marine mammal monitoring protocols would vary based on modeled sonic boom intensity, the location and the season. As described above, sonic boom modeling would be performed prior to all boost-back and landing activities. Although the same rockets would be used, other parameters specific to each launch would be incorporated into each model. These include direction and trajectory, weight, length, engine thrust, engine plume drag, position versus time from initiating boost-back to additional engine burns, among other aspects. Various weather scenarios would be analyzed from NOAA weather records for the region, then run through the model. Among other factors, these would include the presence or absence of the jet stream, and if present, its direction, altitude and velocity. The type, altitude, and density of clouds would also be considered. From these data, the models would predict peak amplitudes and impact locations. As described above, impacts to pinnipeds on the NCI, including pups, have been shown through more than two decades of monitoring reports to be minimal and temporary (MMCG and SAIC 2012a). Therefore monitoring requirements at the NCI would be dependent on modeled sonic boom intensity and would be based on the harbor seal pupping season, such that monitoring requirements would be greater when pups would be expected to be present. At the height of the pupping season (between March 1 and June 30) monitoring is required if sonic boom model results indicate a peak overpressure of 1.0 psf or greater is likely to impact one of the NCI. Between July 1 and September 30 monitoring is required if sonic boom model results indicate a peak overpressure of 1.5 psf or greater is likely to impact one of the NCI. Between October 1 and February 28, monitoring is required if sonic boom model results indicate a peak overpressure of 2.0 psf or greater is likely to impact one of the NCI.
Marine mammal monitoring procedures would consist of the following:
• To conduct monitoring of Falcon 9 First Stage boost-back and landing activities, SpaceX would designate qualified, on-site observers that would be approved in advance by NMFS;
• If sonic boom model results indicate a peak overpressure of 1.0 psf or greater is likely to impact VAFB, then acoustic and biological monitoring at VAFB would be implemented;
• If sonic boom model results indicate a peak overpressure of 1.0 psf or greater is likely to impact one of the NCI between March 1 and June 30; a peak overpressure of greater than 1.5 psf is likely to impact one of the NCI between July 1 and September 30, or a peak overpressure of greater than 2.0 psf is likely to impact one of the NCI between October 1 and February 28, then monitoring of haulout sites on the NCI would be implemented.
• Monitoring would be conducted at the haulout site closest to the predicted sonic boom impact area;
• Monitoring would commence at least 72 hours prior to the boost-back and continue until at least 48 hours after the event;
• Monitoring would include multiple surveys each day that record the species; number of animals; general behavior; presence of pups; age class; gender; and reaction to noise associated with Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities, sonic booms or other natural or human caused disturbances, in addition to recording environmental conditions such as tide, wind speed, air temperature, and swell;
• If the boost-back and landing is scheduled during daylight, time lapse photography or video recording would be used to document the behavior of marine mammals during Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities;
• For Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities scheduled during harbor seal pupping season (March through June), follow-up surveys would be conducted within two weeks of the boost-back and landing;
• New northern elephant seal pupping location(s) at VAFB would be prioritized for monitoring when landings occur at SLC-4W during northern elephant seal pupping season (January through February) when practicable.
Acoustic measurements of the sonic boom created during boost-back at the monitoring location would be recorded to determine the overpressure level. Typically this would entail use of a digital audio tape (DAT) recorder and a high quality microphone to monitor the sound environment and measure the sonic boom. This system would be specially tailored for recording the low frequency sound associated with rocket launches and sonic booms. The DAT system would record the launch noise and sonic boom digitally to tape, which would allow for detailed post‐analysis of the frequency content, and the calculation of other acoustic metrics, and would record the ambient noise and sonic boom. The DAT recorder would be placed near the marine mammal monitoring site when practicable.
SpaceX would report data collected during marine mammal monitoring and acoustic monitoring as described above. The monitoring report would include a description of project related activities, counts of marine mammals by species, sex and age class, a summary of marine mammal species/count data, and a summary of observed marine mammal responses to project-related activities.
A launch monitoring report would be submitted by SpaceX to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and the NMFS West Coast Region within 60 days after each Falcon 9 First Stage recovery action. This report would contain information on the date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery action, the design of the monitoring program; and results of the monitoring program, including, but not necessarily limited to the following:
• Numbers of pinnipeds present on the monitored haulout prior to the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery;
• Numbers of pinnipeds that may have been harassed (based on observations of pinniped responses and the pinniped disturbance scale as shown in Table 4);
• The length of time pinnipeds remained off the haulout or rookery for pinnipeds estimated to have entered the water as a result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery noise;
• Any other observed behavioral modifications by pinnipeds that were likely the result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities, including sonic boom; and
• Results of acoustic monitoring including comparisons of modeled sonic booms with actual acoustic recordings of sonic booms.
In addition, a final monitoring report would be submitted by SpaceX to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources. A draft of the report would be submitted within 90 days of the expiration of the IHA, or, within 45 days of the requested renewal of the IHA (if applicable). A final version of the report would be submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. The report would summarize the information from the 60-day post-activity reports (as described above), including but not necessarily limited to the following:
• Date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery actions;
• Design of the monitoring program; and
• Results of the monitoring program, including the information components contained in the 60-day launch reports, as well as any documented cumulative impacts on marine mammals as a result of the activities, such as long term reductions in the number of pinnipeds at haulouts as a result of the activities.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not authorized by the proposed IHA (if issued), such as a Level A harassment, or a take of a marine mammal species other than those proposed for authorization, SpaceX would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources. The report would include the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities in the 48 hours preceding the incident;
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 48 hours 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 SpaceX to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SpaceX would not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that SpaceX discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that SpaceX discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
If issued, this would be the second IHA issued to SpaceX for the proposed activity. SpaceX did not perform any Falcon 9 boost-back and landing activities that resulted in return flights to VAFB nor that generated sonic booms that impacted the NCI. SpaceX did
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 2, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal species are expected to be similar. Activities associated with the proposed Falcon 9 First Stage recovery project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from airborne sounds of sonic booms. Potential takes could occur if marine mammals are hauled out in areas where a sonic boom above 1.0 psf occurs, which is considered likely given the modeled sonic booms of the proposed activities and the occurrence of pinnipeds in the project area. Based on the best available information, including monitoring reports from similar activities that have been authorized by NMFS, behavioral responses will likely be limited to reactions such as alerting to the noise, with some animals possibly moving toward or entering the water, depending on the species and the intensity of the sonic boom. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness to those individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. Level B harassment would be reduced to the level of least practicable impact through use of mitigation measures described above.
If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior (
Even in the instances of pinnipeds being behaviorally disturbed by sonic booms from rocket launches at VAFB, no evidence has been presented of abnormal behavior, injuries or mortalities, or pup abandonment as a result of sonic booms (SAIC 2013). These findings came as a result of more than two decades of surveys at VAFB and the NCI (MMCG and SAIC, 2012). Post-launch monitoring generally reveals a return to normal behavioral patterns within minutes up to an hour or two of each launch, regardless of species. For instance, a total of eight Delta II and Taurus space vehicle launches occurred from north VAFB, near the Spur Road and Purisima Point haulout sites, from February, 2009 through February, 2014. Of these eight launches, three occurred during the harbor seal pupping season. The continued use by harbor seals of the Spur Road and Purisima Point haulout sites indicates that it is unlikely that these rocket launches (and associated sonic booms) resulted in long-term disturbances of pinnipeds using the haulout sites. San Miguel Island represents the most important pinniped rookery in the lower 48 states, and as such extensive research has been conducted there for decades. From this research, as well as stock assessment reports, it is clear that VAFB operations (including associated sonic booms) have not had any significant impacts on San Miguel Island rookeries and haulouts (SAIC 2012).
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors:
• No injury, serious injury, or mortality are anticipated or authorized;
• The anticipated incidences of Level B harassment are expected to consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior (
• The proposed activities are expected to result in no long-term changes in the use by pinnipeds of rookeries and haulouts in the project area, based on over 20 years of monitoring data; and
• The presumed efficacy of planned mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact.
In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will be short-term on individual animals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts. 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 the
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, 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 qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The numbers of proposed authorized takes would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations (less than 22 percent for all species and stocks). It is important to note that the number of expected takes does not necessarily represent of the number of individual animals expected to be taken. Our small numbers analysis accounts for this fact. Multiple exposures to Level B harassment can accrue to the same individual animals over the course of an activity that occurs multiple times in the same area (such as SpaceX's proposed activity). This is especially likely in the case of species that have limited ranges and that have site fidelity to a location within the project area, as is the case with Pacific harbor seals.
As described above, harbor seals are non-migratory, rarely traveling more than 50 km from their haul-out sites. Thus, while the estimated abundance of the California stock of Pacific harbor seals is 30,968 (Carretta
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 size 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.
There is one marine mammal species (Guadalupe fur seal) listed under the ESA with confirmed occurrence in the area expected to be impacted by the proposed activities. The NMFS West Coast Region has determined that the NMFS OPR's proposed authorization of SpaceX's Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities is not likely to adversely affect the Guadalupe fur seal. Therefore, formal ESA section 7 consultation on this proposed authorization is not required.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to SpaceX, to conduct Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities at Vandenberg Air Force Base, in the Pacific Ocean offshore Vandenberg Air Force Base, and at the Northern Channel Islands, California, from December 1, 2017 through November 30, 2018, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided next.
This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid from December 1, 2017 through November 30, 2018.
(a) This IHA is valid only for Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, and at auxiliary landing sites offshore.
2. General Conditions.
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of SpaceX, its designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are the Pacific harbor seal (
(c) The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the species listed in condition 2(b). See Table 6 for numbers of take authorized.
(d) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death of any of the species listed in condition 2(b) of the Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
3. Mitigation Measures.
The holder of this Authorization must implement the following mitigation measure: Unless constrained by other factors including human safety or national security concerns, launches must be scheduled to avoid, whenever possible, boost-backs and landings during the harbor seal pupping season of March through June.
4. Monitoring.
The holder of this Authorization mustconduct marine mammal and acoustic monitoring as described below.
(a) SpaceX must notify the Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, by letter or telephone, at least two weeks prior to activities possibly involving the taking of marine mammals;
(b) To conduct monitoring of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities, SpaceX must designate qualified, on-site individuals approved in advance by NMFS;
(c) If sonic boom model results indicate that a peak overpressure of 1.0 psf or greater is likely to impact VAFB, then acoustic and biological monitoring at VAFB must be implemented;
(d) If sonic boom model results indicate a peak overpressure of 1.0 psf or greater is likely to impact VAFB during January and February, then acoustic and biological monitoring must be implemented at northern elephant seal rookeries at VAFB, when practicable;
(e) If sonic boom model results indicate that a peak overpressure of 1.0 psf or greater is predicted to impact the Channel Islands between March 1 and June 30, greater than 1.5 psf between July 1 and September 30, and greater than 2.0 psf between October 1 and February 28, monitoring of haulout sites on the Channel Islands must be implemented. Monitoring will be conducted at the haulout site closest to the predicted sonic boom impact area;
(f) Monitoring will be conducted for at least 72 hours prior to any planned Falcon 9 First Stage recovery and continue until at least 48 hours after the event;
(g) For Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities that occur during March through June, follow-up surveys of harbor seal haulouts will be conducted within two weeks of the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery;
(h) If Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities are scheduled during daylight, time-lapse photography or video recording must be used to document the behavior of marine mammals during Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities;
(i) Monitoring will include multiple surveys each day that record the species, number of animals, general behavior, presence of pups, age class, gender and reaction to noise associated with Falcon 9 First Stage recovery, sonic booms or other natural or human caused disturbances, in addition to recording environmental conditions such as tide, wind speed, air temperature, and swell; and
(j) Acoustic measurements of the sonic boom created during boost-back at the monitoring location must be recorded to determine the overpressure level.
5. Reporting.
The holder of this Authorization is required to:
(a) Submit a report to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Administrator, NMFS, within 60 days after each Falcon 9 First Stage recovery action. This report must contain the following information:
(1) Date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery action;
(2) Design of the monitoring program; and
(3) Results of the monitoring program, including, but not necessarily limited to:
(i) Numbers of pinnipeds present on the haulout prior to the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery;
(ii) Numbers of pinnipeds that may have been harassed as a result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities;
(iii) For pinnipeds estimated to have been harassed as a result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery noise, the length of time pinnipeds remained off the haulout or rookery;
(iv) Any other observed behavioral modifications by pinnipeds that were likely the result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities, including sonic boom; and
(v) Results of acoustic monitoring including comparisons of modeled sonic booms with actual acoustic recordings of sonic booms.
(b) Submit an annual report on all monitoring conducted under the IHA. A draft of the annual report must be submitted within 90 calendar days of the expiration of this IHA, or, within 45 calendar days of the requested renewal of the IHA (if applicable). A final annual report must be prepared and submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. The annual report will summarize the information from the 60-day post-activity reports, including but not necessarily limited to:
(1) Date(s) and time(s) of the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery action;
(2) Design of the monitoring program; and
(3) Results of the monitoring program, including, but not necessarily limited to:
(i) Numbers of pinnipeds present on the haulout prior to the Falcon 9 First Stage recovery;
(ii) Numbers of pinnipeds estimated to have been harassed as a result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities at the monitoring location;
(iii) For pinnipeds estimated to have been harassed as a result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery noise, the length of time pinnipeds remained off the haulout or rookery;
(iv) Any other observed behavioral modifications by pinnipeds that were likely the result of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities, including sonic boom;
(v) Any cumulative impacts on marine mammals as a result of the activities, such as long term reductions in the number of pinnipeds at haulouts as a result of the activities; and
(vi) Results of acoustic monitoring including comparisons of modeled sonic booms with actual acoustic recordings of sonic booms.
(c) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
(1) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA (as determined by the lead marine mammal observer), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, SpaceX will immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and the NMFS West Coast Region Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the following information:
A. Time and date of the incident;
B. Description of the incident;
C. Status of all Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities in the 48 hours preceding the incident;
D. Description of all marine mammal observations in the 48 hours preceding the incident;
E. Environmental conditions (
F. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
G. Fate of the animal(s); and
H. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities will not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with SpaceX to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SpaceX may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
(2) In the event that SpaceX discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(3) In the event that SpaceX discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
6. Modification and suspension.
(a) This IHA may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines that the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
We request comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for SpaceX Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on SpaceX's request for an MMPA authorization.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a public webinar meeting.
The meeting will be held on Thursday November 9, 2017, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon.
The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option. The webinar can be accessed at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The goal of this webinar is to understand the importance of Atlantic chub mackerel (
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Act) requires a Governor of a State to notify the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet), the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of a State's decision to opt-out of participation in the deployment of the nationwide public safety broadband network (NPSBN) as proposed by FirstNet and to conduct its own deployment of a Radio Access Network in the State. This Notice provides instructions for such “opt-out” notices to NTIA.
Applicable on October 25, 2017.
All opt-out notices must be filed via the dedicated email address:
Carolyn Dunn; Office of Public Safety Communications; National Telecommunications and Information Administration; U.S. Department of Commerce; 1401 Constitution Avenue NW; Washington, DC 20230;
Under section 6302(e)(2) of the Act, the Governor of each State or Territory has 90 days from the receipt of notice by FirstNet under section 6302(e)(1) of the Act to decide whether to participate in the deployment of the NPSBN as proposed by FirstNet or whether to conduct its own deployment of a Radio Access Network in the State.
All opt-out notices must be filed via the dedicated email address:
An opt-out notice must be made by the Governor or the Governors' duly authorized designee, and if made by the latter, evidence of such delegation must be provided to NTIA with the notice. An opt-out notice should also certify concurrent notification of the opt-out decision to FirstNet and the FCC.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), Department of Defense (DoD).
Federal advisory committee meeting notice.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel. This meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday, November 15 and 16, 2017. Public registration will begin at 8:45 a.m. on each day. For entrance into the meeting, you must meet the necessary requirements for entrance into the Pentagon. For more detailed information, please see the following link:
Pentagon Library, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. The meeting room will be displayed on the information screen for both days. The Pentagon Library is located in the Pentagon Library and Conference Center (PLC2) across the Corridor 8 bridge.
LTC Robert McDonald, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition), 3600 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3600, email:
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice; extension of comment period.
The comment period for the Availability of a Draft Integrated Feasibility Report (Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement), Aliso Creek Mainstem Ecosystem Restoration Study, Orange County, CA published in the
Ms. Deborah Lamb, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, phone number (213) 452-3798.
None.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice; correction.
The notice of an open meeting scheduled for November 3, 2017 published in the
Mr. Mark R. Pointon, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the committee, in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GM, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-6438; and by email at
None.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Monday, November 13, 2017, 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Tuesday, November 14, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Hilton Garden Inn, 1065 Stevens Creek Road, Augusta, GA 30907.
Susan Clizbe, Office of External Affairs, Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC, 29802; Phone: (803) 952-8281.
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Saturday, November 18, 2017, 11:00 a.m.
West Kentucky Community and Technical College, Emerging Technology Center, 4810 Alben Barkley Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001.
Jennifer Woodard, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001; telephone: (270) 441-6825.
Department of Energy.
Designation of Performance Review Board Chair.
This notice provides the Performance Review Board Chair designee for the Department of Energy.
This listing supersedes all previously published lists of Performance Review Board Chair.
This appointment is applicable as of September 30, 2017: Dennis M. Miotla.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that agencies publish these notices in the
November 15, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.; November 16, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-2:00 p.m.
Holiday Inn Washington DC—Capitol; 550 C St SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Dr. Mark Elless, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; email:
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of orders.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy gives notice that during July 2017, it issued orders under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717b, as summarized in the attached appendix. These orders may be found on the FE Web site at
They are also available for inspection and copying in the U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Division of Natural Gas Regulation, Office of Regulation and
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 1:00 p.m.-5:15 p.m.
El Monte Sagrado, Rio Grande Ballroom, 317 Kit Carson Road, Taos, New Mexico 87571.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board (NNMCAB), 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting (teleconference) of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Wednesday, November 15, 2017 3:00 p.m.—5:00 p.m. EDT
Teleconference: Remote attendance of the FESAC meeting will be possible via Zoom. Instructions will be posted on the FESAC Web site at:
Samuel J. Barish, Acting Designated Federal Officer, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES); U.S. Department of Energy; 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: (301) 903-2917.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, November 8, 2017, 4:00 p.m.
Frank H. Rogers Science and Technology Building, 755 East Flamingo, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119.
Barbara Ulmer, Board Administrator,
Department of Energy.
Designation of Performance Review Board Standing Register.
This notice provides the Performance Review Board Standing Register for the Department of Energy. This listing supersedes all previously published lists of PRB members.
This appointment is applicable as of September 30, 2017.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The Federal Advisory Committee requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, November 8, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Thursday, November 9, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Shilo Inn, 50 Comstock Drive, Richland, WA 99352.
Mark Heeter, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, P.O. Box 550, H5-20, Richland, WA, 99352; Phone: (509) 373-1970; or Email:
Take notice that on October 6, 2017, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, filed in Docket
Specifically, Gulf South proposes to abandon by sale to Shongaloo Midstream approximately 24.5 miles of multiple 4-inch-diameter and 6-inch-diameter transmission pipelines. Also, Gulf South will sell to Shongaloo Midstream approximately 7.5 miles of multiple 4-inch-diameter non-certificated gathering pipeline facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to J. Kyle Stephens, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046; by telephone at (713) 479-8033; by fax at (713) 479-1846; or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit five copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Regional State Committee (RSC), Regional Entity Trustee (RET), Members' Committee and Board of Directors as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
The meetings will be held at SPP's Corporate Center, 201 Worthen Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72223. The phone number is (877) 932-5833. All meetings are Central Time.
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
These meetings are open to the public.
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or
On September 29, 2017, Virginia Electric and Power Company, d/b/a Dominion Energy Virginia (VEPCO) and Allegheny Generating Company (AGC) (co-licensees/transferors) and Bath County Energy, LLC (transferee/BCE) filed an application to partially transfer the license for the Bath County Pumped Storage Project No. 2716. The project is located Back Creek and Little Back Creek in Bath County, Virginia. The project does not occupy Federal lands.
The applicants seek Commission approval to partially transfer the license for the Bath County Pumped Storage Project from the Virginia Electric and Power Company, d/b/a Dominion Energy Virginia and Allegheny Generating Company as co-licensees to add Bath County Energy, LLC as a third co-licensee.
On October 19, 2017, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL18-19-000,
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL18-19-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL18-19-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
Take notice that on October 12, 2017, pursuant to section 385.207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 385.207(2017), Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC (Constitution) filed a Petition for Declaratory Order finding that New York State Department of Environmental Conservation failed to act within a reasonable period of time on Constitution's Clean water Act Section 401 application, and that such failure to act constitutes a waiver of Section 401 water quality certification requirement for federal authorizations related to the New York State portion of Constitution's pipeline project, all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
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 proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for 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
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before November 20, 2017.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on August 31, 2017, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP17-490-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
Transco provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP17-490-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Transco proposes to construct, modify, upgrade, and operate various facilities in connection with its proposed Riverdale South to Market Project located in Bergen, Hudson, and Union Counties, New Jersey. According to Transco, the Project would increase the firm delivery transportation capacity of its existing pipeline system by 190,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of natural gas per day from the Riverdale interconnection to existing Compressor Station 210 in Mercer County and the Central Manhattan Metering and Regulating Station (M&R) in Hudson County. The Compressor Station 210 pooling point would receive 140,000 Dth/d, and the Central Manhattan Metering and Regulating Station would receive 50,000 Dth/d.
The Project would consist of the following facilities:
• Uprate of 10.35 miles of Transco's existing 24-inch-diameter North New Jersey Extension pipeline in Bergen County;
• Upgrades to the existing Orange and Rockland M&R, Emerson M&R, and Paramus M&R in Bergen County to accommodate additional capacity;
• Construction of approximately 0.61 mile of new 42-inch-diameter pipeline loop
• Modifications to the Central Manhattan M&R in Hudson County;
• Removal of the J199 Valve in Bergen County; and
• Installation of appurtenant ancillary facilities.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 58 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline. Following construction, Transco would maintain about 10 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. The majority of the project would be constructed within existing rights-of-way or within existing fenced facilities.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• Land use;
• Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• Cultural resources;
• Vegetation and wildlife;
• Air quality and noise;
• Endangered and threatened species;
• Public safety; and
• Cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an intervenor which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the Document-less Intervention Guide under the e-filing link on the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, interventions, and protests is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. This filing may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
q. Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described proceeding. If any agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before November 24, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before November 24, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission consolidated Class A and Class B accounts by eliminating the current classification of carriers, which divides incumbent LECS into two classes for accounting purposes based on annual revenues. Carriers subject to Part 32's USOA will now only be required to keep Class B accounts.
Pursuant to the
A price cap carrier may be required to submit pole attachment accounting data to the Commission for three years following the effective date of the rule permitting a price cap carrier to elect GAAP accounting. If a pole attacher informs the Commission of a suspected problem with pole attachment rates, the Commission will require the price cap carrier to file its pole attachment data for the state in question. This requirement may be extended for an additional three years, if necessary.
The Commission reduced the accounting requirements for telephone companies with a continuing obligation to comply with Part 32 in a number of areas. Telephone companies may: (1) Carry an asset at its purchase price when it was acquired, even if its value has increased or declined when it goes into regulated service; (2) reprice an asset at market value after a merger or acquisition consistent with GAAP; (3) use GAAP principles to determine Allowance-for-Funds-Used-During Construction; and (4) employ the GAAP standard of materiality. Rate-of-return carriers receiving cost-based support must determine materiality consistent with the general materiality guidelines promulgated by the Auditing Standards Board.
Price cap carriers with a continuing Part 32 accounting obligation must maintain continuing property records necessary to track substantial assets and investments in an accurate, auditable manner. The carriers must make such property information available to the Commission upon request. Carriers subject to Part 32 must continue to comply with the USOA's depreciation procedures and its rules for cost of removal-and-salvage accounting.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
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 November 20, 2017.
A.
1.
B.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Application for Employment with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FR 28; OMB No. 7100-0181). The revisions are applicable as of October 31, 2017.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Application is comprised of eight sections: Background, Education and Training, Employment Record, Military Service Record, References, General, Remarks, and Notes. The first six sections collect information on specific aspects of the applicant's qualifications. The Background section collects name, address, telephone, and citizenship information and the position for which the applicant is applying. The Education and Training section collects detailed information on the applicant's educational history and skills set. The Employment Record section collects a chronological summary of work experience. The Military Service Record section collects information on service branch, rank, duties, and discharge. The References section collects information on three references. The General section collects information on criminal records, discharge from employment, willingness to travel, and relations to or acquaintances with Board staff or officers and directors of financial institutions. The Remarks section provides the applicant an opportunity to provide further information regarding his or her qualifications. The Notes section explains what is required of the applicant prior to an interview and what may be required of the applicant if he or she is offered a position (for example, transcripts, medical examination, or drug test).
The FR 28s is comprised of four sections: (1) Name and gender, in which the applicant is asked to check the box that corresponds to gender or check “I do not wish to disclose”, (2) position for which the applicant is applying, (3) ethnicity self-identification, in which the applicant is asked to choose between Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino, or “I do not wish to disclose,” and (4) race self-identification, in which the applicant is asked to choose one or more among American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African-American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, White, or “I do not wish to disclose.” The Board uses this information to comply with federal equal employment opportunity (EEO) recordkeeping and reporting requirements, other legal requirements, and as an input to its self-analysis of hiring practices. Information collected on the FR 28s has no bearing on the determination of an applicant's job-related qualifications and completion of the self-identification form is voluntary.
The FR 28i is comprised of three sections in which research assistant candidates are asked to rate their level of interest in categories of economics and related research areas, experience with various software packages and statistical programming languages, and interest in pursuing educational opportunities after leaving the Board. The FR 28i helps to streamline the recruitment process.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of two draft guidances for industry entitled “In Vitro Metabolism- and Transporter-Mediated Drug-Drug Interaction Studies” (in vitro DDI guidance) and “Clinical Drug Interaction Studies—Study Design, Data Analysis, and Clinical Implications” (clinical DDI guidance). These two draft guidances will update and replace the revised draft guidance for industry entitled “Drug Interaction Studies—Study Design, Data Analysis, Implications for Dosing, and Labeling Recommendations” issued February 21, 2012 (2012 draft guidance). These draft guidances are intended to assist drug developers in the planning and evaluation of drug-drug interaction (DDI) potential during drug development. In particular, the in vitro DDI guidance focuses on in vitro experimental approaches for evaluating metabolizing enzyme- and transporter-based drug interaction potential and how to extrapolate in vitro data to decide on the need for clinical DDI studies. The clinical DDI guidance focuses on clinical studies that evaluate the potential for DDIs, which alter a drug's pharmacokinetics by modulating the effects of drug metabolizing enzymes and transporters, and advises sponsors on the timing and design of the clinical studies, interpretation of the results, and options for managing DDIs in patients. Together, these two draft guidances describe a systematic, risk-based approach to the assessment of DDIs.
Submit either electronic or written comments on these draft guidances by January 23, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on these two draft guidances before it begins work on the final versions of these guidances.
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 guidances 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
Lauren Brum, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 3188, Silver Spring, MD 20903-0002, 301-796-5008, or
FDA is announcing the availability of two draft guidances for industry entitled “In Vitro Metabolism- and Transporter-Mediated Drug-Drug Interaction Studies” and “Clinical Drug Interaction Studies—Study Design, Data Analysis, and Clinical Implications.” The concomitant use of more than one medication in a patient is common. Unanticipated, unrecognized, or mismanaged DDIs are an important cause of morbidity and mortality associated with prescription drug use and has occasionally been the basis for withdrawal of approved drugs from the market. In some instances, understanding how to safely manage a DDI can allow approval of a drug that would otherwise have an unacceptable
In the
The Agency decided to divide the 2012 draft guidance into two guidances with one focusing on in vitro DDI evaluation and the other focusing on clinical DDI evaluation. We are publishing the two draft guidances to collect additional public comments. These new draft guidances focus on metabolism- and transporter-based drug interactions. Other types of interactions,
These two draft guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). These draft guidances, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on “In Vitro Metabolism- and Transporter-Mediated Drug-Drug Interaction Studies” and “Clinical Drug Interaction Studies—Study Design, Data Analysis, and Clinical Implications.” 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. These guidances are not subject to Executive Order 12866.
These draft guidances refer to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 314.50(d) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Breakthrough Devices Program; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.” This guidance document describes policies that FDA intends to use to implement the new Breakthrough Devices Program, established by the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act). The Breakthrough Devices Program supersedes and combines elements from FDA's Expedited Access Pathway (EAP), which was intended to facilitate the development and expedite review of breakthrough technologies, as well as the Priority Review Program, which implemented statutory criteria for granting priority review to premarket approval applications (PMAs) and applied those criteria to other types of premarket submissions for medical devices. This draft guidance clarifies certain principles and features of the new program, the designation criteria for Breakthrough Devices, the designation request review process, the process for withdrawing from the program, as well as the recommended information device manufacturers should provide in their designation request for entrance into the program. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by December 26, 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)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Erin Cutts, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1625, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6307; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is issuing this draft guidance to describe policies that FDA intends to use to implement section 515B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360e-3, as created by section 3051 of the Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255) and section 901 of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-52) (the “Breakthrough Devices Program”). The Breakthrough Devices Program is a voluntary program for certain medical devices that provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions. This program is intended to help patients have more timely access to these medical devices by expediting their development, assessment, and review, while preserving the statutory standards for premarket approval, clearance of a premarket notification (510(k)), and marketing authorization via the De Novo classification process, consistent with the Agency's statutory mission to protect and promote public health. No later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Cures Act, FDA is required to issue this draft guidance, which sets forth the process by which a person may seek a Breakthrough Device designation, provides a template for designation requests, identifies the criteria that FDA will use in evaluating designation requests, and identifies the criteria and processes FDA will use to assign and train a team of staff to review breakthrough devices after designation has been granted. See section 515B(f) of the FD&C Act.
As part of the Breakthrough Devices Program, FDA intends to provide interactive and timely communication with the sponsor during development and throughout the review process for devices designated as Breakthrough Devices under section 515B(d)(1) of the FD&C Act and grant priority to the review of associated Q-submissions, investigational device exemption (IDE) applications, PMAs, De Novo classification requests, and premarket notifications (510(k)s). In addition, for Breakthrough Devices subject to PMA, FDA may consider the amount of data that may be collected in the postmarket setting, rather than premarket, and the level of acceptable uncertainty in the benefit-risk profile at the time of approval. Getting the right balance between premarket and postmarket data collection—specifically, where appropriate, a greater reliance on postmarket collection—can reduce the extent of premarket data submission. Collectively, these and the other principles of the program described in this draft guidance are intended to support a least-burdensome approach for expediting patient access to Breakthrough Devices.
The Breakthrough Devices Program supersedes the EAP, which launched in 2015. The Breakthrough Devices Program contains features of the EAP as well as the Innovation Pathway (first piloted in 2011), both of which were intended to facilitate the development
The Breakthrough Devices Program also supersedes the Priority Review Program, which implemented statutory criteria for granting priority review to PMA submissions for medical devices, applied those criteria to other types of premarket submissions for medical devices, and included standard procedures to achieve an efficient priority review process.
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 “Breakthrough Devices Program; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.” 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.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information for De Novo classification requests have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0332; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 822 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0449; and the collections of information regarding “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device.” FDA is issuing this final guidance document to clarify when a change in a legally marketed medical device would require that a manufacturer submit a premarket notification (510(k)) to FDA. This guidance document supersedes “Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device,” issued January 10, 1997. FDA is correcting an error in the docket number assigned to the “Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device” notice of availability when it published in the
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a 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)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Rebecca Nipper, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1540, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6527; and Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
A 510(k) is required when a legally marketed device subject to 510(k) requirements is about to be significantly changed or modified in design, components, method of manufacture, or intended use. Significant changes or modifications are those that could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, or major changes or modifications in the intended use of the device (§ 807.81(a)(3) (21 CFR 807.81(a)(3)). This guidance will aid manufacturers of medical devices who intend to modify a 510(k)-cleared device or other device subject to 510(k) requirements, such as a preamendments device or a device that was granted marketing authorization via the De Novo classification process under section 513(f)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)) (also referred to together as “existing devices”), during the process of deciding whether the modification exceeds the regulatory threshold of § 807.81(a)(3) for submission and clearance of a new 510(k).
This guidance supersedes the original “Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device,” issued on January 10, 1997. That guidance provided the Agency's interpretation of whether the modification exceeds the regulatory threshold of § 807.81(a)(3), with principles and points for manufacturers to consider in analyzing how changes in devices may affect safety or effectiveness and determining whether a new 510(k) must be submitted for a particular type of change. This final guidance preserves the basic format and content of the original, with updates to add clarity. The added clarity is intended to increase consistent interpretations of the guidance by FDA staff and manufacturers.
This guidance is not intended to implement significant policy changes to FDA's current thinking on when submission of a new 510(k) is required for a change to an existing device. Rather, the intent of this guidance is to enhance the predictability, consistency, and transparency of the “when to submit” decision-making process by providing a least burdensome approach, and describing in greater detail the regulatory framework, policies, and practices underlying such a decision. The recommendations discussed in this guidance for evaluating when a change to an existing device would trigger the requirement that a manufacturer submit a new 510(k) to the Agency are consistent with least burdensome principles (Refs. 1 and 2). The least burdensome provision concerning 510(k)s states that FDA “shall only request information that is necessary . . .” and “shall consider the least burdensome means of demonstrating substantial equivalence . . .” (see section 513(i)(1)(D)(i) of the FD&C Act). While not changing the standard for substantial equivalence, this provision states that FDA shall only request the “minimum required information” necessary to support a determination of substantial equivalence (see sections 513(i)(1)(D)(ii)-(iii) of the FD&C Act).
Elsewhere in this issue of the
FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance that appeared in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device.” 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
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E are approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 803 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0437; and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability; request for comments; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the availability of the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act (AGDUFA) reauthorization draft recommendations and extending the comment period to allow interested persons 30 days to submit comments on these draft recommendations.
FDA is extending the comment period on the AGDUFA reauthorization and draft recommendations. Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft recommendations by November 24, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before November 24, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The
Cassie Ravo, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-10), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6866,
FDA is announcing the availability of the proposed recommendations for the reauthorization of AGDUFA, which authorizes FDA to collect user fees and use them for the process of reviewing generic new animal drug applications and associated submissions. The authority for AGDUFA expires September 30, 2018. Without new legislation, FDA will no longer have the authority to collect user fees to fund the generic new animal drug review process for future fiscal years. Section 742(d)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379j-22(d)(4)) requires that, after holding negotiations with regulated industry and periodic consultations with stakeholders, and before transmitting the Agency's final recommendation to Congress for the reauthorized program (AGDUFA III), we do the following: (1) Present the recommendations to the relevant Congressional committees, (2) publish such recommendations in the
We are proposing the following changes to the performance commitments previously established to further enhance the process for review of generic new animal drug applications.
Beginning October 1, 2018, all applications and submissions under section 512(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(b)) must be submitted to the Agency electronically using the eSubmitter tool.
The Agency will review and act on 90 percent of original abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs) within 240 days (180-day review plus 60-day administrative review) after the submission date. An application is incomplete if it would require additional data or information to enable the Agency to complete a comprehensive review of the application and reach a decision on the issue(s) presented in the application. If the Agency determines that the deficiencies are not substantial, the Agency will review and act on 90 percent of reactivated applications within 120 days (60-day review plus 60-day administrative review) after the reactivated ANADA submission date. This shorter review time for reactivated ANADAs for which the deficiencies are determined not to be substantial is not intended to prevent the use of minor amendments during Agency review of an application. If the Agency determines that the deficiencies are substantial or new substantial information is provided, the Agency will review and act on 90 percent of reactivated applications within 240 days (180-day review plus 60-day administrative review) after the reactivated ANADA submission date.
The Agency will review and act on 90 percent of administrative ANADAs (ANADAs submitted after all scientific decisions have been made in the generic investigational new animal drug (JINAD) process,
The Agency will review and act on 90 percent of Prior Approval manufacturing supplemental ANADAs within 180 days after the submission date. A Prior Approval manufacturing supplemental ANADA includes: One or more major manufacturing changes according to § 514.8(b)(2)(ii) (21 CFR 514.8(b)(2)(ii)) and in accordance with Guidance for Industry #83, “Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Changes to an Approved NADA or ANADA”; and changes submitted as “Supplement-Changes Being Effected in 30 Days” that require prior approval according to § 514.8(b)(3)(v)(A). If a Prior Approval supplement does not clearly identify any major manufacturing changes, the Prior Approval supplement will be designated by the Agency as a “Supplement—Changes Being Effected” with a 270-day review goal (see “Supplement—Changes Being Effected Manufacturing Supplemental ANADAs and Reactivations” below).
A submission is incomplete if it requires additional data or information to enable the Agency to complete a comprehensive review of the submission and reach a decision on the issue(s) presented in the submission. If the Agency determines that the deficiencies are not substantial for manufacturing supplements requiring prior approval, the Agency will allow the manufacturing supplements to be resubmitted as “Supplement-Changes Being Effected in 30 Days” as described
The Agency will review and act on 90 percent of “Supplement-Changes Being Effected” manufacturing supplemental ANADAs and reactivations submitted according to § 514.8(b)(3)(vi) and in accordance with Guidance for Industry #83, “Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Changes to an Approved NADA or ANADA,” including manufacturing changes not requiring prior approval according to § 514.8(b)(3)(iv), within 270 days after the submission date.
The Agency will review and act on 90 percent of JINAD study submissions within 180 days after the submission date.
A submission is incomplete if it would require additional data or information to enable the Agency to complete a comprehensive review of the study submission and reach a decision on the issue(s) presented in the submission. If the Agency determines that the deficiencies are not substantial, the Agency will review and act on 90 percent of resubmitted JINAD study submissions within 60 days after the receipt date of a complete study submission. This shorter review time for resubmitted JINAD study submissions is not intended to prevent the use of minor amendments during Agency review of a study submission. If the Agency determines that the deficiencies are substantial or new substantial information is provided, the Agency will review and act on 90 percent of resubmitted JINAD study submissions within 180 days after the receipt date of a complete study submission.
The Agency will review and act on 90 percent of JINAD submissions consisting of protocols without substantial data, that the Agency and the sponsor consider to be an essential part of the basis for making the decision to approve or not approve an ANADA or supplemental ANADA, within 75 days after the submission date.
The Agency will allow comparability protocols as described in § 514.8(b)(2)(v) to be submitted as protocols without substantial data in a JINAD file. The Agency will review and act on 90 percent of JINAD submissions consisting of protocols without substantial data within 75 days after the submission date of the protocol. For potentially more complex comparability protocols, for example sterile process validation protocols, the sponsor should discuss and have Agency concurrence regarding the appropriate filing strategy.
The Agency will continue to allow two-phased Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls technical section submissions under the JINAD process.
The Agency and regulated industry are committed to improving the review and business processes that will facilitate the timely scheduling and conducting of pre-approval inspections (PAIs). To improve the timeliness and predictability of foreign PAIs, sponsors may voluntarily submit: (1) At the beginning of the calendar year, a list of foreign manufacturing facilities that are specified in an abbreviated application, supplemental abbreviated application, or generic investigational file and may be subject to foreign PAIs for the following fiscal year; and (2) a notification 30 days prior to submitting an abbreviated application, a supplemental abbreviated application, or generic investigational file that informs the Agency that the application includes a foreign manufacturing facility. Should any changes to the annual list occur after its submission to the Agency, the sponsor may provide the updated information to the Agency.
The Agency will keep a record of the number of foreign PAIs conducted for abbreviated applications, along with the average time for completing the PAIs, and include this information in its annual performance report. The time for completing the PAI is understood to mean the time from the inspection scheduling request through notification to the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) of inspectional findings.
The Agency and regulated industry agree that the use of both formal meetings (
The Agency and regulated industry agree to change the current fixed 4 percent inflation adjuster to a variable inflation adjuster calculated using payroll cost and benefits and the Consumer Price Index less food and energy.
The workload adjustment will continue to be calculated per CVM Program Policy and Procedures Manual 1243.3022, except that, for purposes of calculating the workload adjustment, it is agreed to reset the base years to fiscal year (FY) 2014 through FY 2018. There will be no workload adjustment for FY 2019. Workload adjustments are one-time adjustments and are calculated annually.
The proposal adds financial flexibility by eliminating the final year offset of the over collections provision and making any excess collections available to enhance the review process in real time. In addition, the proposal provides authority for the Secretary of Health and Human Services when setting fees to reduce a calculated workload adjustment up to the amount of excess collections in the second preceding fiscal year. The first fiscal year this provision could be applied while setting fees is fiscal year 2021.
The FY 2019 baseline for AGDUFA III is $18,336,340. For each year from FY 2020 through FY 2023, the annual statutory revenue amounts established in section 741(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(b)) will be further adjusted according to the new statutory provision for the inflation adjuster and may be further adjusted by the workload adjuster, if applicable.
The planned total 5-year revenue for AGDUFA I was $27,100,000. The planned total 5-year revenue for AGDUFA II was $38,100,000, which also included one-time information technology funding in the amount of $850,000 for FY 2014. It is estimated that the planned total 5-year revenue for AGDUFA III will be $95,000,000.
The fee revenue distribution in AGDUFA III will remain the same as AGDUFA II: 25 percent in application fees; 37.5 percent in product fees; and 37.5 percent in sponsor fees.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that OVRETTE (norgestrel) tablet, 0.075 milligrams (mg), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for norgestrel tablet, 0.075 mg, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.
Daniel Gottlieb, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6217, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6650.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to FDA's approval of an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
OVRETTE (norgestrel) tablet, 0.075 mg, is the subject of NDA 017031, held by HRA Pharma and initially approved on October 23, 1973. OVRETTE is indicated for the prevention of pregnancy in women.
OVRETTE (norgestrel) tablet, 0.075 mg, was discontinued from U.S. distribution on June 7, 2005, and is currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
The Weinberg Group submitted a citizen petition dated February 8, 2017 (Docket No. FDA-2017-P-0840), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether OVRETTE (norgestrel) tablet, 0.075 mg, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that OVRETTE (norgestrel) tablet, 0.075 mg, was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that OVRETTE (norgestrel) tablet, 0.075 mg, was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of OVRETTE (norgestrel) tablet, 0.075 mg, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that this drug product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list OVRETTE (norgestrel) tablet, 0.075 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to this drug product may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability; request for comments; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the availability of the Animal Drug User Fee Act (ADUFA) reauthorization draft recommendations and extending the comment period to allow interested persons 30 days to submit comments on these draft recommendations.
FDA is extending the comment period on the ADUFA reauthorization and draft recommendations. Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft recommendations by November 24, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before November 24, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Cassie Ravo, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-10), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6866,
FDA is announcing the availability of the proposed recommendations for the reauthorization of ADUFA, which authorizes FDA to collect user fees and use them for the process of reviewing new animal drug applications and associated submissions. The authority for ADUFA expires September 30, 2018. Without new legislation, FDA will no longer have the authority to collect user fees to fund the new animal drug review process for future fiscal years. Section 740A(d)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379j-13(d)(4)) requires that, after holding negotiations with regulated industry and periodic consultations with stakeholders, and before transmitting the Agency's final recommendation to Congress for the reauthorized program (ADUFA IV), we do the following: (1) Present the recommendation to the relevant Congressional committees, (2) publish such recommendations in the
We are proposing the following changes to the performance commitments previously established to further enhance the process for review of new animal drug applications (NADAs).
Beginning October 1, 2018, all applications and submissions under section 512(b) and 571 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(b) and 21 U.S.C. 360ccc, respectively) must be submitted to the Agency electronically using the eSubmitter tool.
The Agency will review and act on 90 percent of “Supplement-Changes Being Effected” manufacturing supplemental NADAs and reactivations submitted according to § 514.8(b)(3)(vi) (21 CFR 514.8(b)(3)(vi)) and in accordance with Guidance for Industry #83, “Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Changes to an Approved NADA or ANADA” including manufacturing changes not requiring prior approval according to § 514.8(b)(3)(iv), within 180 days after the submission date. All other application and submission performance goals will remain the same as ADUFA III.
The Agency commits to working on implementation of the United States-European Union Good Manufacturing
The Agency will review and act on 90 percent of qualifying Animal Drug Availability Act (ADAA) combination medicated feed applications within 60 days after the submission date when all of the following conditions are met:
• Basic regulatory requirements for an ADAA combination medicated feed application has been met as outlined in 21 CFR 514.4(c)(2)(ii).
• A presubmission conference has been conducted and either:
○ No data (no tissue residue non-interference study is required) are needed and this agreement is documented in the memorandum of conference for the presubmission conference; or
○ A justification for not conducting a tissue residue non-interference study has been submitted, reviewed, and found acceptable under an investigational new animal drug (INAD), prior to the submission of the ADAA combination medicated feed application; or
○ A tissue residue non-interference study has been submitted, reviewed, and found acceptable under an INAD, prior to the submission of the ADAA combination medicated feed application.
• No effectiveness or target animal safety data are required.
• No manufacturing data requirements—sponsor can address in meeting assay non-interference, but data submission is not required.
• All other information is referenced to previous drug experience reports.
• Sponsor makes submission and it includes: Representative (Blue Bird) labeling, Veterinary Feed Directive (if applicable).
• Includes a request for categorical exclusion from the need to prepare an environmental assessment (EA);
• Reference to presubmission conference.
• Right of reference (if applicable) to NADA(s) not owned by the filing sponsor of the ADAA combination medicated feed application has been received by the Agency.
The Agency will review and act on 90 percent of ADAA combination medicated feed applications within 100 days for those applications accepted for the 60-day timeframe and there is a need for minor amendments.
If any of the above conditions cannot be met, the ADAA combination medicated feed application performance metric will be placed in the original NADA application cohort with a 180-day review timeframe.
The Agency will review and act on 90 percent of resubmissions of previously completed Environmental Impact technical sections within 60 days after the submission date where:
• A categorical exclusion was issued;
• All other technical sections have been submitted; and
• Information contained in the other technical sections reveals a change in the conditions of use of the previously issued categorical exclusion.
The Agency will conduct 90 percent of qualifying presubmission conferences within a 60-day timeframe when all of the following conditions are met:
• All background materials, including presentations, have been submitted, and
• A complete agenda has been agreed upon by the Agency and the sponsor.
A sponsor and the Agency can mutually agree to exclude a particular presubmission conference from this performance goal. If a sponsor accepts a date beyond the 60-day timeframe for their scheduling purposes or is unable to meet with the Agency on Agency available dates, the submission will be excluded from the presubmission conference cohort.
The Agency will commence 90 percent of tissue residue method demonstrations within 120 days of completion of the 3-hour meeting process or within 200 days from the receipt of a submission that supports a single laboratory validation tissue residue method demonstration.
The inflation adjuster will remain the same as for ADUFA III.
The workload adjustment will continue to be calculated per Center for Veterinary Medicine Program Policy and Procedures Manual 1243.3022, except that, for purposes of calculating the workload adjustment, it has been agreed to reset the base years to fiscal year (FY) 2014 through FY 2018. There will be no workload adjustment for FY 2019. Workload adjustments are one-time adjustments and are calculated annually.
The proposal adds financial flexibility by eliminating the final year offset of over collections provision and making any excess collections available to enhance the review process in real time. The proposal provides authority for the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) when setting fees to reduce a calculated workload adjustment up to the amount of excess collections in the second preceding fiscal year. The first fiscal year this provision could be applied while setting fees is FY 2021. Likewise, the proposal also provides authority to the Secretary to reduce an increase in fees to recover a shortfall in collections in a preceding year (after 2018) by any remaining prior year excess collections not already applied for purposes of reducing fee increases.
The FY 2019 baseline for ADUFA IV is $30,331,240, which includes a $400,000 one-time cost for information technology enhancement. For each year from FY 2020 through FY 2023, the annual statutory revenue amounts established in section 741(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(b)) will be further adjusted by the inflation adjuster, the workload adjuster, if applicable, and will include $900,000 per year for tissue method trials.
The total 5-year revenue planned for ADUFA I was $47,000,000. The total 5-year revenue planned for ADUFA II was $98,000,000. The total 5-year revenue planned for ADUFA III was $114,000,000. It is estimated that the total 5-year revenue for ADUFA IV will be $150,000,000.
The fee revenue distribution in ADUFA IV will remain the same as ADUFA III: 20 percent from application fees; 27 percent from product fees; 26 percent from establishment fees; and 27 percent from sponsor fees.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Software Change
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a 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)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Linda Ricci, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G634, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6325,
A 510(k) is required when a legally marketed device subject to 510(k) requirements is about to be significantly changed or modified in design, components, method of manufacture, or intended use. Significant changes or modifications are those that could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, or major changes or modifications in the intended use of the device (§ 807.81(a)(3) (21 CFR 807.81(a)(3)). This guidance will aid manufacturers of medical devices who intend to make a software modification to a 510(k)-cleared device or other device subject to 510(k) requirements, such as a preamendments device or a device that was granted marketing authorization via the De Novo classification process under section 513(f)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)) (also referred to together as “existing devices”), during the process of deciding whether the software modification exceeds the regulatory threshold of § 807.81(a)(3) for submission and clearance of a new 510(k).
This guidance specifically addresses software design and technology modifications, including firmware. This guidance does not apply to software for which the Agency has stated in guidance that it does not intend to enforce compliance with applicable regulatory controls (
In the
This guidance is not intended to implement significant policy changes to FDA's current thinking on when submission of a new 510(k) is required for a software change to an existing device. Rather, the intent of this guidance is to enhance the predictability, consistency, and transparency of the “when to submit” decision-making process by providing a least burdensome approach, and describing in greater detail the regulatory framework, policies, and practices underlying such a decision, specifically as it relates to software changes. The recommendations discussed in this guidance for evaluating when a software change to an existing device would trigger the requirement that a manufacturer submit a new 510(k) to the Agency are consistent with the least burdensome principles (Refs. 1 and 2). This guidance applies the least burdensome principles, in part, by reliance on risk management and the quality system regulation (21 CFR part 820) to determine whether submission of a new 510(k) is required for a software change to an existing device.
Elsewhere in this issue of the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Software Change to an Existing Device.” 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.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E are approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 803 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0437; and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see
Section 30.18 of the Department of Health and Human Services' claims collection regulations (45 CFR part 30) provides that the Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest, which is determined and fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury after considering private consumer rates of interest on the date that the Department of Health and Human Services becomes entitled to recovery. The rate cannot be lower than the Department of Treasury's current value of funds rate or the applicable rate determined from the “Schedule of Certified Interest Rates with Range of Maturities” unless the Secretary waives interest in whole or part, or a different rate is prescribed by statute, contract, or repayment agreement. The Secretary of the Treasury may revise this rate quarterly. The Department of Health and Human Services publishes this rate in the
The current rate of 9
Part A, Office of the Secretary, Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is being amended at Part A, Chapter AJ, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA), which was last amended at 77 FR 2729, dated January 19, 2012, and most recently at 77 FR 71004, dated November 28, 2012. Part A, Chapter AB, Section AB.20 a paragraph on Office of Security and Strategic Information (ABE), is being inserted. Part P, Program Support Center (PSC), Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority, which was last amended at 75 FR 369-370, dated January 5, 2010, is not being amended. This notice transfers the onboarding/suitability and physical security functions of the Office for Security and Strategic Information (OSSI) to PSC. This transfer of functions complements the existing PSC component's facilities management functions, parking garage entrance, safety-related programs, and other administrative functions. This notice also updates information regarding OSSI's direct report to the Deputy Secretary, organizational structure, as well as the new roles and responsibilities for the Assistant Deputy Secretary for National Security and Secretary's Senior Intelligence Official and for OSSI.
A. Part P, Program Support Center, the statement of organization, functions, and delegations of Authority therein need not be changed as the transferred functions are within the scope of the functions of PSC as described.
B. Under Chapter AJ, Section AJ.20, Functions, delete the last paragraph, which begins with “Office of Security and Strategic Information (AJS),” in its entirety.
C. Under Chapter AB, Section AB.20, Functions, insert the following new paragraph at the end of the section with the following:
The Office of Security and Strategic Information is headed by the Assistant Deputy Secretary for National Security, who reports directly to the Deputy Secretary and also serves as the Secretary's Senior Intelligence Official on intelligence and counterintelligence issues. The Assistant Deputy Secretary for National Security has been delegated original classification authority by the Secretary. The Assistant Deputy Secretary for National Security manages the Office of Security and Strategic Information (OSSI). OSSI's vision is for HHS personnel to successfully accomplish missions worldwide in a security-informed manner and with the actionable intelligence needed, at the right time, for operational and policy decisions. OSSI's responsibilities include: Integrating intelligence and security information into HHS policy and operational decisions; assessing, anticipating, and warning of potential security threats to the Department and our national security; and, providing policy guidance on and managing the OS implementation of the Department's security, intelligence and counterintelligence programs. OSSI's programs include national security adjudication, classified national security information management, secure compartmented information facilities management, communications security, safeguarding and sharing of classified information, cyber threat intelligence, and counterintelligence. In coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, OSSI has been designated as a Federal Intelligence Coordinating Office and the Assistant Deputy Secretary for National Security serves as the HHS Federal Senior Intelligence Coordinator. OSSI has responsibilities to establish implementing guidance, provide oversight, and manage the Department's policy for the sharing, safeguarding, and coordinated exchange of information related to national or homeland security with other federal departments and agencies, including law enforcement organizations and the Intelligence Community, in compliance with HHS policies and applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders.
E. Delegation of Authority. Pending further redelegation, directives or orders made by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary, all delegations and redelegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further redelegations, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.
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 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.
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.
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.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, institutes of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, are contemplating the grant of an Exclusive Patent License to practice the inventions embodied in the U.S. Patents and Patent Applications listed in the
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the National Cancer Institute's Technology Transfer Center on or before November 9, 2017 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, and comments relating to the contemplated Exclusive Patent License should be
United States Provisional Patent Application No. 62/462,256 filed February 22, 2017 “Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Multi-parametric MRI”
The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to the use of Licensed Patent Rights for the following: “Class II or III computer-assisted diagnostics systems for use with Magnetic Resonance Imaging, of the anatomy of the prostate.”
The subject technology is an automated computer assisted diagnostic system for processing and visualizing prostate lesions on MRI. The system uses specialized algorithms (an ensemble of multiple random decision trees, Random Forest) that is trained against: (1) Hand drawn contours, (2) recorded biopsy results, and (3) normal cases from randomly sampled patient images weighted for lesion size. The system produces a probability map of potential cancerous lesions in multiparametric MRI.
This notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing, and the prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the National Cancer Institute receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
Complete applications for a license in the prospective field of use that are filed in response to this notice within the 15 days of this notice, will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated Exclusive Patent License Agreement. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial
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.
National Institutes of Health.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S.
Licensing information and copies of the patent applications listed below may be obtained by emailing the indicated licensing contact at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood, Office of Technology Transfer and Development Office of Technology Transfer, 31 Center Drive Room 4A29, MSC2479, Bethesda, MD 20892-2479; telephone: 301-402-5579. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
This notice is in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve 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 follows.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of 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.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing 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.
Dr. Amy Petrik, 240-627-3721;
Technology description follows.
Using a combination of recombinant proteins and sophisticated flow cytometry, scientists at NIAID isolated families of antibodies capable of
This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, as well as for further development and evaluation under a research collaboration.
NIAID is continuing development of these neutralizing antibodies to influenza toward a clinical product for treatment and/or prevention of influenza virus infection. Consequently, for some fields of use, NIAID will evaluate a license applicant's capabilities and experience in advancing similar technologies through the regulatory process.
• Prevention of influenza A virus infection
• Therapeutic intervention to treat influenza infection
• Ability to potently neutralize both group 1 and group 2 influenza A strains
• Proof of concept in animal models
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0057, Small Passenger Vessels—Title 46 Subchapters K and T. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before November 24, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0124] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0124], and must be received by November 24, 2017.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 36812, August 7, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee and its Subcommittees will hold meetings in Houston, Texas to discuss the safety of operations and other matters affecting the offshore oil and gas industry. These meetings are open to the public.
The meetings will be held on Tuesday, December 12, 2017 and on Wednesday, December 13, 2017. The Safety Management Systems on Vessels Engaging in Well Intervention Activities Subcommittee of the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, December 12, 2017 from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. (All times are Central Time). Following this meeting the Regulatory Review Subcommittee will meet from 11:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The full Committee will meet on Wednesday, December 13, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. These meetings may end early if the Committee has completed its business, or the meetings may be extended based on the number of public comments.
The meetings will be held at the United States Coast Guard Sector Houston-Galveston, 13411 Hillard Street, Houston, Texas 77034.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the individuals listed in the
A public oral comment period will be held during the meeting on December 13, 2017, and speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Contact one of the individuals listed below to register as a speaker.
Commander Jose Perez, Designated Federal Officer of the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee, Commandant (CG-OES-2), U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509; telephone (202) 372-1410, fax (202) 372-8382 or email
Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at
The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee's Subcommittee on “Safety Management Systems on Vessels Engaging in Well Intervention Activities” will meet on December 12, 2017 from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. to review, discuss, and formulate recommendations.
The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee's Subcommittee on Regulatory Review will meet from 11:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to review, discuss and formulate recommendations.
The National Offshore Safety Advisory full Committee will hold a public meeting on December 13, 2017 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (Central Time) to review and discuss the progress of, and any reports and recommendations received from the above listed Subcommittees from their deliberations on December 12, 2017. The Committee will then use this information and consider public comments in formulating recommendations to the United States Coast Guard. Public comments or questions will be taken at the discretion of the Designated Federal Officer during the discussion and recommendation portions of the meeting and during the public comment period, see Agenda item (9).
A complete agenda for December 13, 2017 full Committee meeting is as follows:
(1) Welcoming remarks.
(2) General Administration and accept minutes from July 2017 National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee public teleconference.
(3) Installation of new members.
(4) Installation of new Committee Chair.
(5) Current Business—Presentation and discussion of progress from the Subcommittee on Safety Management Systems on Vessels Engaging in Well Intervention Activities.
(6) Presentation and discussion of progress from the Regulatory Review Subcommittee.
(7) New Business—Outer Continental Shelf Industry Focus Forum.
(a) Eighth Coast Guard District Officer In Charge Marine Inspection Operational Update.
(b) Outer Continental Shelf National Center of Expertise Update.
(c) Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Gulf Region Update.
(d) Industry Regulatory Discussion
(8) Presentations on the following matters:
(a) U.S. Coast Guard Regulatory Status Update;
(b) U.S. Coast Guard Cyber Security Initiatives update;
(c) Maritime Administration Update.
(d) Update from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement—Headquarters;
(9) Public comment period.
Meeting minutes from this public meeting will be available for public view and copying within 90 days following the close of the meeting at the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0062, Approval of Alterations to Marine Portable Tanks; Approval of Non-Specification Portable Tanks. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before November 24, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0114] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0114], and must be received by November 24, 2017.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 36810, August 7, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0078, Credentialing and Manning Requirements for Officers on Towing Vessels. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before November 24, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0219] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0219], and must be received by November 24, 2017.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 37461, August 10, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a 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 Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of March 6, 2018 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
I. Non-watershed-based studies:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, 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.
This new or modified 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, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Florida (FEMA-3395-EM), dated October 8, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued October 8, 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 October 8, 2017, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of Florida resulting from Hurricane Nate beginning on October 7, 2017, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Willie G. Nunn, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of Florida have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties 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.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a 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 Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of December 21, 2017 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
I. Watershed-based studies:
II. Non-watershed-based studies:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a 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 Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of January 19, 2018 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
I. Watershed-based studies:
Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Office.
Notice of New Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled “DHS/FEMA-014 Hazard Mitigation Planning and Flood Mapping Products and Services Records System of Records.” This system of records notice replaces the current DHS system of records titled, “Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), DHS/FEMA/NFIP/LOMA-1” system of records, 71 FR 7990 (Feb. 15, 2006). This new system of records notice describes FEMA's collection and maintenance of records on individuals who are involved in the creation and updating of flood maps, individuals requesting information on or purchasing flood map products or services, and individuals involved with hazard mitigation planning. This newly established system will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's inventory of record systems.
Submit comments on or before November 24, 2017. This new system will be effective upon publication. New or modified routine uses are effective November 24, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0029 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: William Holzerland, (202) 212-7719, Senior Director for Information Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. For privacy questions, please contact: Philip S. Kaplan, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled “DHS/FEMA-014 Hazard Mitigation Planning and Flood Mapping Products and Services Records System of Records.” This replaces an existing DHS/FEMA system of records, titled “Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), DHS/FEMA/NFIP/LOMA-1” system of records, 71 FR 7990 (Feb. 15, 2006). FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Hazard Mitigation Planning Programs. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, provides the legal basis for FEMA and other government agencies to undertake a risk-based approach to reducing losses from natural hazards through mitigation planning. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration's (FIMA) Mitigation Planning Program oversees and provides guidance to state, tribal, and local governments that are required to develop a FEMA-approved, risk-based hazard mitigation plan. This plan is a precondition for receiving non-emergency disaster assistance from the Federal Government, including funding for flood hazard mitigation projects. FEMA tracks the implementation of state, tribal, and local government hazard mitigation plans to help communities across the Nation identify new mitigation strategies, improve planned mitigation actions, and advance planned actions.
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (NFIA) (42 U.S.C. 4001
The NFIA requires insurance companies that write flood insurance policies on behalf of the NFIP to use FEMA flood maps to determine insurance rates. These flood maps consist of zones or areas. Flood hazard areas identified on FEMA flood maps are identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHA are defined as the area that will be inundated by a flood event having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The 1-percent-annual-chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood. SFHAs are labeled as Zone A, Zone AO, Zone AH, Zones A1-A30, Zone AE, Zone A99, Zone AR, Zone AR/AE, Zone AR/AO, Zone AR/A1-A30, Zone AR/A, Zone V, Zone VE, and Zones V1-V30. Moderate flood hazard areas, labeled Zone B or Zone X (shaded) are also shown on the maps, and are the areas between the limits of the base flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood. The areas of minimal flood hazard, which are the areas outside the SFHA and higher than the elevation of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood, are labeled Zone C or Zone X (unshaded). Members of the public view and review these FEMA maps and related products online free of charge to understand a property's flood risk. In addition, community officials must use these maps to manage development in flood-prone areas. FEMA performs the following tasks in support of flood map productions: (1) Tracks requests for FIRM updates from community officials; (2) schedules and tracks progress and quality of floodplain studies; (3) conducts community outreach and coordinates with communities and the public on the floodplain study process; (4) collects information from communities and other organizations such as levee owners; (5) provides public review of the proposed flood hazard data resulting from the studies; (6) adjudicates administrative appeals to the studies; and (7) coordinates and tracks the request and processing of flood map revisions and updates.
The administrative appeals process referenced above satisfies due process obligations owed to affected communities and property holders. This requirement includes making available to the public the relevant data documenting the scientific and technical basis of the maps and documenting the community and public coordination processes associated with the development and publication of the maps. The NFIA also requires communities to adopt these maps as the basis for their land use regulations.
FEMA flood maps are subject to revision through the Letters of Map Change (LOMC) administrative process. Letters of Map Changes are documents issued by FEMA to revise or amend the flood hazard information shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Letters of Map Changes include two types of map changes: Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). A LOMA is a flood map change based only on the
Adequate Progress (Zone A99) determinations, regulated through 44 CFR part 61.12, provide for lower flood insurance premium rates in areas where FEMA determines that a community has made adequate progress on its construction or reconstruction of a project designed for flood risk reduction. These areas, landward of the flood protection system, are designated as Zone A99 on the FIRM and flood insurance premium rates and floodplain management requirements are generally less than those required in other SFHAs (
FEMA accepts, reviews, and tracks applications from levee owners and communities seeking Zone AR designations, Zone A99 designations, and recognition of accredited levee systems on FIRMs. To support a mapping project, levee owners and communities have the responsibility to provide documentation that either a levee system meets the requirements of 44 CFR part 65.10 to have the levee system shown as accredited (
FEMA collects information about individuals using various forms (paper and electronic), information technology (IT), and call centers to assist states with mitigation planning, as well as to ensure FIRMs are accurate and up to date. Specifically, FEMA collects and uses personally identifiable information (PII) within this system of records to: (1) Help the public locate maps for a geographic area of interest; (2) provide responses to the flood mapping products and services customers; (3) track mitigation plan applications and that plan's status with respect to the plan review cycle; (4) process online payments for LOMCs; (5) deliver products to community officials as new final mapping products become available; (6) create IT access accounts and profiles; (7) identify the property relevant to a LOMC request; (8) determine whether a structure is in the floodplain; (9) facilitate customer service surveys/focus groups; and (10) facilitate contact or correspondence between FEMA and other mitigation planning and flood mapping products and services stakeholders.
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/FEMA-014 Hazard Mitigation Planning and Flood Mapping Products and Services System of Records may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS/FEMA may share information with appropriate Federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
This newly established system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, and similarly, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides a covered person with a statutory right to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.
Below is the description of the DHS/FEMA-014 Hazard Mitigation Planning and Flood Mapping Products and Services Records System of Records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
DHS/FEMA-014 Hazard Mitigation Planning and Flood Mapping Products and Services Records System of Records.
Unclassified.
Records are maintained at the FEMA Headquarters in Washington, DC and field offices. Additionally, records may be located in the Mapping Information Platform (MIP) system, Map Service Center, LOMA-Logic, and collaboration sites.
Third Party addresses:
DHS Data Center 2 (Operated by HP): Clarksville, VA
Alleghany Ballistics Laboratory Data Center (Operated by IBM): Rocket Center, WV
Primary Local Operations Site (Operated by IBM) Fairfax, VA
Secondary Local Operations Site (Operated by Michael Baker International) Alexandria, VA
DHS Data Center 1: Stennis, MS
Alleghany Ballistics Laboratory (Operated by IBM): Rocket Center, WV
Iron Mountain Secure Offsite Storage: Various—Specific U.S. location(s) in use not disclosed
Program Management, Risk Management Program, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. sec, 4001
The purpose of this system is to help the public locate flood insurance risk maps for a geographic area of interest; provide responses to the customers contacting FEMA's call centers or helpdesk via telephone or online chat; track mitigation plan applications and the plan's status with respect to the plan review cycle; process online payments for LOMCs; deliver products to
Members of the general public, including: Property owners, developers, investors, and their representatives; realtors; certifiers, including but not limited to Registered Professional Engineers and Licensed Land Surveyors; state or local government officials with authority over a community's floodplain management activities, which includes Mapping Review Partners (MRP); potential or confirmed respondents to customer service surveys/focus groups; and FEMA staff and stakeholders registered to use FEMA's information technology systems and collaboration sites.
• Full name;
• Position or title;
• Addresses (mailing and property);
• Email addresses;
• Company or community name;
• Organization or agency name;
• Six-digit NFIP community number;
• Telephone number;
• Fax number;
• Professional license number;
• Professional license expiration date;
• Signature;
• Signature date;
• Fill placement and date;
• Type of construction;
• Elevation data;
• Base Flood Elevation (BFE) data;
• Legal property description;
• FEMA region number (1-10);
• Transcripts of conversations with FEMA call centers or helpdesk including name, address, phone number, email address, caller type (
• Bank name and account information including electronic funds transfer, and credit/debit card account information;
• Payment confirmation number;
• User account creation and access information:
○ Username;
○ Activation code;
○ Password;
○ Roles and responsibilities;
○ Challenge questions and answers; and
○ System permissions or permission levels.
• Voluntary responses to customer satisfaction and experience surveys and focus groups, including demographic information about the individual.
Records are obtained from individuals (
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including the U.S. Attorneys Offices, or other Federal agency conducting litigation or proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity, only when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary and otherwise compatible with the purpose of collection to assist another federal recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach; or
2. DHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of this system of records; and (a) DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, DHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (b) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
G. To an appropriate Federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
H. To state and local governments pursuant to signed agreements allowing such governments to assist FEMA in making LOMC determinations.
I. To the United States Department of the Treasury for the processing of payments for product and services.
J. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel,
DHS/FEMA stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.
DHS/FEMA retrieves records by name, address information, legal description of property, order number, and account number.
In accordance with NARA authority N1-311-86-1, item 2.A.2.c. and FEMA Records Disposition Schedule FIA-2-1, 2 and 3, FEMA stores LOMC data in an active mode for 2 years after which the information is retired to the Federal Records Center (FRC). FEMA destroys the information 20 years after its final determination or map revision date. Pursuant to NARA authority N1-311-86-1, items 2.A.3., FEMA destroys digital preliminary flood maps five years after FEMA issues a flood elevation determination or insurance rate map and flood elevation determination (or insurance rate) map are cut off when superseded, transfer directly to the National Archives 5 years after cutoff for permanent storage pursuant to NARA authority N1-311-86-1, Item 2A4, FEMA Document Disposition Schedule at FIA-3.
Additionally, FEMA retains both paper and digital copies of effective FIRMs permanently, stores FEMA Information Exchange (FMIX) chat session records indefinitely, and deletes the last 4 digits of the credit card or bank account number and Treasury's payment confirmation information after 2 years. See FEMA Records Disposition Schedule at FIA-4.
DHS/FEMA safeguards records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. FEMA has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the stored information. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information in furtherance of the performance of their official duties, and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
Individuals seeking access to and notification of any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Chief Privacy Officer and Headquarters or FEMA's FOIA Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When an individual is seeking records about himself or herself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, the individual's request must conform to the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. The individual must first verify his or her identity, meaning that the individual must provide his or her full name, current address, and date and place of birth. The individual must sign the request, and the individual's signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, an individual may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer,
• Explain why the individual believes the Department would have information on him or her;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department the individual believes may have the information about him or her;
• Specify when the individual believes the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records;
If an individual's request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, the first individual must include a statement from the second individual certifying his/her agreement for the first individual to access his or her records.
Without the above information, the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and the individual's request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
For records covered by the Privacy Act or covered JRA records, see “Record Access Procedures” above.
See “Record Access Procedures.”
None.
“Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), DHS/FEMA/NFIP/LOMA-1” system of records, 71 FR 7990 (Feb. 15, 2006).
Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Office.
Notice of New Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to establish a new Department of Homeland Security system of records titled, “DHS/ALL-040 DHS Personnel Recovery Information System of Records.” This newly established system will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's inventory of record systems.
Submit comments on or before November 24, 2017. This new system will be effective upon publication. Routine uses will be effective November 24, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: Philip S. Kaplan, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/ALL-040 Personnel Recovery Information System of Records.”
The DHS Personnel Recovery Programs are responsible for: Ensuring that DHS personnel and contractors assigned overseas or on official travel outside the continental United States (OCONUS) have proper training and equipment to fulfill their respective mission; maintaining a twenty-four (24) hour monitoring center for all overseas personnel who are traveling outside their country of assignment; executing a coordinated response to personnel recovery incidents; maintaining a notification system within DHS to provide emergency-related notifications as needed without jeopardizing the safety of DHS personnel (including federal employees and contractors); and providing and developing tracking and locating technology.
DHS will use the information collected in this system of records in furtherance of its responsibilities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to circumstances in which DHS and contractor personnel have been abducted, detained, held hostage, declared missing, or impacted by a terrorist attack, natural disaster, government takeover, transportation accident, or are otherwise isolated from friendly support, pursuant to Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-30,
Presidential Policy Directive-30 directs each department and agency with overseas responsibilities to, among other things, provide personnel recovery preparation, education, and training programs to enable personnel recovery from a threat environment.
This system of records is being established to document the types of personal information collected on individuals, and to ensure that such information is appropriately shared to enable the recovery of DHS personnel (including federal employees and contractors) assigned overseas or on official travel abroad in the event they are isolated from friendly support. The Personnel Recovery Information System will be used to facilitate collaboration with the Department of State (DOS) and other federal agencies. The information will be maintained in DHS systems that serve as data repositories of personnel data.
Information covered by the Personnel Recovery Information System of Records is only used for personnel recovery purposes, and is only shared outside DHS to further its personnel recovery objectives with permission from DHS personnel.
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/ALL-040 Personnel Recovery Information System may be shared with other DHS components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
This newly established system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles (FIPP) in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, and similarly, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides a statutory right to covered persons to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.
Below is the description of the DHS/ALL-040 Personnel Recovery Information System of Records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ALL-040 Personnel Recovery Information.
Unclassified, Sensitive, For Official Use Only, Law enforcement-Sensitive.
Records are maintained at the DHS Headquarters in Washington, DC, component headquarters and field offices, and as component-specific systems. Electronic/Information Technology (IT) records are maintained within DHS systems that serve as data repositories of personnel data.
For DHS Headquarters components, the System Manager is the Deputy Chief Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. For components of DHS, the System Manager can be found at
Authority for maintaining this system is in 6 U.S.C. 236; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 22 U.S.C. secs. 4801, 4802, and 4805; and Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-30, Hostage Recovery Activities.
The purpose of this system is to permit DHS's collection, use, maintenance, dissemination, and storage of information to: Facilitate identification of DHS personnel (including employees and contractors) assigned overseas or on official travel abroad for whom DHS has the responsibility to recover or account; maintain situational awareness of the location of DHS personnel; and coordinate support services for personnel who have been abducted,
DHS personnel (including federal employees and contractors) and non-DHS Federal employees who are members of DHS-led task forces assigned overseas or on official travel outside the United States. Information will also be collected from family members, domestic partners, and emergency contacts of personnel assigned overseas or on official travel outside the United States.
• Full Name;
• Alias(es);
• Business title/position title;
• Gender;
• Biometric (
• Foreign Travel Itinerary;
• Foreign Language and Fluency Level;
• Personnel Recovery Training and Year Received;
• Other Pertinent Training;
• Prior Military/Branch;
• Assignment Reason Narrative;
• Assignment Location;
• Work Email Address;
• Security clearance information;
• Business Cellular International Mobile Station Equipment Identity (IMEI);
• Business Phone Number;
• Passport numbers and other travel documents (official or diplomatic, and personal), including expiration date;
• Citizenship;
• Emergency contact information (at post and at home);
• Identity verification or security questions and responses;
• Supervisor contact information; and
• Emergency contact information.
• Blood Type;
• Scars;
• Tattoos;
• Disfigurement;
• Medical Conditions;
• Allergies;
• Medication;
• Personal Cellular Phone Number;
• Personal Cellular IMEI;
• Other Electronic Device Type;
• Other Electronic Device IMEI;
• Personal Email Address #1;
• Personal Email Address #2;
• Regional Security Officer (RSO) Name;
• RSO Direct Phone;
• RSO Cell Phone;
• Marine Post One Phone;
• Regional Embassy/Consulate;
• Tracking Device IMEI;
• Personnel Recovery Equipment;
• Cellular—World;
• Cellular—World IMEI;
• Cellular—Local;
• Cellular—Local IMEI;
• Religious preference;
• Sizing information (
• Vehicle information;
• Real-time location information;
• Kit issuance; and
• Information about family members and domestic partners of personnel assigned OCONUS (name, passport numbers and issuing country, contact information, date of birth, work location, school name and location, medical conditions, and photographs).
Records are obtained from DHS personnel (including federal employees and contractors).
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary and otherwise compatible with the purpose of collection to assist another federal recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach; or
2. DHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of this system of records; and (a) DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, harm to DHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (b) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
G. To the Department of State (DOS) when necessary to coordinate U.S. Embassy or Consulate support services for the employee.
H. To federal, state, and local governmental agencies or executive offices, and foreign governments, when disclosure is appropriate for proper planning or coordination of personnel recovery efforts or assistance, as described in PPD-30.
I. To family members when the subject of the record is unable or unavailable to sign a waiver and is
J. To members of Congress when the information is requested on behalf of a family member of the individual to whom access is authorized under routine use I.
K. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS, or when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
DHS stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities at the DHS Headquarters in Washington, DC, as well as component headquarters and field offices, in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.
Records may be retrieved by an individual's name, biometric information, employee ID number, and telephone number.
For information used to account for personnel and maintain communication during emergencies, office dismissal, and closure situations, the Personnel Recovery Information system of records will retain records until superseded or obsolete, or upon separation or transfer of the employee, in accordance with NARA General Records Schedule 5.3, Item 20.
For all other information in this system of records, the information will be maintained in accordance with NARA General Records Schedule 5.2, Item 10. This information is also retained until superseded or obsolete, or upon separation or transfer of the employee.
DHS safeguards records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. DHS has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
Individuals seeking access to and notification of any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Chief Privacy Officer and Headquarters or component's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer,
• Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records;
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without the above information, the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
For records covered by the Privacy Act or covered JRA records, see “Record Access Procedures” above.
See “Record Access Procedures.”
None.
DHS/ALL-040 is a new system of records and DHS has not published any prior notices that apply to the records.
Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Office.
Rescindment of a System of Records Notice.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security is giving notice that it proposes to rescind the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency's Privacy Act system of records notice, “Letter of Map Amendment System (LOMA), DHS/FEMA/NFIP/LOMA-1”, 71 FR 7990 (Feb. 15, 2006), which covered applicants who were seeking a Letter of Map Amendment as part of FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) system.
These changes will take effect upon publication.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0030 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: William Holzerland, (202) 212-7719, Senior Director for Information Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. For privacy questions, please contact: Philip S. Kaplan, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and as part of its ongoing integration and management efforts, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is rescinding the system of records notice, “Letter of Map Amendment System (LOMA), DHS/FEMA/NFIP/LOMA-1”, which covered applicants who were seeking a letter of map amendment as part of FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) system.
FEMA will continue to collect and maintain records regarding FEMA's Letters of Map Amendments and will rely upon the newly-created FEMA system of records notice titled “DHS/FEMA-014 Hazard Mitigation Planning and Flood Mapping Products and Services System of Records” that is also published in this issue of the
Eliminating this system of records notice will have no adverse impacts on individuals, but will promote the overall streamlining and management of DHS Privacy Act record systems.
“Letter of Map Amendment System (LOMA), DHS/FEMA/NFIP/LOMA-1.”
71 FR 7990 (Feb. 15, 2006).
Office of the Chief Information Officer, 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 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
A web-based survey will allow the study team to investigate important Service Coordinator (SC) program characteristics not included in grant applications or current reporting tools, in order to provide generalizable evidence on the “effective and efficient use of resources” across all ROSS-SC service coordinators. These include SC qualifications and experience, program
Site visits to seven high-performing grantees will include onsite observations and interviews with grantees, service coordinators, and program partners, as well as focus groups with program participants to gather context-specific data on both program processes and outcomes to aid in identifying best practices and common challenges across grantees.
Whereas many ROSS-SC grantee contact persons in HUD's database are a PHA Executive Director, PHA Division Director, or the Chief Executive Officer of the grantee, we estimated their cost per response by using the most recent (May 2016) Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics median hourly wage for the labor category, Chief Executives (11-1011): $87.12.
Whereas ROSS-SC service coordinators and other grantee staff and service partners have a range of experience and skills, we averaged the median hourly wage for two labor categories: The Social and Community Service Manager (11-9151) median hourly wage of $31.10, and the Community and Social Service Specialists, All Other (21-1099) category with a rate of $20.73.
This produces an average of both median hourly wage rates equal to $25.92.
Hourly costs for public housing resident focus group participants were estimated using FY 2016 HUD 30% Income Limit for All Areas calculations from the Office of Policy Development and Research through HUD's Web site located at
• 20% of potential respondents will live alone (21 respondents) with an average median income of $13,537.
• 10% will reside in a 2-person household (11 respondents) with an average median income of $15,464.
• 30% will reside in a 3-person household (31 respondents) with an average median income of $17,396.
• 30% will reside in a 4-person household (31 respondents) with an average median income of $19,305.
• 10% will reside in a 5-person household (11 respondents) with an average median income of $20,872.
To produce a basic hourly rate, we divide the average median annual income amount by 2,080 work hours per year, equaling 40 hours per week for each of the 52 weeks out of the year.
All assumptions are reflected in the table below.
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
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD 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 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax:202-395-5806, Email:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
HUD's Office of Policy Development and Coordination and its Environmental Officers in the field use this information to make funds available to entities directed to receive funds appropriated by Congress. This information is used to collect, receive, review and monitor program activities through applications, semi-annual reports, and close out reports. The information that is collected is used to assess performance. Grantees are units of state and local government, nonprofits and Indian tribes. Respondents are initially identified by congress and generally fall into two categories: Economic Development Initiative-Special Project (EDI-SP) grantees and Neighborhood Initiative (NI) grantees. The agency has used the application, semi-annual reports and close out reports to track grantee performance in the implementation of approved projects.
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.
Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
Conducting this research will require the Implementation Team (The Lewin Group and our partners from Leading Age and the National Center for Healthy Aging, under HUD contract HHSP23337002T) to collect self-reported information from demonstration participants. The Implementation Team will leverage existing validated tools combined together in one comprehensive Resident Needs Assessment. The Resident Needs Assessment requests information on demographics, health status and ability to complete activities of Daily Living (ADLs), and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs), as well as other social and medical service information.
The Resident Needs Assessment will occur face-to-face in a private setting administered by trained enhanced service coordinators or wellness nurses. The assessment interview is expected to last an average of 90 minutes.
Information will be collected in a secure web-based platform that meets all required federal regulations to track general health and service use information. Information will be attributed to individuals by name. Names and information collected in a project-specific web-based platform will link to HUD administrative data, which HUD can be linked to Medicare and possibly Medicaid data for program evaluation purposes. All collected information will be self-reported and will inform the development of individualized healthy aging plans and property-wide health education/promotion activities and programs, including selection of specific evidence-based interventions to be implemented within demonstration sites. Additionally, results will support the evaluation of the demonstration in meeting HUD's goals and desired outcomes for the national demonstration.
The table below estimates the total burden to the public for the proposed information collection, assuming an hourly cost per response based on the income levels of respondents. Hourly costs were estimated using FY2016 income limits from the Office of Policy Development and Research through HUD's Web site located at
HUD tiers income levels for funded recipients at three levels: Extremely low, very low, and low. For purposes of burden estimate, we selected the “low income” tier to identify a median income level.
Further delineation of the burden estimates requires income adjustments based on the number of individuals residing with the respondent. Using HUD data to conduct data analysis, we estimate that:
For HUD, the baseline for median income is based on a four-person household. For FY 2016 this was adjusted at $65,800. Adjustments for number of residents are legislated by Congress.
These income adjustments, based on both probability of residence status as well as adjustments based on the income baseline, are used to estimate burden of information collection in the table below.
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 using appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD 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 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax:202-395-5806, Email:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
Generally, these activities are geared to the respondent's benefit that is to determine whether the respondent was underpaid and to ensure the payment of wage restitution to the respondent.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
The MTW Demonstration was authorized under Section 204 of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat 1321), dated April 26, 1996. The original MTW Demonstration statute permitted up to 30 PHAs to participate in the demonstration program. Nineteen PHAs were selected for participation in the MTW demonstration in response to a HUD Notice published in the
Additional MTW `slots' have been added by Congress over time through appropriations statutes. Two PHAs were specifically named and authorized to join the demonstration in 1999 under the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461), dated October 21, 1998. A Public and Indian Housing Notice (PIH Notice 2000-52) was issued on December 13, 2000, allowed up to an additional 6 PHAs to participate in the MTW demonstration. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Pub. L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844) added four named PHAs to the Moving to Work demonstration program.
Subsequent Appropriations Acts for 2009, 2010, and 2011 authorized a total of 12 additional MTW slots. As part of HUD's 2009 budget appropriation (Section 236, title II, division I of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, enacted March 11, 2009), Congress directed HUD to add three agencies to the MTW program. As part of HUD's 2010 budget appropriation (Section 232, title II, division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, enacted December 16, 2009), Congress authorized HUD to add three agencies to the MTW demonstration. In 2011, Congress again authorized HUD to add three MTW PHAs pursuant to the 2010 Congressional requirements. The Appropriations Act for 2016 authorized a total of 100 additional MTW slots over seven years.
A Standard MTW Agreement (Standard Agreement) was developed in 2007, and was transmitted to the existing MTW agencies in January 2008. As additional MTW PHAs were selected they too were provided with the Standard Agreement. All 39 existing MTW agencies operate under this agreement, which authorizes participation in the demonstration through each agency's 2018 fiscal year. HUD is currently working on an extension of the Standard Agreement to 2028, as required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016.
Under the Standard Agreement, all MTW sites are authorized to combine their operating, modernization and housing choice voucher funding into a single “block” grant. Because they cannot conform with the requirement for the regular PHA annual and 5 year plans, and because HUD requires different information from these PHAs for program oversight purposes, these sites are required to submit an annual MTW Plan and an annual MTW Report in accordance with their MTW Agreement, in lieu of the regular PHA annual and 5 year plans.
Through the MTW Annual Plan and Report, each MTW site will inform HUD, its residents and the public of the PHA's mission for serving the needs of low-income and very low-income families, and the PHA's strategy for addressing those needs. The MTW Annual Plan, like the Annual PHA Plan, provides an easily identifiable source by which residents, participants in tenant-based programs, and other members of the public may locate policies, rules, and requirements concerning the PHA's operations, programs, and services. Revisions are being made to these 50900 forms to improve its usability and to address minor issues identified by HUD and the MTW PHAs over time. The form is also being updated also to implement provisions of the Department's affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) rule (24 CFR 5.150-5.180).
There are 7 sections associated with this Form requiring response. All 7 sections are completed with the first annual submission (Plan), and 5 of the 7 are completed with the second annual submission (Report). This results in a total of 12 total responses per PHA, or 468 total responses per year across all 39 affected PHAs. The application results in 1 total response per PHA for approximately 50 anticipated PHAs, or a total of 50 responses per year. The total is then 518 responses per year.
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.
Interior, North Slope Science Initiative.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to request public nominations on the North Slope Science Initiative (NSSI) 15-member Science Technical Advisory Panel (Panel). The Panel advises the NSSI Oversight Group on technical issues such as identifying and prioritizing inventory, monitoring, and research needs across the North Slope of Alaska and the adjacent marine environment.
The deadline for the NSSI to receive all public nominations/applications for membership on the panel is November 24, 2017.
Dr. Mark Miller, Deputy Director, North Slope Science Initiative, Bureau of Land Management, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513, 907-271-3212, email
Section 348 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, created the NSSI, its Oversight Group, and 15-member Science Technical Advisory Panel to coordinate inventories, monitoring, and research for a better understanding of terrestrial, aquatic, and marine ecosystems of the North Slope of Alaska. The NSSI works to minimize duplication of monitoring and research efforts, shares financial resources and expertise, identifies and prioritizes information needs, and ensures that science conducted by participating agencies and organizations is of the highest technical quality.
As an advisory body, the Panel represents diverse professions and interests, including the Alaska North Slope community, oil and gas industry, subsistence users, Alaska Native
Duties of the Panel are solely advisory to the Oversight Group. Panel members serve for 3-year terms, appointed by the Secretary of the Interior.
Nominees must have a minimum of five (5) years of experience in the Arctic in their field of expertise. Nomination forms and instructions are available from the BLM Web site (
The Oversight Group includes the Alaska Regional or State Directors of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Bureau of Land Management, the Commissioners of the Alaska Departments of Natural Resources and Fish and Game, the Mayor of the North Slope Borough, and the President of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. Advisory members of the Oversight Group include the Regional Executive of the U.S. Geological Survey; the Deputy Director of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission; the Alaska Regional Director of the National Weather Service; and the Regional Coordinator of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your application, you should be aware that your entire application—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your application to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
42 U.S.C. 15906; Energy Policy Act of 2005, Sec. 348.
National Park Service, Interior.
Cancellation of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the October 12, 2017, meeting of the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park Advisory Commission previously announced in the
Further information concerning meetings may be obtained from Darren Boch, Superintendent and Designated Federal Officer, Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, 72 McBride Avenue, Paterson, New Jersey 07501, (973) 523-2630 or email
The 9-member Commission was established by 16 U.S.C. 410
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Ocean Energy (BOEM) are proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 26, 2017.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to the BOEM Information Collection Clearance Officer, Anna Atkinson, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 45600 Woodland Road, VAM-DIR, Sterling, Virginia 20166; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Anna Atkinson by email or by telephone at 703-787-1025.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment that addresses the following questions: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of BOEM? (2) Will this information be processed and used in a timely manner? (3) Is the estimate of burden accurate? (4) How might BOEM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? and (5) How might BOEM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology?
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time.
Section 1334(a)(8) requires that regulations prescribed by the Secretary include provisions “for compliance with the national ambient air quality standards pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401
We protect proprietary information according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Department of the Interior's implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 550.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.”
The following table details the individual BOEM components and respective hour burden estimates of this ICR. We assumed that respondents perform certain activities in the normal course of their business that they also satisfy certain requirements under subpart C. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.
In calculating the burdens, the burden hours decreased from the previous OMB request, because the number of facilities decreased as reported by the Gulfwide Offshore Activity Data System.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
We will protect information considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and DOI's implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), 30 CFR 550.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection,” and 30 CFR part 552, “Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Information Program.”
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 18, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Dexcom, Inc. of San Diego, California. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electrochemical glucose monitoring systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,724,045 (“the '045 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,750,460 (“the '460 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain electrochemical glucose monitoring systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-20, 23-30, 32, 34-38, and 41-44 of the '045 patent and claims 1-6, 8-18, 20-24, 26-30, 32-36, 38-42, 44-48, 50-54, 56-60, and 62-69 of the '460 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which
(a)
(b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served: AgaMatrix, Inc., 7C Raymond Avenue, Salem, NH 03079.
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of institution of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of institution of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order, or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 19, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of FUJIFILM Corporation of Japan and FUJIFILM Recording Media U.S.A., Inc. of Bedford, Massachusetts. A supplement to the complaint was filed on October 6, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain magnetic data storage tapes and cartridges containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,630,256 (“the '256 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,835,451 (“the '451 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,011,899 (“the '899 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,462,905 (“the '905 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 6,783,094 (“the '094 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain magnetic data storage tapes and cartridges containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-5 and 7-9 of the '256 patent; 1-14 of the '451 patent; claims 1, 2, and 6-12 of the '899 patent; claims 1-4 of the '905 patent; and claims 1-12 and 18-22 of the '094 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 19, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Cotton Babies, Inc. of Fenton, Missouri. A supplement to the Complaint was filed on October 2, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain reusable diapers, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,120,270 (“the '270 trademark”) and certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,518,007 (“the '007 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine:
(a) Whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain reusable diapers, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 13, 20, and 21 of the '007 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(b) Whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(C) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain reusable diapers, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of the '270 trademark, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a)
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on welded carbon steel pipe and tube from Turkey and the antidumping duty orders on certain circular welded pipe and tube from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
This determination was made on September 5, 2017.
Amelia Shister (202-205-2047), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until December 26, 2017.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any additional information, please contact Anita Scheddel, Program Analyst, Explosives Industry Programs Branch, either by mail 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226, or by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 13, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 15, 2017. A notice was filed in the
Notice is hereby given that, on September 29, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 15, 2004, ASME filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 10, 2017. A notice was published in the
The Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee will meet on Friday, November 17, 2017. The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. in the Postal Square Building, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC.
The Committee provides advice and makes recommendations to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on technical aspects of data collection and the formulation of economic measures and makes recommendations on areas of research. The BLS presents issues and then draws on the expertise of Committee members representing specialized fields within the academic disciplines of economics, statistics, and survey design.
The meeting will be held in Rooms 1, 2, and 3 of the Postal Square Building Janet Norwood Conference Center. The schedule and agenda for the meeting are as follows:
The meeting is open to the public. Any questions concerning the meeting should be directed to Sarah Dale, Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee, at 202-691-5643 or
9:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 15, 2017.
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.
The one item is open to the public.
National Transportation Safety Board 2017-2018 Most Wanted List mid-point progress report meeting.
Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center 30 minutes prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
Christopher O'Neil at (202) 314-6100 or by email at
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314-6305 or by email at
Nicholas Worrell at (202) 314-6608 or
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a notice that was published in the
The correction is effective October 25, 2017.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Aaron Szabo Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0132), 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:
In the FR on October 13, 2017 in FR Doc. 2017-22144, on page 47779, in the first column, item #9, correct “79,040 hours (33,909 hours reporting + 42,319 hours recordkeeping + 2,812 hours third-party disclosure)” to read “78,800 hours (33,669 hours reporting + 42,319 hours recordkeeping + 2,812 hours third-party disclosure).” On page 47778, in the third column, correct the ADAMS Accession No. for the supporting statement “ML17208A007” to read “ML17292A963.”
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges (the “Fee Schedule”) to adopt a Decommission Extension Fee that would be applicable for the use of certain ports connecting to NYSE Arca during the months of March through May 2018. The proposed rule 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 the Fee Schedule to adopt a Decommission Extension Fee that would be applicable to ETP Holders for the use of certain ports used to connect to NYSE Arca for a three-month period from March 2018 through May 2018 (the “extension period”).
The Exchange currently makes ports available that provide connectivity to the Exchange's trading systems (
The Exchange makes available ports that communicate with the Exchange using Pillar phase I protocols (“phase I ports”) and phase II ports. The proposed Decommission Extension Fee would apply only to ETP Holders that use phase I ports during the extension period.
The Exchange previously provided notice to ETP Holders to migrate to phase II ports over approximately a six-month period, which began on August 21, 2017.
The phase II ports are part of the Exchange's efforts to upgrade its connectivity. The purpose of the proposed Decommission Extension Fee is to provide an incentive for ETP Holders to fully transition to the phase II ports within the initial six-month transition period so the Exchange does not have to maintain and support both phase I ports and phase II ports at the end of the six-month transition period. In addition, to the extent that ETP Holders do not fully transition to phase II ports within the initial six-month transition period, the Exchange believes that the costs associated with continued support of phase I ports should be paid for by ETP Holders using phase I ports. Therefore, during the extension period, ETP Holders that continue to connect to the Exchange through phase I ports would be subject to the proposed Decommission Extension Fee of $2,450 per port per month for March 2018, April 2018 and May 2018.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed Decommission Extension Fee for ETP Holders that choose to continue to connect to the Exchange through the use of phase I ports after the transition period, which is scheduled to end at the close of trading on February 28, 2018, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fee would apply equally to all ETP Holders that choose to connect to the Exchange through the use of such ports during the extension period. As noted above, the Exchange will incur ongoing costs in maintaining phase I ports during the extension period, including costs to maintain servers and their physical location, monitoring order activity, and other support, with no real benefit. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to require ETP Holders to pay the proposed Decommission Extension Fee as an additional fee during the extension period for connecting to the Exchange through phase I ports because ETP Holders were provided with two months' notice that the phase II ports would be available beginning August 21, 2017, and will be provided with a six-month period during which to transition to phase II ports.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
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.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The purpose of the amendment is to eliminate OPRA's Enterprise Rate Nonprofessional Subscriber Fee (“Enterprise Rate Nonpro Fee”) and to revise its Nonprofessional Subscriber Fee so that, instead of being a flat fee of $1.25 per month per Nonprofessional Subscriber, the Nonprofessional Subscriber Fee will have five tiers, with the tier for a Vendor's first 75,000 Nonprofessional Subscribers subject to the current rate of $1.25 per month and each of the successive higher tiers subject to a lower rate.
OPRA's Fee Schedule provides that a Vendor
OPRA introduced the Enterprise Rate Nonpro Fee in 2012.
OPRA's expectation for the Enterprise Rate Nonpro Fee has not been fulfilled. The fee continues to provide a benefit to only one OPRA Vendor, and it now appears to OPRA that this is likely to remain the case indefinitely.
Accordingly, OPRA is proposing to eliminate the Enterprise Rate Nonpro Fee and, at the same time, revise OPRA's Nonprofessional Subscriber Fee so that the fee has five tiers: $1.25/month for a Vendor's first 75,000 Nonprofessional Subscribers, $1.15/month for the Vendor's next 75,000 Nonprofessional Subscribers, $1.00/month for the Vendor's next 100,000 Nonprofessional Subscribers, $0.75/month for the Vendor's next 250,000 Nonprofessional Subscribers, and $0.60/month for the Vendor's Nonprofessional Subscribers in excess of 500,000 Nonprofessional Subscribers.
If all Vendors were to continue to distribute OPRA data to Nonprofessional Subscribers at their current rates, these changes would result in an increase in OPRA's annual revenues of approximately $135,000. However, OPRA anticipates that, in fact,
The text of the amendment to the OPRA Plan is available at OPRA, the Commission's Public Reference Room, the OPRA Web site at
Pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(i) of Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act, OPRA designated this amendment as establishing or changing fees or other charges collected on behalf of all of the OPRA participant exchanges in connection with access to or use of OPRA facilities. In order to give persons subject to these fees advance notice of the changes, OPRA proposes that they go into effect on January 1, 2018.
Not applicable.
OPRA believes that the proposed amendment will impose no burdens on competition that are not justified in light of the purposes of the Act.
Not applicable.
OPRA represents that the proposed amendments to the OPRA Fee Schedule were approved in accordance with the provisions of the OPRA Plan.
The Commission may summarily abrogate the amendment within sixty days of its filing and require refiling and approval of the amendment by Commission order pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2) under the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the OPRA Plan amendment 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.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The purpose of the proposed Fee Schedule amendments is to specify OPRA's Professional Subscriber Device-Based Fee effective January 1, 2018 and make conforming changes in OPRA's Enterprise Rate Professional Subscriber Fee. OPRA's Enterprise Rate Professional Subscriber Fee is available to those Professional Subscribers that
Specifically, it is proposed, effective January 1, 2018: To increase the current $30.50 monthly per device fee by $1.00; to increase the Enterprise Rate, currently a monthly fee of $30.50 times the number of a Professional Subscriber's U.S.-based registered representatives, to be a monthly fee of $31.50 times the number of the Subscriber's U.S.-based registered representatives; and to make conforming changes to the minimum monthly fee under the Enterprise Rate. “Professional Subscribers” are persons who subscribe to OPRA data, do not qualify for the reduced fees charged to “Nonprofessional Subscribers,” and do not redistribute the OPRA data to third parties. OPRA permits the counting of “User IDs” as a surrogate for counting “devices” for purposes of its Professional Subscriber Device-based Fees.
The number of devices reported to OPRA as subject to Professional Subscriber Device-Based Fees has been steadily trending downwards over many years. In 2008, OPRA received device-based fees, including enterprise fees, with respect to approximately 210,500 devices. In 2015, OPRA received device-based fees, including enterprise fees, with respect to approximately 141,300 devices, and in 2016 OPRA received device-based fees, including enterprise fees, with respect to approximately 137,100 devices. OPRA is receiving device-based fees in the third calendar quarter of 2017 with respect to approximately 128,500 devices—already a reduction of approximately 6.3% from 2016. OPRA believes that this long-term downward trend is the result of the increasing use of trading algorithms and automated trading platforms and other fundamental changes in the securities industry, and OPRA anticipates that this trend is likely to continue.
The proposed increase in the Professional Subscriber Device-Based Fees is consistent with OPRA's past practice of making incremental $1.00 increases in its monthly Professional Subscriber Device-Based Fees,
The text of the amendment to the OPRA Plan is available at OPRA, the Commission's Public Reference Room, the OPRA Web site at
Pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(i) of Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act, OPRA designated this amendment as establishing or changing fees or other charges collected on behalf of all of the OPRA participant exchanges in connection with access to or use of OPRA facilities. OPRA proposes to put the changes in the Professional Subscriber Device-Based Fee into effect as of January 1, 2018. Implementation of the changes in the Professional Subscriber Device-Based Fee on January 1 is consistent with OPRA's prior practice with respect to changes in this fee, and OPRA represents that this will provide ample opportunity to give persons subject to this fee advance notice of the change.
Not applicable.
OPRA believes that the proposed amendment will impose no burdens on competition that are not justified in light of the purposes of the Act.
Not applicable.
OPRA represents that the proposed amendments to the OPRA Fee Schedule were approved in accordance with the provisions of the OPRA Plan.
The Commission may summarily abrogate the amendment within sixty days of its filing and require refiling and approval of the amendment by Commission order pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2) under the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the OPRA Plan amendment 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.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“BZX Equities”) to amend the criteria for Cross-Asset Add Volume Tier 3 under footnote 1. The Exchange currently offers four Cross-Asset Add Volume tiers under footnote 1 that provide an enhanced rebate ranging from $0.0028 to $0.0030 per share for orders that yield fee codes B,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
Volume-based rebates and fees such as the proposed Cross-Asset Add Volume Tier have been widely adopted by equities and options exchanges and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth
The Exchange believes that the proposal to modify the criteria for Cross-Asset Add Volume Tier 3 is a reasonable, fair and equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees and rebates because it will provide Members with an additional incentive to reach certain thresholds on both BZX Equities and BZX Options. The revised criteria continues to be reasonably related to the rebate provided by the tier. The Exchange believes decreasing the first prong of the tier's criteria to 1.85% but limiting it to Options Market Maker Add OCV, and adding the second prong requiring that the Member add an ADV equal to or greater than 0.10% of TCV ensures the difficulty of achieving the tier remains relatively the same, while adjusting it to reflect current market dynamics. The potential increased liquidity from this proposal also benefits all investors by deepening the BZX Equities and BZX Options liquidity pools, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor protection. Such pricing programs thereby reward a Member's growth pattern on the Exchange and such increased volume increases potential revenue to the Exchange, and will allow the Exchange to continue to provide and potentially expand the incentive programs operated by the Exchange. To the extent a Member participates on the Exchange but not on BZX Options, the Exchange does believe that the proposal is still reasonable, equitably allocated and non-discriminatory with respect to such Member based on the overall benefit to the Exchange resulting from the success of BZX Options. As noted above, such success allows the Exchange to continue to provide and potentially expand its existing incentive programs to the benefit of all participants on the Exchange, whether they participate on BZX Options or not.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that limiting one prong of the tier's required criteria to Options Market Makers is not unfairly discriminatory because it is intended to increase Market Maker participation on BZX Options. Market Makers have affirmative obligations to maintain fair and orderly markets and to maintain a two-sided market in those options series in which it is registered.
(B)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of the proposed change [sic] to the Exchange's tiered pricing structure burden competition, but instead, that they enhance competition as they are intended to increase the competitiveness of the Exchange by modifying pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and incentivize participants to increase their participation on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive. The proposed changes are generally intended to enhance the rebates for liquidity added to the Exchange, which is intended to draw additional liquidity to the Exchange, and to eliminate a rebate that has not achieved its desired result. The Exchange does not believe the proposed amendments would burden intramarket competition as they would be available to all Members uniformly.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 10, 2017, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
On September 19, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposed to implement the proposed rule change as a 24-month pilot program, during which time the Exchange would collect and publicly disclose (following the sixth month of the pilot program) the following data: (1) Quote quality statistics, designed to provide comparative data regarding the effect of LEAD on market quality, for each security per trading day and for each period of exceptional volatility (“PEV”) range (“PEV Range”), for the six months immediately preceding the implementation of the pilot program and for the duration of the pilot program; (2) matched trade difference statistics, designed to compare the reliability of CHX quotes with and without the LEAD, for each security assigned to a LEAD MM (“LEAD MM Security”) per trading day and per PEV Range, for the duration of the pilot program; (3) volume statistics, designed to measure the impact of LEAD on execution volume in LEAD MM Securities for the duration of the pilot program; (4) variable processing delay statistics, designed to provide comparative data regarding the variable delay
The Exchange proposes to adopt, on a pilot basis, the LEAD,
The Exchange states that the LEAD is designed to address a lack of resting liquidity in NMS securities on CHX by providing LEAD MMs with a risk management tool that would incentivize LEAD MMs to display larger orders at aggressive prices.
A LEAD MM would be required to meet the proposed minimum performance standards in return for undelayed access to submit liquidity providing orders and to cancel its resting orders. The proposed minimum performance standards require, in addition to the obligations for market makers required by the Exchange's current rules,
CHX also proposes to establish a procedure to designate LEAD MMs in a security. Only a market maker could apply to be a LEAD MM in one or more securities, and market makers must receive written approval from the Exchange to be assigned securities as a LEAD MM.
Pursuant to proposed CHX Article 16, Rule 4(f)(3)(D), the Exchange would review each LEAD MM's quoting and trading activity on a monthly basis to determine whether the LEAD MM has met the minimum performance standards for each of its LEAD MM Securities.
CHX Article 20, Rule 8(h) and proposed CHX Article 16, Rule 4(f) (collectively, the “LEAD Rules”) would be introduced as a pilot program that would end 24 months following the implementation of the LEAD.
The daily quote quality statistics are designed to show several aspects of CHX and overall market quote quality both pre- and post-implementation of the pilot program. First, the statistics will show the width and the displayed size for both the NBBO and CHX's BBO during different periods of market volatility. Second, the statistics will display the contribution to the NBBO and CHX's BBO by the LEAD MM for those different periods of volatility. Finally, the statistics will show the contribution of CHX's BBO to the overall NBBO. Quote quality statistics are designed to provide comparative data regarding the effect of LEAD on market quality, and would include at a minimum the following data fields (as applicable):
The matched trade difference statistics are designed to show how many shares were executed with the LEAD MM proposal implemented and also, hypothetically, how many shares would have been executed had the LEAD MM proposal not been implemented, which would be accomplished by assuming non-LEAD MM orders were executed immediately. In addition, these metrics are aggregated by specific PEV Range so that one can analyze how these executions vary during different periods of volatility. Each Qualified Order would be categorized into one of the following four groups: (1)
Match trade difference statistics would include, at a minimum, the following data fields, as applicable:
The volume statistics are designed to show how the adoption of the LEAD by market makers changes over time as well as how much volume these new market makers execute over time. Generally, this data will concisely indicate CHX's ability to attract new market makers to the LEAD MM program. For each LEAD MM Security, the Exchange would collect the following: (1) Daily number of LEAD MMs assigned; (2) total single-sided volume on CHX; (3) total market wide
The variable processing delay statistics are designed to indicate how variable delays are distributed between orders from LEAD MMs and other market participants. All exchanges experience delays to some degree during periods of high order volume. These statistics will highlight discrepancies in delays experienced by orders from LEAD MMs and other market participants. These statistics would be divided into three order origin categories: (1) Orders from CHX participants that are not LEAD MMs; (2) liquidity taking orders from LEAD MMs; and (3) undelayed liquidity providing orders from LEAD MMs. For each order origin category, the Exchange would collect the following: (1) The number of orders with a variable delay less than 50 microseconds, and the average delay time; (2) the number of orders with a variable delay equal to or greater than 50 microseconds but less than 150 microseconds, and the average delay time; (3) the number of orders with a variable delay equal to or greater than 150 microseconds but less than 250 microseconds, and the average delay time; (4) the number of orders with a variable delay equal to or greater than 250 microseconds but less than 350 microseconds, and the average delay time; and (5) the number of orders with a variable delay equal to or greater than 350 microseconds, and the average delay time.
The effective spread statistics are designed to track both the CHX and overall market effective spreads per security for different PEV Ranges prior to and after the implementation of the pilot program. This data should highlight changes in market quality that occur during the pilot program. The effective spread statistics would include, at least, the following data fields, as applicable:
By no later than the end of the second month of the pilot program, the Exchange would provide the Commission with the Pilot Data for the first month of the pilot program.
The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposal and finds that approval of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission received sixteen comment letters from ten commenters on the proposal and two response letters from the Exchange.
Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of a national securities exchange must be, among other things, not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
In addition, certain commenters express concern regarding the discriminatory effects of the LEAD on non-LEAD MM liquidity providers.
Two commenters believe that the proposal will incentivize LEAD MMs to enhance displayed liquidity by entering larger orders at better prices.
The Exchange argues that the proposed rule change is not designed to permit unfair discrimination. While the Exchange acknowledges that the LEAD is discriminatory by design,
Further, the Exchange states that the minimum performance standards are appropriate given the requirements imposed upon and benefits incurred by market makers on other exchanges.
In response to the comments requesting data showing that the minimum performance standards are appropriate,
With regard to a commenter's concern that the LEAD would frustrate strategies that involve taking prices across multiple venues, the Exchange asserts that a market participant who currently utilizes sophisticated order routing logic to successfully execute multi-venue orders could modify its logic to account for the 350-microsecond intentional delay at CHX and thereby eliminate any incremental information leakage.
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission believes that the proposal to implement the LEAD and the minimum performance standards is not designed to permit unfair discrimination under Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act. Liquidity providers that display limit orders are the primary source of public price discovery.
National securities exchanges have historically discriminated among their members by, among other things, providing various advantages to members that register as market makers and thereby commit to certain undertakings designed to enhance market quality.
The Commission also notes that: (1) The minimum performance standards are quantitive standards that the Exchange can objectively measure to determine whether LEAD MMs are in compliance, which will allow the Exchange to apply them consistently to ensure that similarly situated parties are treated equally; and (2) the LEAD MM selection process is substantially similar to the market maker selection processes previously approved by the Commission and implemented on other national securities exchanges.
With respect to one commenter's concern that the LEAD would frustrate strategies that involve taking prices across multiple venues,
For these reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, is consistent with the requirement of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act that the rules of a national securities exchange be not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
Section 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of a national securities exchange not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. One commenter asserts that the LEAD would unduly burden competition between liquidty providers and firms that access displayed prices on CHX.
The Exchange believes that the LEAD would result in increased competition with liquidity providers of other markets, which furthers a primary goal of Regulation NMS, as such liquidity providers would have to provide enhanced liquidity or risk losing market share to LEAD MMs.
The Commission finds that the LEAD Rules are consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act because they do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The Commission believes that, while the proposal will provide a benefit to LEAD MMs by not subjecting their liquidity providing orders and related cancels to the LEAD, such benefit is appropriate in exchange for their commitment to provide meaningful liquidity on the Exchange as required by the minimum performance standards. By providing a mechanism for LEAD MMs to update their displayed quotations without delay, the LEAD is designed to incentivize LEAD MMs to improve the price and size of their quotes on CHX thereby improving market quality to the ultimate benefit of liquidity takers. The Commission notes that improvements to CHX's quotations would benefit non-CHX market participants to the extent such quotations result in tightening the NBBO spread, as a number of execution venues price transactions off the NBBO. For these reasons, the Commission believes that the balance between the benefit to LEAD MMs afforded by the LEAD and their obligations under the minimum performance standards appropriately furthers the purposes of the Exchange Act.
One commenter believes that, to assess the proposed rule change's impact on competition, the Exchange
The Commission's views of the proposal's consistency with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act are informed by its views that the proposal is appropriately designed to enhance market quality by striking a balance between the new obligations for LEAD MMs and the accompanying benefits. Several commenters discuss the potential impact of the proposal on displayed liquidity and price discovery as well as market quality in general.
Six other commenters express concern that the LEAD could deteriorate the accessibility of quotes and overall market quality.
In addition, one commenter believes that the LEAD could result in institutional migration to dark venues, which could reduce market quality over time.
The Exchange asserts that the proposal would provide LEAD MMs with a risk management tool that would encourage LEAD MMs to display larger orders at aggressive prices, which should provide meaningful
The Exchange also asserts that there is no evidence that the proposal would result in CHX quotes being less accessible to retail or institutional buyers and sellers,
As discussed above, the Commission believes that the LEAD Rules are reasonably designed to incentivize LEAD MMs to post larger size and more aggressively-priced quotes on CHX, which in turn could lead to broader enhancements to market quality by improving the NBBO and increasing quote competition. The extremely short access delay will allow LEAD MMs to adjust their quotations in response to changing market conditions and thereby reduce their exposure to losses from professional traders with micro-second speed advantages. As a result, LEAD MMs should be more inclined to post larger displayed orders at better prices on CHX with greater confidence that they will have an opportunity to update their quotes and therefore avoid an execution at a stale price or size. The reduction in risk in these limited conditions should allow LEAD MMs to provide more liquidity and narrower spreads throughout much of the trading day.
The Commission recognizes that commenters also were concerned that a 350 microsecond delay could reduce access to CHX quotations and thereby detract from market quality in a variety of contexts. The Commission believes, however, that the LEAD is reasonably designed to impact access only to CHX quotations by market participants racing to respond to symmetric information about market conditions, while the potential benefits generated by LEAD MMs posting larger sized and more aggressive quotations should inure throughout most of the trading day. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the LEAD Rules are reasonably designed to improvet market quality, particularly for investors who are unlikely to have speed advantages over professional traders.
However, because the Exchange proposes to implement the LEAD Rules on a pilot basis, the Exchange and the Commission will be able to assess the actual impact of the proposal.
The Exchange will also collect and provide to the Commission and the public data regarding variable delays experienced by both LEAD MMs and non-LEAD MMs.
Some commenters assert that the LEAD would impinge upon price discovery across the national market system.
The Commission notes that the LEAD proposal differs from TSX Alpha. The delay on TSX Alpha is a longer, randomized delay of 1-3 milliseconds that occurs in a different market with a different pricing structure and regulatory environment. A randomized delay on an exchange will not allow a smart order router to send child orders to different exchanges such that the orders arrive simultaneously, preventing the sweeping of volume displayed on the NBBO without information leakage. To adjust for the potential of information leakage, a smart order router could be adjusted to avoid the TSX Alpha exchange when sweeping NBBO volume. The possible increase of informed volume on exchanges other than TSX Alpha, could have been a factor in the degradation of market quality on those exchanges. Also, given TSX Alpha's taker-maker pricing structure, market makers on this exchange could attract order flow by only matching the now degraded NBBO. Therefore, given this combination of factors, the effects of TSX Alpha may not be relevant in assessing the potential results of the LEAD on market quality. The Exchange will collect, analyze, and publicly disclose data that should show how the LEAD affects market quality, including the statistics disclosing width, displayed size, and effective spreads during different periods of market volatility.
Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative activity. A number of commenters question whether the length and means of implementing the delay is consistent with the requirement in Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act that the rules of the exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.
The Exchange asserts that the LEAD would not introduce incremental risk of manipulative activity.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, is consistent with the requirement of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative activity. The Commission previously stated that it does not expect that any
Section 11A(a)(1) of the Exchange Act articulates Congress' finding that, among other things, it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure: Economically efficient execution of securities transactions; fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and between exchange markets; the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities; the practicability of brokers executing investors' orders in the best market; and an opportunity, consistent with the economically efficient execution of securities transactions and the practicability of brokers executing investors' orders in the best market, for investors' orders to be executed without the participation of a dealer.
As discussed below, certain commenters questioned whether the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS (“Order Protection Rule”)
The Order Protection Rule, among other things, requires trading centers to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the execution of trades at prices inferior to protected quotations displayed by other trading centers.
In response, the Exchange asserts that the LEAD is consistent with the Order Protection Rule.
The Order Protection Rule provides intermarket protection against trade-throughs for “automated” (as opposed to “manual”) quotations of NMS stocks. Under Regulation NMS, an “automated” quotation is one that, among other things, can be executed “immediately and automatically” against an incoming immediate-or-cancel order. This formulation was intended to distinguish and exclude from protection quotations manual markets that produced delays measured in seconds in responding to an incoming order, because delays of that magnitude would impair fair and efficient access to an exchange's quotations.
As CHX notes, the Commission, in connection with its approval of IEX's exchange application, interpreted “immediate” in the context of Regulation NMS as not precluding a
The Commission believes that the LEAD is consistent with the Order Protection Rule. The Commission notes that its recent interpretation with respect to the definition of automated quotation under Rule 600(b)(3) of Regulation NMS, and the corresponding staff guidance, does not distinguish between intentional delays designed to benefit non-displayed liquidity, as was the case with the IEX delay, or displayed liquidity, as is the case with the LEAD. The Commission's staff found that “delays of less than a millisecond are at a
Under the firm quote provisions of the Quote Rule, a responsible broker-dealer must execute any order to buy or sell a subject security (other than an odd-lot order) presented to it by another broker-dealer at a price at least as favorable to such buyer or seller as the responsible broker-dealer's published bid or published offer in any amount up to its published quotation size unless an exception applies.
The Commission notes that the firm quote provisions of the Quote Rule require each responsible broker or dealer to execute an order presented to it at a price at least as favorable as its published bid or published offer in any amount up to its published quotation size.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendments No. 1 and No. 2. 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 in the
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to add new fees for co-location services, direct circuit connections to the Exchange, connections to third party services, point of presence (“POP”) connectivity, and connectivity to the Exchange's Test Facility (the “Test Facility”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to eliminate certain fees associated with legacy options for connecting to ISE and to replace them with fees associated with new options for connecting to the Exchange that are similar to those that MRX's sister exchanges presently offer.
The Exchange is engaged in an initiative to migrate the Exchange's trading system to the Nasdaq INET architecture. As part of that initiative, the Exchange proposes to offer customers various new options to connect to the Exchange and to assess fees for such connectivity. The connectivity options that the Exchange proposes to offer—colocation, direct circuit connectivity, connectivity to third party services, POP connectivity, and connectivity to the Exchange's Test Facility—and the fees that the Exchange proposes to assess for such connectivity are similar to those that the Exchange's affiliated Nasdaq, Inc. markets—including The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC (“Nasdaq”), Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“BX”), and Nasdaq Phlx LLC (“Phlx”)—presently offer and assess to their customers under their respective rules. They are also the same as the connectivity options and fees that Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (“GEMX”) and Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”) propose to offer and assess under their respective rules in tandem with this filing. This proposal, in other words, seeks to harmonize the Exchange's connectivity offerings and fees with those of its sister exchanges.
The first new connectivity option that the Exchange proposes to offer its customers is co-location. Co-location is a suite of hardware, power, telecommunication, and other ancillary products and services that allow market participants and vendors to place their trading and communications equipment in close physical proximity to the quoting and execution facilities of the Exchange and other Nasdaq, Inc. markets. The Exchange provides co-location services and imposes fees through Nasdaq Technology Services LLC and pursuant to agreements with the owner/operator of its data center where both the Exchange's quoting and trading facilities and co-located customer equipment are housed. Users of colocation services include private extranet providers, data vendors, as well as Exchange members and non-
Like its sister exchanges, and as detailed in the proposed co-location fee schedule, the Exchange proposes to impose a uniform, non-discriminatory set of fees for various co-location services, including: Fees for co-located connections to the Exchange and to third party services (described below) in various bandwidths; fees for cabinet space usage, or options for future space usage; installation and related power provision for hosted equipment; connectivity among multiple cabinets being used by the same customer as well as customer connectivity to the Exchange and telecommunications providers; and related maintenance and consulting services. Fees related to cabinet and power usage are incremental, with additional charges being imposed based on higher levels of cabinet and/or power usage, the use of non-standard cabinet sizes or special cabinet cooling equipment, or the re-selling of cabinet space.
In addition to co-location services, the Exchange proposes to offer several other connectivity options for customers that are located outside of the Exchange's primary data center in Carteret, New Jersey.
First, the Exchange proposes to offer a “Direct Circuit Connectivity” service, whereby subscribers may connect their facilities directly to the Exchange's primary data center using a circuit they obtain from an external telecommunications provider. For this form of connectivity, the Exchange's proposal offers customers the choice of 1 GB, 1 GB Ultra, and 10 GB connections. The installation fee for all such connections will be $1,500 and the monthly fee will be $7,500 for 10 GB connections and $2,500 for both 1 GB and 1 GB connections. The Exchange also proposes to charge a fee to customers that choose to install a cable router in its data center and a monthly fee for customers that choose to install equipment in the Exchange's data center to support the connectivity. Specifically, the Exchange proposes an installation fee of $925 per router, switch or modem, and a monthly fee of $150 to rent cabinet space based on a unit height of approximately 1.75 inches (commonly called a “U” space) and a maximum power of 125 Watts per U space.
Next, the Exchange proposes to offer a “POP Connectivity” service, whereby subscribers may use external telecommunication circuits to connect directly to one or more of the Exchange's satellite data centers (each, a “POP”) that are located in places other than Carteret. Each POP, in turn, has a fully redundant connection to the Exchange's primary data center, such that subscribers may connect to the primary data center through its connection to a POP. For POP Connectivity to the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to offer 1 GB Ultra and 10 GB Ultra connections. The installation fee for all such connections will be $1,500 and the monthly fee will be $7,500 for 10 GB connections and $2,500 for 1 GB Ultra connections.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to offer connectivity to third party services. The Exchange is proposing to offer this service to both non-co-location customers (via a direct circuit connection) and co-location customers alike. This connectivity will enable customers to receive third party market data feeds, including Securities Information Processors (“SIPs”)
Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to offer connectivity to its Test Facility. The Test Facility provides subscribers with a virtual system test environment that closely approximates the production environment and on which they may test their automated systems that integrate with the Exchange. For example, subscribers may test upcoming Exchange releases and product enhancements, as well as test software prior to implementation. The Exchange proposes to assess certain fees for use of the Test Facility. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that subscribers to the Test Facility located in Carteret, New Jersey shall pay a fee of $1,000 per hand-off, per month for connection to the Test Facility. The hand-off fee will includes [sic] either a 1 GB or 10 GB switch port and a cross connect to the Test Facility. Subscribers will also pay a one-time installation fee of $1,000 per handoff.
Finally, for each of the connectivity options discussed above, the Exchange proposes to include language in the fee schedule which states that connectivity to the Exchange also applies to connectivity to all of the other Nasdaq, Inc. markets, including Nasdaq, BX, Phlx, ISE, and GEMX. This purpose of this proposal is to specify that a client can use the connections it establishes and maintains to connect, not only to the Exchange, but also to any or all of its sister exchanges, and in doing so, it will be billed only once.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that proposed new connectivity fees are reasonable as a means of covering its costs associated with providing new connectivity options. Moreover, these new fees are reasonable because they are similar to or the same as the connectivity fees that the Exchange's sister exchanges, including Nasdaq, BX, and Phlx, charge under their respective rules.
The Exchange believes that the proposed new fees are an equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same fees to all subscribers to the same connectivity options.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, 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 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 in response, and because market participants may connect to third parties instead of directly connecting to the Exchange, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the proposed changes to the charges assessed for connectivity to the Exchange are consistent with the fees assessed by other exchanges for the same or similar connectivity. Moreover, the Exchange must assess fees to cover the costs incurred in providing connectivity and members had been assessed fees for Exchange connectivity prior to the sunset of the old Exchange architecture. As a consequence, competition will not be burdened by the proposed fees. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that the proposal harmonizes the Exchange's co-location offerings and fees with those of the other Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges. Furthermore, waiver of the 30-day operative delay will eliminate the confusion that could occur if different co-location offerings were available on each of Nasdaq, Inc.'s affiliated exchanges. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to: (i) Delete fees and descriptions thereof for connectivity no longer used by the Exchange; and (ii) add new fees for co-location services, direct circuit connections to the Exchange, direct circuit connections to third party services, point of presence (“POP”) connectivity, and connectivity to the Exchange's Test Facility (the “Test Facility”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to eliminate certain fees associated with legacy options for connecting to ISE and to replace them with fees associated with new options for connecting to the Exchange that are similar to those that ISE's sister exchanges presently offer.
ISE is engaged in an initiative to migrate the Exchange's trading system to the Nasdaq INET architecture. As part of that initiative, ISE proposes to retire certain obsolete connectivity associated with the Exchange's legacy trading system and the fees associated with such connectivity.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to discontinue offering Ethernet connectivity to the Exchange and also eliminate the fees it charges for such connectivity in Section VI.B of its Fee Schedule, entitled “Network Fees.” The Exchange currently offers four Ethernet connection options: A 1 Gb connection at a cost of $1,000 per month, a 10 Gb connection at a cost of $4,500 per month, a 10 Gb low latency connection at a cost of $8,000 per month, and a 40 Gb low latency connection at a cost of $15,000 per month.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to stop offering customers the ability to connect to the Exchange via an Application Programming Interface (“API”) session or a Financial Information eXchange (“FIX”) session, as these connection options are becoming obsolete with respect to the new trading system. The Exchange correspondingly proposes to eliminate entirely Section V.C of its Fee Schedule, entitled “FIX Session/Session Fees.” The Exchange presently charges Market Makers monthly per API fees that depend upon the functionality of API and, if used for quoting, the amount of usage per day per user. The Exchange also charges Electronic Access Members monthly API and FIX fees based upon the number of sessions.
In lieu of the above, the Exchange proposes to offer customers various new options to connect to the Exchange and to assess fees for such connectivity. The connectivity options that the Exchange proposes to offer—colocation, direct circuit connectivity, connectivity to third party services, POP connectivity, and connectivity to the Exchange's Test Facility—and the fees that the Exchange proposes to assess for such connectivity are similar to those that ISE's affiliated Nasdaq, Inc. markets—including The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC (“Nasdaq”), Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“BX”), and Nasdaq Phlx LLC (“Phlx”)—presently offer and assess to their customers under their respective rules. They are also the same as the connectivity options and fees that Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (“GEMX”) and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“MRX”) propose to offer and assess under their respective rules in tandem with this filing. This proposal, in other words, seeks to harmonize the Exchange's connectivity offerings and fees with those of its sister exchanges.
The first new connectivity option that the Exchange proposes to offer its customers is co-location. Co-location is a suite of hardware, power, telecommunication, and other ancillary products and services that allow market participants and vendors to place their trading and communications equipment in close physical proximity to the quoting and execution facilities of the Exchange and other Nasdaq, Inc. markets. The Exchange provides co-location services and imposes fees through Nasdaq Technology Services LLC and pursuant to agreements with the owner/operator of its data center where both the Exchange's quoting and
Like its sister exchanges, and as detailed in the proposed co-location fee schedule, the Exchange proposes to impose a uniform, non-discriminatory set of fees for various co-location services, including: Fees for co-located connections to the Exchange and to third party services (described below) in various bandwidths; Fees for cabinet space usage, or options for future space usage; installation and related power provision for hosted equipment; connectivity among multiple cabinets being used by the same customer as well as customer connectivity to the Exchange and telecommunications providers; and related maintenance and consulting services. Fees related to cabinet and power usage are incremental, with additional charges being imposed based on higher levels of cabinet and/or power usage, the use of non-standard cabinet sizes or special cabinet cooling equipment, or the re-selling of cabinet space.
In addition to co-location services, the Exchange proposes to offer several other connectivity options for customers that are located outside of the Exchange's primary data center in Carteret, New Jersey.
First, the Exchange proposes to offer a “Direct Circuit Connectivity” service, whereby subscribers may connect their facilities directly to the Exchange's primary data center using a circuit they obtain from an external telecommunications provider. For this form of connectivity, the Exchange's proposal offers customers the choice of 1 GB, 1 GB Ultra, and 10 GB connections. The installation fee for all such connections will be $1,500 and the monthly fee will be $7,500 for 10 GB connections and $2,500 for both 1 GB and 1 GB Ultra connections. The Exchange also proposes to charge a fee to customers that choose to install a cable router in its data center and a monthly fee for customers that choose to install equipment in the Exchange's data center to support the connectivity. Specifically, the Exchange proposes an installation fee of $925 per router, switch or modem, and a monthly fee of $150 to rent cabinet space based on a unit height of approximately 1.75 inches (commonly called a “U” space) and a maximum power of 125 Watts per U space.
Next, the Exchange proposes to offer a “POP Connectivity” service, whereby subscribers may use external telecommunication circuits to connect directly to one or more of the Exchange's satellite data centers (each, a “POP”) that are located in places other than Carteret. Each POP, in turn, has a fully redundant connection to the Exchange's primary data center, such that subscribers may connect to the primary data center through its connection to a POP. For POP Connectivity to the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to offer 1 GB Ultra and 10 GB connections. The installation fee for all such connections will be $1,500 and the monthly fee will be $7,500 for 10 GB connections and $2,500 for 1 GB Ultra connections.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to offer connectivity to third party services. The Exchange is proposing to offer this service to both non-co-location customers (via a direct circuit connection) and co-location customers alike. This connectivity will enable customers to receive third party market data feeds, including Securities Information Processors (“SIPs”)
Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to offer connectivity to its Test Facility. The Test Facility provides subscribers with a virtual system test environment that closely approximates the production environment and on which they may test their automated systems that integrate with the Exchange. For example, subscribers may test upcoming Exchange releases and product enhancements, as well as test software prior to implementation. The Exchange proposes to assess certain fees for use of the Test Facility. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that subscribers to the Test Facility located in Carteret, New Jersey shall pay a fee of $1,000 per hand-off, per month for connection to the Test Facility. The hand-off fee will includes [sic] either a 1 GB or 10 GB switch port and a cross connect to the Test Facility. Subscribers will also pay a one-time installation fee of $1,000 per handoff.
Finally, for each of the connectivity options discussed above, the Exchange proposes to include language in the fee schedule which states that connectivity to the Exchange also applies to connectivity to all of the other Nasdaq, Inc. markets, including Nasdaq, BX, Phlx, MRX, and GEMX. This purpose of this proposal is to specify that a client can use the connections it establishes and maintains to connect, not only to the Exchange, but also to any or all of its sister exchanges, and in doing so, it will be billed only once.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to eliminate its existing Ethernet, FIX, and API connectivity offerings and their associated fees as the Exchange is migrating to a new platform that will offer new connectivity options. The Exchange notes that its customers have had ample prior notice of this transition.
The Exchange believes that proposed new connectivity fees are reasonable as a means of covering its costs associated
The Exchange believes that the proposed new fees are an equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same fees to all subscribers to the same connectivity options.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, 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 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 in response, and because market participants may connect to third parties instead of directly connecting to the Exchange, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the proposed changes to the charges assessed for connectivity to the Exchange are consistent with the fees assessed by other exchanges for the same or similar connectivity. Moreover, the Exchange must assess fees to cover the costs incurred in providing connectivity and members had been assessed fees for Exchange connectivity prior to the sunset of the old Exchange architecture. As a consequence, competition will not be burdened by the proposed fees. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that the proposal harmonizes the Exchange's co-location offerings and fees with those of the other Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges. Furthermore, waiver of the 30-day operative delay will eliminate the confusion that could occur if different co-location offerings were available on each of Nasdaq, Inc.'s affiliated exchanges. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to: (i) Delete fees and descriptions thereof for connectivity no longer used by the Exchange; and (ii) add new fees for co-location services, direct circuit connections to the Exchange, connections to third party services, point of presence (“POP”) connectivity, and connectivity to the Exchange's Test Facility (the “Test Facility”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to eliminate certain fees associated with legacy options for connecting to GEMX and to replace them with fees associated with new options for connecting to the Exchange that are similar to those that GEMX's sister exchanges presently offer.
GEMX is engaged in an initiative to migrate the Exchange's trading system to the Nasdaq INET architecture. As part of that initiative, GEMX proposes to retire certain obsolete connectivity associated with the Exchange's legacy trading system and the fees associated with such connectivity.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to discontinue offering Ethernet connectivity to the Exchange and also eliminate the fees it charges for such connectivity in Section IV.C of its Fee Schedule, entitled “Network Fees.”
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to stop offering customers the ability to connect to the Exchange via an Application Programming Interface (“API”) session or a Financial Information eXchange (“FIX”) session, as these connection options are becoming obsolete with respect to the new trading system. The Exchange correspondingly proposes to eliminate paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section IV.E of its Fee Schedule, entitled “Port Fees.” The Exchange presently charges Electronic Access Members (“EAMs”) monthly per session API fees and FIX session fees.
In lieu of the above, the Exchange proposes to offer customers various new options to connect to the Exchange and to assess fees for such connectivity. The connectivity options that the Exchange proposes to offer—colocation, direct circuit connectivity, connectivity to third party services, POP connectivity, and connectivity to the Exchange's Test Facility—and the fees that the Exchange proposes to assess for such connectivity are similar to those that ISE's affiliated Nasdaq, Inc. markets—including The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC (“Nasdaq”), Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“BX”), and Nasdaq Phlx LLC (“Phlx”)—presently offer and assess to their customers under their respective rules. They are also the same as the connectivity options and fees that Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”) and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“MRX”) propose to offer and assess under their respective rules in tandem with this filing. This proposal, in other words, seeks to harmonize the Exchange's connectivity offerings and fees with those of its sister exchanges.
The first new connectivity option that the Exchange proposes to offer its customers is co-location. Co-location is a suite of hardware, power, telecommunication, and other ancillary products and services that allow market participants and vendors to place their trading and communications equipment
Like its sister exchanges, and as detailed in the proposed co-location fee schedule, the Exchange proposes to impose a uniform, non-discriminatory set of fees for various co-location services, including: fees for co-located connections to the Exchange and to third party services (described below) in various bandwidths; fees for cabinet space usage, or options for future space usage; installation and related power provision for hosted equipment; connectivity among multiple cabinets being used by the same customer as well as customer connectivity to the Exchange and telecommunications providers; and related maintenance and consulting services. Fees related to cabinet and power usage are incremental, with additional charges being imposed based on higher levels of cabinet and/or power usage, the use of non-standard cabinet sizes or special cabinet cooling equipment, or the re-selling of cabinet space.
In addition to co-location services, the Exchange proposes to offer several other connectivity options for customers that are located outside of the Exchange's primary data center in Carteret, New Jersey.
First, the Exchange proposes to offer a “Direct Circuit Connectivity” service, whereby subscribers may connect their facilities directly to the Exchange's primary data center using a circuit they obtain from an external telecommunications provider. For this form of connectivity, the Exchange's proposal offers customers the choice of 1 GB, 1 GB Ultra, and 10 GB connections. The installation fee for all such connections will be $1,500 and the monthly fee will be $7,500 for 10 GB connections and $2,500 for both 1 GB and 1 GB Ultra connections. The Exchange also proposes to charge a fee to customers that choose to install a cable router in its data center and a monthly fee for customers that choose to install equipment in the Exchange's data center to support the connectivity. Specifically, the Exchange proposes an installation fee of $925 per router, switch or modem, and a monthly fee of $150 to rent cabinet space based on a unit height of approximately 1.75 inches (commonly called a “U” space) and a maximum power of 125 Watts per U space.
Next, the Exchange proposes to offer a “POP Connectivity” service, whereby subscribers may use external telecommunication circuits to connect directly to one or more of the Exchange's satellite data centers (each, a “POP”) that are located in places other than Carteret. Each POP, in turn, has a fully redundant connection to the Exchange's primary data center, such that subscribers may connect to the primary data center through its connection to a POP. For POP Connectivity to the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to offer 1 GB Ultra and 10 GB connections. The installation fee for all such connections will be $1,500 and the monthly fee will be $7,500 for 10 GB connections and $2,500 for 1 GB Ultra connections.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to offer connectivity to third party services. The Exchange is proposing to offer this service to both non-co-location customers (via a direct circuit connection) and co-location customers alike. This connectivity will enable customers to receive third party market data feeds, including Securities Information Processors (“SIPs”)
Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to offer connectivity to its Test Facility. The Test Facility provides subscribers with a virtual system test environment that closely approximates the production environment and on which they may test their automated systems that integrate with the Exchange. For example, subscribers may test upcoming Exchange releases and product enhancements, as well as test software prior to implementation. The Exchange proposes to assess certain fees for use of the Test Facility. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that subscribers to the Test Facility located in Carteret, New Jersey shall pay a fee of $1,000 per hand-off, per month for connection to the Test Facility. The hand-off fee will includes [sic] either a 1 GB or 10 GB switch port and a cross connect to the Test Facility. Subscribers will also pay a one-time installation fee of $1,000 per handoff.
Finally, for each of the connectivity options discussed above, the Exchange proposes to include language in the fee schedule which states that connectivity to the Exchange also applies to connectivity to all of the other Nasdaq, Inc. markets, including Nasdaq, BX, Phlx, MRX, and ISE. This purpose of this proposal is to specify that a client can use the connections it establishes and maintains to connect, not only to the Exchange, but also to any or all of its sister exchanges, and in doing so, it will be billed only once.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to eliminate its existing
The Exchange believes that proposed new connectivity fees are reasonable as a means of covering its costs associated with providing new connectivity options. Moreover, these new fees are reasonable because they are similar to or the same as the connectivity fees that the Exchange's sister exchanges, including Nasdaq, BX, and Phlx, charge under their respective rules.
The Exchange believes that the proposed new fees are an equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same fees to all subscribers to the same connectivity options.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, 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 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 in response, and because market participants may connect to third parties instead of directly connecting to the Exchange, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the proposed changes to the charges assessed for connectivity to the Exchange are consistent with the fees assessed by other exchanges for the same or similar connectivity. Moreover, the Exchange must assess fees to cover the costs incurred in providing connectivity and members had been assessed fees for Exchange connectivity prior to the sunset of the old Exchange architecture. As a consequence, competition will not be burdened by the proposed fees. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that the proposal harmonizes the Exchange's co-location offerings and fees with those of the other Nasdaq, Inc. exchanges. Furthermore, waiver of the 30-day operative delay will eliminate the confusion that could occur if different co-location offerings were available on each of Nasdaq. Inc.'s affiliated exchanges. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
This purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt a comprehensive Risk Management Framework Policy, which would describe OCC's framework for comprehensive risk management, including OCC's framework to identify, measure, monitor, and manage all risks faced by OCC in the provision of clearing, settlement and risk management services. The Risk Management Framework Policy is included in confidential Exhibit 5 of the filing. The proposed rule change does not require any changes to the text of OCC's By-Laws or Rules. All terms with initial capitalization that are not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
On September 28, 2016, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule 17Ad-22
“[E]stablish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to . . . [m]aintain a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, which . . . [i]ncludes risk management policies, procedures, and systems designed to identify, measure, monitor, and manage the range of risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, that are subject to review on a specified periodic basis and approved by the board of directors annually . . .”
OCC is defined as a covered clearing agency under the CCA rules, and therefore is subject to the requirements of the CCA rules, including Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3).
OCC proposes to adopt a new RMF document. The purpose of the RMF is to describe OCC's framework for
The RMF would begin by establishing the context for OCC's risk management framework. Specifically, OCC is a Systemically Important Financial Market Utility (“SIFMU”)
The proposed RMF would describe OCC's risk management philosophy. As a SIFMU, OCC must be mindful of the public interest and its obligation to promote financial stability, reduce the potential for systemic contagion and support the smooth functioning of the U.S. financial markets. Furthermore, as a CCP, OCC concentrates financial risks for the markets it serves by acting as the CCP for all of the transactions that it clears. As a result of this concentration, OCC's primary objective is to ensure that it properly manages the financial risks associated with functioning as a CCP, which primarily relate to potential clearing member default scenarios.
As a CCP, OCC's daily operations, among other things, involve managing financial, operational and business risks. In managing these risks, OCC's daily operations—which are guided by policies, procedures and controls—are designed to ensure that financial exposures and service disruptions are within acceptable limits set by OCC as part of its Risk Appetite Framework (“RAF”) as described below.
The proposed RMF would describe OCC's RAF and use of Risk Tolerances. The purpose of the RAF is to establish OCC's overall approach to managing risks at the enterprise level in an effective and integrated fashion. The RAF establishes the level and types of Key Risks, described in further detail below, that OCC is willing and able to assume in accordance with OCC's mission as a SIFMU. Under the RAF, Risk Appetite Statements
Under the RMF, Risk Appetite Statements would be set annually by each department associated with a Key Risk in cooperation with OCC's Enterprise Risk Management department (“ERM”) according to applicable procedures. OCC's risk appetite levels would be classified into four categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Under the RMF, OCC's Board would have ultimate responsibility for reviewing and approving the Risk Appetite Statements in connection with each Key Risk on an annual basis upon recommendation of OCC's Management Committee.
The Risk Appetite Statements allow OCC to carefully calibrate the levels of risk it accepts for each of its Key Risks to be consistent with OCC's core mission of promoting financial stability in the markets it serves. Accordingly, the RAF helps to ensure that OCC has an effective and comprehensive framework for managing its Key Risks (
In addition to Risk Appetite Statements, the RMF would require that OCC assign Risk Tolerances to the Key Risks contained within the RMF as approved by OCC's Board. While the Risk Appetite Statements would be more high-level and principles-based, Risk Tolerances would comparatively be more granular and represent the application of OCC's risk appetite to specific sub-categories or aspects of Key Risks. The purpose of the proposed Risk Tolerances is to ensure that OCC sets acceptable levels of risk within those specified sub-categories of Key Risks. Risk Tolerances would be stated in either quantitative or qualitative terms, depending on the nature of the risk and OCC's ability to measure it.
Under the RMF, each department would be required to establish Risk Tolerances at least annually for sub-categories of Key Risks that are within their relevant domains of responsibility and would be responsible for managing applicable risks within established tolerance levels. ERM staff would monitor Risk Tolerances through quantitative metrics, where applicable, and compile such monitoring in a report that the Chief Risk Officer shall present to OCC's Management Committee and
The proposed RMF would identify risks that could affect OCC's ability to perform services as expected, and the process for identifying such risks would take a broad view to include: (i) Direct financial and operational risks that may prevent the smooth functioning of CCP services, (ii) reputational risks that could undermine the perception of OCC as a sound pillar in the financial market and (iii) the risks OCC faces from third parties, such as custodians and settlement banks, that are critical to the design and operation of OCC's infrastructure and risk management. Identifying Key Risks in this manner would facilitate OCC's ability to comprehensively manage the legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody and other risks that arise in or are borne by it. Based on this identification process, the RMF would define OCC's Key Risks as described below.
The RMF would indicate that financial risk encompasses many aspects of risk at OCC, including the risks that a Clearing Member will be unable to meet its obligations when due or that OCC will not maintain sufficient financial resources to cover exposures (
The proposed RMF would require OCC's credit risk management framework to encompass policies and procedures for maintaining sufficient prefunded resources in the form of margin and Clearing Fund deposits, accepting collateral from participants that is low risk and high quality, monitoring the creditworthiness and operational reliability of all counterparties, including participants, custodians, settlement banks, liquidity providers, and linked financial market utilities (“FMUs”), and maintaining a waterfall of resources to be used in the event of participant default and a process for replenishing resources.
In addition, the RMF would require OCC's liquidity risk framework to encompass sizing liquidity resources to cover liquidity needs in the event of the default of the largest Clearing Member Group, forecasting daily settlements needs under normal market conditions, maintaining liquid resources in the form of cash and committed facilities, maintaining a contingency funding plan and periodically reviewing the size of liquidity resources, maintaining liquidity resources at creditworthy custodians and monitoring the financial and operational performance of financial institutions and committed liquidity facilities, and investing liquidity resources in safe overnight investments or at a Federal Reserve Bank.
Moreover, the RMF would require OCC to address investment risks by maintaining an account at a Federal Reserve Bank, which bears no investment risk, and investing funds not held at the Federal Reserve Bank in high quality liquid assets. The RMF would also require OCC to manage model risk through a model development program, independent model validation and strong governance arrangements for the approval of new models or models with material changes in accordance with relevant policies.
The RMF would define operational risk as the risk of disruptions in OCC's CCP services due to: (i) Deficiencies in internal controls, processes or information systems, (ii) human error or misconduct, or (iii) external events or intrusions. The definition of operational risk would also cover deficiencies related to information technology (“IT”), such as data security and IT systems reliability. To reflect the importance OCC assigns to managing IT risks, the RMF would also categorize IT risk as a separate Key Risk, discussed below.
The RMF would also assert that OCC manages operational risks in number of ways, including that OCC: (i) Maintains an Enterprise Project Management Program that performs initial assessments of proposed projects and manages project execution, to ensure that proper oversight exists during the initiation, planning, execution and delivery of OCC corporate projects, (ii) maintains a Business Continuity Program to support continuance of critical services in the event of a catastrophic loss of infrastructure and/or staff (including a Crisis Management Plan, which outlines OCC's processes for decision-making in crisis or emergency circumstances), (iii) maintains a comprehensive third-party risk management program which includes requirements for onboarding and ongoing monitoring of third parties on which OCC relies (such as vendors, settlement banks and FMUs with linkages to OCC) performed by various areas of the organization, including National Operations, Collateral Services, Credit Risk, and ERM, (iv) provides training and development through its Human Resources Department to ensure staff maintains and develops the necessary knowledge and skills to perform their jobs, and (v) conducts training on business ethics and OCC's Code of Conduct.
The RMF also would address operational risks specifically related to IT as a distinct Key Risk. Operational risk related to IT would be defined as the risk that inadequate levels of system functionality, confidentiality, integrity, availability, capacity or resiliency for systems that support core clearing, settlement or risk management services or critical business functions results in disruptions in OCC services. In addition to the ways described above that OCC manages operational risks generally, the RMF would also provide that OCC manages IT operational risks by maintaining a: (i) Quality Standards Program, which includes targets that set performance standards for systems operations, (ii) cybersecurity program, and (iii) program to maintain system functionality and capacity.
The RMF would define legal risk as the risk that OCC's by-laws, rules, policies and procedures do not provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions. The RMF would also provide that OCC manages legal risk by: (i) Maintaining rules, policies, and contracts that are consistent with applicable laws and regulations and (ii) maintaining legal agreements that establish counterparty obligations regarding the material aspects of its clearing, settlement and risk management services, including, but not limited to, settlement finality, vendor performance, exchange performance, options exercise and cross-margining obligations.
The RMF would define general business risk as the risk of any potential
The RMF would provide that OCC manages general business risk by: (i) Maintaining a target capital level of liquid net assets funded by equity equal to the greater of six-months' operating expenses or the amount sufficient to ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of OCC's operations as set forth in OCC's recovery and wind-down plan, and a plan that provides for capital replenishment in the event of non-default losses in excess of target capital, (ii) maintaining a corporate planning program to manage new business activity, and (iii) actively managing the public perception of OCC.
The RMF would describe the governance arrangements through which OCC implements its risk management philosophy. These governance arrangements would include the responsibilities of the Board, the Board's committees and management in establishing and executing OCC's risk management framework. These responsibilities are described in further detail below.
The RMF would provide that OCC's risk governance framework follows a hierarchical structure that begins with the Board, which has ultimate oversight responsibility for OCC's risk management activities. The Board performs an oversight role to ensure that OCC is managed and operated in a manner consistent with OCC's regulatory responsibilities as a SIFMU providing clearance and settlement services. The Board also is responsible for ensuring that OCC has governance arrangements that, among other things, prioritize the safety and efficiency of OCC through the proposed risk management framework. Moreover, under the RMF, the Board is responsible for overseeing OCC's risk management policies, procedures and systems designed to identify, measure, monitor and manage risks consistent within the Risk Appetite Statements and Risk Tolerances approved by the Board. The RMF also provides that the Board is responsible for overseeing and approving OCC's recovery and orderly wind-down plan (consistent with OCC's Board of Directors Charter).
To carry out these responsibilities, the RMF would indicate that the Board has established Committees to assist in overseeing OCC's Key Risks. These Committees are: (i) The Audit Committee, (ii) the Compensation and Performance Committee, (iii) the Governance and Nominating Committee, (iv) the Risk Committee, and (v) the Technology Committee. The responsibilities of these committees to manage OCC's Key Risks are outlined in their respective committee charters.
The RMF would also provide that OCC's Management Committee is responsible for annually reviewing and approving the RMF—and the Risk Appetite Statements and Risk Tolerances established thereunder—and recommending further approval thereof to the Board. The Management Committee would also review reports related to metrics for assessing Risk Tolerances to determine whether OCC's Key Risks are behaving within established tolerances and take or recommend action as needed to return Key Risks to their appropriate levels and escalate exceptions to Risk Tolerances and Risk Appetite Statements to relevant Board committees. The Management Committee would also be permitted to establish working groups to assist it in the management of Key Risks.
The RMF would describe OCC's program for enterprise-wide risk management. The internal structures for risk management described in the proposed RMF are intended to follow programs generally accepted in the financial services industry, including the “three lines of defense” model (
To maintain a resilient risk management and internal control infrastructure, the RMF would formalize OCC's “three lines of defense” model, which allows OCC to manage its control infrastructure with clarity of ownership and accountability. The first line of defense consists of OCC's operational business units, including Financial Risk Management, National Operations, technology, legal, regulatory affairs and corporate functions such as human resources, finance, accounting and project management. The first line is responsible and accountable for designing, owning and managing risks by maintaining policies, procedures, processes and controls to manage relevant risks. The first line would also be responsible and accountable for internal controls and implementing corrective action to address control deficiencies.
The first line is supported and monitored by the second line of defense, which consists of the ERM, Compliance, Security Services and Model Validation Group functions. The second line is an oversight function and is responsible for designing, implementing and maintaining an enterprise-wide risk management and compliance program and tools to assess and manage risk at the enterprise level. The second line would also work with the first line to assess risks and establish policies and guidelines, and advise, monitor and report on the first line's effectiveness in managing risk and maintaining and operating a resilient control infrastructure. The second line reports to OCC's Management Committee and Board (or committee thereof) on the first line of defense's effectiveness in managing risk and compliance and an assessment of whether OCC's services are being delivered within Risk Appetite Statements and Risk Tolerances.
The third line of defense consists of OCC's internal audit function. The third line reports to the Audit Committee of the Board and is accountable for designing, implementing and maintaining a comprehensive audit program that allows senior management and the Board to receive independent and objective assurance that the quality of OCC's risk management and internal control infrastructure is consistent with OCC's risk appetite and Risk Tolerances. The RMF also would require that OCC's Internal Audit department maintains a diverse and skilled team of professionals with a variety of business, technology and audit skills, and perform all of its activities in compliance with the Institute of Internal Auditors' standards found in the International Professional Practices Framework.
The three lines of defense model is designed to provide for a robust governance structure that distinguishes among the three lines involved in the effective and comprehensive management of risk at OCC: The functions that own and manage risks, the functions that oversee and provide guidance on the management of risks, and the functions that provide independent and objective assurance of the robustness and appropriateness of risk management and internal controls.
In furtherance of the three lines of defense model, the RMF would provide for risk identification and assessment programs described below to identify, measure, and monitor current and emerging risks at OCC. Findings or recommendations that result from the assessments would be documented, monitored and escalated through the appropriate governance according to applicable OCC policies and procedures.
One such assessment—the Enterprise Risk Assessment—would be conducted by OCC's first line of defense in conjunction with ERM. The Enterprise Risk Assessment would analyze risks based on: (i) Inherent Risk,
Another such assessment—the Scenario Analysis Program—would be a method for identifying risks that may not be otherwise captured in OCC's risk statements. ERM, in cooperation with the first line of defense, would design simulations of potential disruptions, and business unit staff would be able to identify risks that may not have been previously uncovered or identify weaknesses in current controls. ERM would include potential risks identified through the Scenario Analysis Program in its analysis of, and reporting on, the quantity of risk within a certain Key Risk and whether the Key Risk is within appetite.
A third assessment—the IT Risk Assessment Program—would be conducted by OCC's Security Services department prior to the procurement, development, installation, and operation of IT services and systems. This assessment would be triggered by certain events that may affect the nature or level of IT risks OCC faces, such as evaluation or procurement of a new system or technology, changes in OCC business processes that affect current services and systems, and the emergence of new threats that subvert existing controls and that require a new technology mitigation. OCC would also conduct periodic assessments.
A fourth assessment would be conducted by OCC's compliance function to identify and measure regulatory compliance risks. The assessment would also provide OCC's compliance function with a basis for prioritizing testing and training activities.
Under the RMF, ERM would be responsible for completing a review and reporting process that provides OCC's Management Committee and Board (or committee thereof) with the information necessary to fulfill their obligations for risk management and oversight of risk management activities, respectively. This reporting would be designed to assist OCC's Management Committee and Board (or committee thereof) in understanding the most significant risks faced by OCC from a process perspective and determining whether Risk Tolerances are being managed in accordance with Risk Appetite Statements. On a quarterly basis, ERM would provide a risk report with a summary analysis of risk appetite and risk profile that includes analysis of Residual Risks from the Enterprise Risk Assessment program, reporting on Risk Tolerances and recommendations for prioritization of risk mitigation activities. The reporting process would indicate procedures for escalation in the event of a breach of Risk Tolerance.
Under the RMF, the Compliance Department would be responsible for maintaining an inventory of all business processes and associated controls. OCC would also provide guides to assist staff in documenting their control activities in a consistent way and periodically conduct training on the importance of a strong risk and control environment. In addition, on at least an annual basis, the Compliance Department would be required to conduct training to assist OCC staff in understanding their respective responsibilities in implementing OCC's risk and control environment.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
The proposed rule change would formalize the risk management framework OCC currently employs in a single document and would therefore serve as a guide for readers to understand OCC's comprehensive framework for managing risk and its universe of risk management policies. Moreover, by describing some of the ways that OCC manages its risks, the RMF would serve as a basis for the processes, policies, procedures and other documents that OCC may develop and maintain to facilitate those risk management activities. As a result, OCC believes the proposed rule change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)
The RMF also describes OCC's RAF and use of Risk Appetite Statements and Risk Tolerances to ensure that OCC sets appropriate levels and types of Key Risks that OCC is willing and able to assume in accordance with OCC's mission as a SIFMU. For example, the use of Risk Appetite Statements ensures that OCC can carefully calibrate the levels of risk it accepts for each Key Risk in a manner consistent with OCC's core mission of promoting financial stability in the markets it serves. In addition, the use of Risk Tolerances helps to ensure that OCC sets acceptable levels of risk within specified sub-categories of Key Risks, and which may also be used to set thresholds for acceptable variability in risk levels and to provide clear and transparent escalation triggers when the thresholds are breached. As a result, OCC believes the RMF is reasonably designed to provide for a sound, comprehensive framework for identifying, measuring, monitoring and managing the range of risks that arise in or are borne by OCC in a manner consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3).
The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4338-DR), dated 09/28/2017.
Issued on 10/18/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Georgia, dated 09/28/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 7.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4332-DR), dated 08/25/2017.
Issued on 10/19/2017.
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.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 08/25/2017, is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 11/24/2017.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Social Security Administration.
Notice of Social Security Ruling (SSR).
We are republishing SSR 16-3p, a ruling that rescinded and superseded SSR 96-7p, with a revision detailing how we apply the SSR as it relates to the applicable date. We changed our terminology from “effective date” to “applicable date” based on guidance from the Office of the Federal Register. We also updated citations to reflect the revised regulations that became effective on March 27, 2017. This Ruling is otherwise unchanged, and provides guidance about how we evaluate statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms in disability claims under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act) and blindness claims under Title XVI of the Act.
Elaine Tocco, Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 966-6356. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our internet site, Social Security Online, at
Although 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do not require us to publish this SSR, we are doing so in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
Through SSRs, we convey to the public SSA precedential decisions relating to the Federal old age, survivors, disability, supplemental security income, and special veterans benefits programs. We may base SSRs on determinations or decisions made at all levels of administrative adjudication, Federal court decisions, Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of the General Counsel, or other interpretations of the law and regulations.
Although SSRs do not have the same force and effect as statutes or regulations, they are binding on all components of the Social Security Administration. 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
This SSR will remain in effect until we publish a notice in the
This SSR, republished in its entirety, includes a revision to clarify that our adjudicators will apply SSR 16-3p when we make determinations and decisions on or after March 28, 2016. When a Federal court reviews our final decision in a claim, we also explain that we expect the court to review the final
This SSR supersedes SSR 96-7p: Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual's Statements.
We are rescinding SSR 96-7p: Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual's Statements and replacing it with this Ruling. We solicited a study and recommendations from the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) on the topic of symptom evaluation. Based on ACUS's recommendations
Consistent with our regulations, we instruct our adjudicators to consider all of the evidence in an individual's record when they evaluate the intensity and persistence of symptoms after they find that the individual has a medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce those symptoms. We evaluate the intensity and persistence of an individual's symptoms so we can determine how symptoms limit ability to perform work-related activities for an adult and how symptoms limit ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI disability claim.
Sections 216(i), 223(d), and 1614(a)(3) of the Social Security Act as amended; Regulations no. 4, sections 404.1502, 404.1512(d), 404.1513, 404.1520, 404.1520c, 404.1521, 404.1526, 404.1527, 404.1529, 404.1545 and 404.1594; and Regulations No. 16 sections 416.902, 416.912(d), 416.913, 416.920, 416.920c, 416.921, 416.924(c), 416.924a(b)(9)(ii-iii), 416.926a, 416.927, 416.929, 416.930(c), 416.945, 416.994, and 416.994a.
In determining whether an individual is disabled, we consider all of the individual's symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence in the individual's record. We define a symptom as the individual's own description or statement of his or her physical or mental impairment(s).
First, we must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual's symptoms, such as pain. Second, once an underlying physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual's symptoms is established, we evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual's ability to perform work-related activities for an adult or to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI disability claim.
This ruling clarifies how we consider:
• The intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of symptoms,
• Objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms,
• Other evidence when evaluating symptoms,
• The factors set forth in 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3),
• The extent to which an individual's symptoms affect his or her ability to perform work-related activities or function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI disability claim, and
• Adjudication standards for evaluating symptoms in the sequential evaluation process.
We use a two-step process for evaluating an individual's symptoms.
An individual's symptoms, such as pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, weakness, nervousness, or periods of poor concentration will not be found to affect the ability to perform work-related activities for an adult or to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI disability claim unless medical signs or laboratory findings show a medically determinable impairment is present.
In determining whether there is an underlying medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual's symptoms, we do not consider whether the severity of an individual's alleged symptoms is supported by the objective medical evidence. For example, if an individual has a medically determinable impairment established by a knee x-ray showing mild degenerative changes and he or she alleges extreme pain that limits his or her ability to stand and walk, we will find that individual has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptom of pain. We will proceed to step two of the two-step process, even though the level of pain an individual alleges may seem out of proportion with the objective medical evidence.
In some instances, the objective medical evidence clearly establishes that an individual's symptoms are due to a medically determinable impairment. At other times, we may have insufficient evidence to determine whether an individual has a medically determinable impairment that could potentially account for his or her alleged symptoms. In those instances, we develop evidence regarding a potential medically determinable impairment using a variety of means set forth in our regulations. For example, we may obtain additional information from the individual about the nature of his or her symptoms and their effect on functioning. We may request additional information from the individual about other testing or treatment he or she may have undergone for the symptoms. We may request clarifying information from an individual's medical sources, or we may send an individual to a consultative examination that may include diagnostic testing. We may use our agency experts to help us determine whether an individual's medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce his or her symptoms. At the administrative law judge hearing level or the Appeals Council level of the administrative review process, we may ask for and consider evidence from a medical or psychological expert to help us determine whether an individual's medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce his or her symptoms. If an individual alleges symptoms, but the medical signs and laboratory findings do not substantiate any medically determinable impairment capable of producing the individual's alleged symptoms, we will not evaluate the individual's symptoms at step two of our two-step evaluation process.
We will not find an individual disabled based on alleged symptoms alone. If there is no medically determinable impairment, or if there is a medically determinable impairment, but the impairment(s) could not reasonably be expected to produce the individual's symptoms, we will not find those symptoms affect the ability to perform work-related activities for an adult or ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI disability claim.
Once the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce pain or other symptoms is established, we recognize that some individuals may experience symptoms differently and may be limited by symptoms to a greater or lesser extent than other individuals with the same medical impairments, the same objective medical evidence, and the same non-medical evidence. In considering the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms, we examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual's case record.
We will not evaluate an individual's symptoms without making every reasonable effort to obtain a complete medical history
Symptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques. However, objective medical evidence is a useful indicator to help make reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of symptoms, including the effects those symptoms may have on the ability to perform work-related activities for an adult or to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI claim.
The intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of many symptoms can be clinically observed and recorded in the medical evidence. Examples such as reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit, and motor disruption illustrate findings that may result from, or be associated with, the symptom of pain.
For example, an individual with reduced muscle strength testing who indicates that for the last year pain has limited his or her standing and walking to no more than a few minutes a day
However, we will not disregard an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment-related symptoms alleged by the individual.
If we cannot make a disability determination or decision that is fully favorable based solely on objective medical evidence, then we carefully consider other evidence in the record in reaching a conclusion about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms. Other evidence that we will consider includes statements from the individual, medical sources, and any other sources that might have information about the individual's symptoms, including agency personnel, as well as the factors set forth in our regulations.
An individual may make statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his or her symptoms. If a child with a title XVI disability claim is unable to describe his or her symptoms adequately, we will accept a description of his or her symptoms from the person most familiar with the child, such as a parent, another relative, or a guardian.
An individual may make statements about symptoms directly to medical sources, other sources, or he or she may make them directly to us. An individual may have made statements about symptoms in connection with claims for other types of disability benefits such as workers' compensation, benefits under programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, or private insurance benefits.
An individual's statements may address the frequency and duration of the symptoms, the location of the symptoms, and the impact of the symptoms on the ability to perform daily living activities. An individual's statements may also include activities that precipitate or aggravate the symptoms, medications and treatments used, and other methods used to alleviate the symptoms. We will consider an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms, and we will evaluate whether the statements are consistent with objective medical evidence and the other evidence.
Medical sources may offer diagnoses, prognoses, and opinions as well as statements and medical reports about an individual's history, treatment, responses to treatment, prior work record, efforts to work, daily activities, and other information concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms.
Important information about symptoms recorded by medical sources and reported in the medical evidence may include, but is not limited to, the following:
• Onset, description of the character and location of the symptoms, precipitating and aggravating factors, frequency and duration, change over a period of time (e.g., whether worsening, improving, or static), and daily activities. Very often, the individual has provided this information to the medical source, and the information may be compared with the individual's other statements in the case record. In addition, the evidence provided by a medical source may contain medical opinions about the individual's symptoms and their effects. Our adjudicators will consider such opinions by applying the factors in 20 CFR 404.1520c and 416.920c.
• A longitudinal record of any treatment and its success or failure, including any side effects of medication.
• Indications of other impairments, such as potential mental impairments, that could account for an individual's allegations.
Medical evidence from medical sources that have not treated or examined the individual is also important in the adjudicator's evaluation of an individual's statements about pain or other symptoms. For example, State agency medical and psychological consultants and other program physicians and psychologists may offer findings about the existence and severity of an individual's symptoms. We will consider these findings in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the individual's symptoms. Adjudicators at the hearing level or at the Appeals Council level must consider the findings from these medical sources even though they are not bound by them.
Other sources may provide information from which we may draw inferences and conclusions about an individual's statements that would be helpful to us in assessing the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms. Examples of such sources include public and private agencies, other practitioners, educational personnel, non-medical sources such as family and friends, and agency personnel. We will consider any statements in the record noted by agency personnel who previously interviewed the individual, whether in person or by telephone. The adjudicator will consider any personal observations of the individual in terms of how consistent those observations are with the individual's statements about his or her symptoms as well as with all of the evidence in the file.
In addition to using all of the evidence to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms, we will also use the factors set forth in 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3). These factors include:
1. Daily activities;
2. The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms;
3. Factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms;
4. The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms;
5. Treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms;
6. Any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms (
7. Any other factors concerning an individual's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.
We will consider other evidence to evaluate only the factors that are relevant to assessing the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the individual's symptoms. If there is no information in the evidence of record regarding one of the factors, we will not discuss that specific factor in the determination or decision because it is not relevant to the case. We will discuss the factors pertinent to the evidence of record.
If an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence and the other evidence of record, we will determine that the individual's symptoms are more likely to reduce his or her capacities to perform work-related activities for an adult or reduce a child's ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI disability claim.
We may or may not find an individual's symptoms and related limitations consistent with the evidence in his or her record. We will explain which of an individual's symptoms we found consistent or inconsistent with the evidence in his or her record and how our evaluation of the individual's symptoms led to our conclusions. We will evaluate an individual's symptoms considering all the evidence in his or her record.
In determining whether an individual's symptoms will reduce his or her corresponding capacities to perform work-related activities or abilities to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner, we will consider the consistency of the individual's own statements. To do so, we will compare statements an individual makes in connection with the individual's claim for disability benefits with any existing statements the individual made under other circumstances.
We will consider statements an individual made to us at each prior step of the administrative review process, as well as statements the individual made in any subsequent or prior disability claims under titles II and XVI. If an individual's various statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms are consistent with one another and consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record, we will determine that an individual's symptoms are more likely to reduce his or her capacities for work-related activities or reduce the abilities to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner. However, inconsistencies in an individual's statements made at varying times does not necessarily mean they are inaccurate. Symptoms may vary in their intensity, persistence, and functional effects, or may worsen or improve with time. This may explain why an individual's statements vary when describing the intensity, persistence, or functional effects of symptoms.
We will consider an individual's attempts to seek medical treatment for symptoms and to follow treatment once it is prescribed when evaluating whether symptom intensity and persistence affect the ability to perform work-related activities for an adult or the ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner for a child with a title XVI disability claim. Persistent attempts to obtain relief of symptoms, such as increasing dosages and changing medications, trying a variety of treatments, referrals to specialists, or changing treatment sources may be an indication that an individual's symptoms are a source of distress and may show that they are intense and persistent.
In contrast, if the frequency or extent of the treatment sought by an individual is not comparable with the degree of the individual's subjective complaints, or if the individual fails to follow prescribed treatment that might improve symptoms, we may find the alleged intensity and persistence of an individual's symptoms are inconsistent with the overall evidence of record. We will not find an individual's symptoms inconsistent with the evidence in the record on this basis without considering possible reasons he or she may not comply with treatment or seek treatment consistent with the degree of his or her complaints. We may need to contact the individual regarding the lack of treatment or, at an administrative proceeding, ask why he or she has not complied with or sought treatment in a manner consistent with his or her complaints. When we consider the individual's treatment history, we may consider (but are not limited to) one or more of the following:
• An individual may have structured his or her activities to minimize symptoms to a tolerable level by avoiding physical activities or mental stressors that aggravate his or her symptoms.
• An individual may receive periodic treatment or evaluation for refills of medications because his or her symptoms have reached a plateau.
• An individual may not agree to take prescription medications because the side effects are less tolerable than the symptoms.
• An individual may not be able to afford treatment and may not have access to free or low-cost medical services.
• A medical source may have advised the individual that there is no further effective treatment to prescribe or recommend that would benefit the individual.
• An individual's symptoms may not be severe enough to prompt him or her to seek treatment, or the symptoms may be relieved with over the counter medications.
• An individual's religious beliefs may prohibit prescribed treatment.
• Due to various limitations (such as language or mental limitations), an individual may not understand the appropriate treatment for or the need for consistent treatment of his or her impairment.
• Due to a mental impairment (for example, individuals with mental impairments that affect judgment,
• A child may disregard the level and frequency of treatment needed to maintain or improve functioning because it interferes with his or her participation in activities typical of other children his or her age without impairments.
The above examples illustrate possible reasons an individual may not have pursued treatment. However, we will consider and address reasons for not pursuing treatment that are pertinent to an individual's case. We will review the case record to determine whether there are explanations for inconsistencies in the individual's statements about symptoms and their effects, and whether the evidence of record supports any of the individual's statements at the time he or she made them. We will explain how we considered the individual's reasons in our evaluation of the individual's symptoms.
In evaluating an individual's symptoms, it is not sufficient for our adjudicators to make a single, conclusory statement that “the individual's statements about his or her symptoms have been considered” or that “the statements about the individual's symptoms are (or are not) supported or consistent.” It is also not enough for our adjudicators simply to recite the factors described in the regulations for evaluating symptoms. The determination or decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual's symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual's symptoms.
Our adjudicators must base their findings solely on the evidence in the case record, including any testimony from the individual or other witnesses at a hearing before an administrative law judge or hearing officer. The subjective statements of the individual and witnesses obtained at a hearing should directly relate to symptoms the individual alleged. Our adjudicators are prohibited from soliciting additional non-medical evidence outside of the record on their own, except as set forth in our regulations and policies.
Adjudicators must limit their evaluation to the individual's statements about his or her symptoms and the evidence in the record that is relevant to the individual's impairments. In evaluating an individual's symptoms, our adjudicators will not assess an individual's overall character or truthfulness in the manner typically used during an adversarial court litigation. The focus of the evaluation of an individual's symptoms should not be to determine whether he or she is a truthful person. Rather, our adjudicators will focus on whether the evidence establishes a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual's symptoms and given the adjudicator's evaluation of the individual's symptoms, whether the intensity and persistence of the symptoms limit the individual's ability to perform work-related activities or, for a child with a title XVI disability claim, limit the child's ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively in an age-appropriate manner.
In determining whether an individual is disabled or continues to be disabled, our adjudicators follow a sequential evaluation process.
At step 2 of the sequential evaluation process, we determine whether an individual has a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months or end in death.
At step 3 of the sequential evaluation process, we determine whether an individual's impairment(s) meets or medically equals the severity requirements of a listed impairment. To decide whether the impairment meets the level of severity described in a listed impairment, we will consider an individual's symptoms when a symptom(s) is one of the criteria in a listing to ensure the symptom is present in combination with the other criteria. If the symptom is not one of the criteria in a listing, we will not evaluate an individual's symptoms at this step as long as all other findings required by the specific listing are present. Unless the listing states otherwise, it is not necessary to provide information about the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of a symptom as long as all other findings required by the specific listing are present.
For a child with a title XVI disability claim whose impairment does not meet or medically equal the severity requirements of a listing, we consider whether his or her impairment functionally equals the listings. This
If the individual's impairment does not meet or equal a listing, we will assess and make a finding about an individual's residual functional capacity based on all the relevant medical and other evidence in the individual's case record. An individual's residual functional capacity is the most the individual can still do despite his or her impairment-related limitations. We consider the individual's symptoms when determining his or her residual functional capacity and the extent to which the individual's impairment-related symptoms are consistent with the evidence in the record.
After establishing the residual functional capacity, we determine whether an individual is able to do any past relevant work. At step 4, we compare the individual's residual functional capacity with the requirements of his or her past relevant work. If the individual's residual functional capacity is consistent with the demands of any of his or her past relevant work, either as the individual performed it or as the occupation is generally performed in the national economy, then we will find the individual not disabled. If none of the individual's past relevant work is within his or her residual functional capacity, we proceed to step 5 of the sequential evaluation process.
At step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, we determine whether the individual is able to adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. We consider the same residual functional capacity, together with the individual's age, education, and past work experience. If the individual is able to adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, we will find him or her not disabled. If the individual cannot adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, we find him or her disabled. At step 5 of the sequential evaluation process, we will not consider an individual's symptoms any further because we considered the individual's symptoms when we determined the individual's residual functional capacity.
CROSS-REFERENCES: SSR 96-8p, “Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual Functional Capacity in Initial Claims,” and Program Operations Manual System, section DI 24515.064.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State, including Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs the following:
1. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by the relevant provisions of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of 1995, 16 U.S.C. 5603 and 5607(a).
2. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by the relevant provisions of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act, 16 U.S.C. 6902(b), (d)(1)(D), 6903, and 6908.
3. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by the relevant provisions of the North Pacific Anadromous Stocks Act of 1992, 16 U.S.C. 5003(b), 5004(a)(4), 5005, and 5006(b).
4. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by section 5 of Public Law 100-629, November 7, 1988, relating to the North Pacific and Bering Sea Fisheries Advisory Body.
5. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by the relevant provisions of the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988, 16 U.S.C. 973a; 973b, 973f(a) and (e); 973g(b) and (g); 973h(a), (b)(1), (c)(1), and (c)(2); 973i(a) and (b); 973m; 973n; 973p; and 973q.
6. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by the relevant provisions of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1821(e)(1) and (2), 1821(g), 1824, 1825(a), 1825(b)(2), 1825(c), 1852(c)(1)(D), and 1852(f)(5).
7. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by section 7 of Public Law 95-541, the Antarctic Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 2406).
8. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by sections 304 and 305(a), (b), and (c) of Public Law 98-623, the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 2433 and 2434(a), (b), and (c)).
9. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by the relevant provisions of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, 16 U.S.C. 971a(b); 971b(b)(3) and (b)(4)(B); 971c(a); 971d(a), (c)(4) and (c)(5); and 971g(a).
10. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by the Great Lakes Fishery Act, 16 U.S.C. 939.
11. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by the Atlantic Salmon Convention Act, 16 U.S.C. 3602(b), 3603, and 3604(b).
12. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by of the relevant provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985, 16 U.S.C. 3632(b), (g), and (h)(8); and 3633(a) and (b).
13. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by the Yukon River Salmon Act of 2000, 16 U.S.C. 5721.
14. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by the relevant provisions of the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, 16 U.S.C. 952, 953(a)(2), and 955.
15. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by of the relevant provisions of the Whaling Convention Act of 1949, 16 U.S.C. 916a and 916b.
16. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by the relevant provisions of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982, 16 U.S.C. 773a(b), 773b, and 773c(b)(2).
17. All functions, with respect to oceans and fisheries matters, conferred upon the Secretary of State by section 201 of Public Law 92-471 of October 9, 1972 (22 U.S.C. 2672a), regarding the designation of alternate U.S. commissioners.
18. The functions vested in the Secretary of State by the relevant provisions of the Ensuring Access to Pacific Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. 7702, 7703, 7708, 7802, 7803, and 7808.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and the Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment may at any time exercise any authority or function delegated by this delegation of authority.
Any act, executive order, regulation, or procedure subject to, or affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation, or procedure as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments and notice of public hearing.
The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has determined that certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products) are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article that is like or directly competitive with the imported articles. The Commissioners who voted in the affirmative are now conducting a process to recommend a safeguard measure for the President to apply. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), on behalf of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC), is announcing a process so that, once the ITC makes its recommendation, domestic producers, importers, exporters, and other interested parties may submit their views and evidence on the appropriateness of the recommended safeguard measure and whether it would be in the public interest. USTR also invites interested parties to participate in a public hearing regarding this matter.
USTR strongly prefers electronic submissions made through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Victor Mroczka, Office of WTO and Multilateral Affairs, at
On June 1, 2017, the ITC instituted Investigation No. TA-201-75 under section 202 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2252), as a result of a petition properly filed on May 17, 2017, by Suniva, Inc., a domestic producer of CSPV cells and CSPV modules. The ITC would determine if CSPV cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products) were being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article that is like or directly competitive with the imported articles. The ITC notice of institution (82 FR 25332) identifies the scope of the products covered by this investigation. On May 25, 2017, another domestic producer of CSPV cells, SolarWorld Americas, Inc., joined the investigation as a petitioner seeking import relief.
On September 22, 2017, after receiving submissions from interested parties and holding a public hearing that provided an opportunity to present opposing views and supporting evidence, the ITC determined that the increased importation of CSPV cells is a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat thereof, to the domestic industry. You can find the ITC determination and additional information about the investigation, including the administrative record consisting of briefs and other submissions, in the Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) on the ITC Web site at
In light of the affirmative finding on injury, the ITC held a public hearing on October 3, 2017, regarding remedies and interested parties had the opportunity to file submissions on this issue. On November 13, 2017, after the remedy hearing and consideration of the submissions, the ITC will submit to the President a report with its recommendation on action(s) to address the serious injury, or threat thereof, to the domestic industry and to facilitate the efforts of the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition.
Section 201 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2251) authorizes the President, in the event of an affirmative determination by the ITC, to take all appropriate and feasible action within his power that he determines will facilitate efforts by the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs. The statute provides for the President to take action within 60 days after receiving the ITC report, subject to any decision the President makes to request additional information from the ITC. In accordance with section 203(a)(1)(C) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2253(a)(1)(C)), the TPSC will make a recommendation to the President. This recommendation will take into account the ITC recommendation, the extent to which the domestic industry will benefit from adjustment assistance, the efforts of the domestic industry to make positive adjustments, and other relevant considerations.
The potential action the President may take to provide a remedy in the form of a safeguard measure includes:
• Imposition, or increase, of a duty on the imported articles in question.
• Use of a tariff-rate quota.
• Modification or imposition of any quantitative restriction on the importation of the articles into the United States.
• A proposal to negotiate and carry out an agreement with foreign countries to limit the exportation from foreign countries and importation into the United States.
• Procedures for the granting of import licenses.
• Other negotiations to identify the underlying cause of the increased imports to alleviate the injury or threat thereof.
• Legislative proposals that would facilitate a positive adjustment.
• Other action consistent with the President's authority.
• Any combination of these actions.
USTR offers these potential remedies for further consideration by domestic producers, importers, exporters, and other interested parties, and invites views and evidence on whether a proposed remedy is appropriate and in the public interest. In commenting on the action to take, we request that you address:
1. The appropriateness of any other proposed action and how it would be in the public interest;
2. the short- and long-term effects the proposed action is likely to have on the domestic CSPV industry, other domestic industries, and downstream consumers; and
3. the short- and long-term effects that not taking the proposed action is likely to have on the domestic CSPV industry, its workers, and on other domestic industries and communities.
The TPSC will convene a public hearing on December 6, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. EST in Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F Street NW., Washington DC. We will provide information about the format and schedule for the hearing to interested parties. Requests to testify must include the following information: (1) Name, address, telephone number, email address, and firm or affiliation of the individual wishing to testify, and (2) a brief summary of the proposed oral presentation.
USTR seeks public comments with respect to the issues described in Section II. To be assured of consideration, you must submit written comments by midnight EST on November 20, 2017, and any written responses to those comments by midnight EST on November 29, 2017. All comments must be in English and must identify on the reference line of the first page of the submission “Potential Action: CSPV Cells.”
We strongly encourage commenters to make on-line submissions, using the
The
For any comments submitted electronically that contain business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is business confidential. A filer requesting business confidential treatment must certify that the information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter.
Filers of submissions containing business confidential information also must submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P”. Follow the “BC” and “P” with the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. Filers submitting comments containing no business confidential information should name their file using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.
As noted, we strongly urge submitters to file comments through
We will post comments in the docket for public inspection, except business confidential information. You can view comments on
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before November 6, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0996 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Lynette Mitterer, AIR-673, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327.
The FHWA, on behalf of ODOT, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by ODOT that are final. The actions relate to the proposed modification of the existing interchange at Interstate Route 71 (I-71), United States Route 36 (US-36), and State Route 37 (SR-37) in the County of Delaware, State of Ohio. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA, of behalf of ODOT, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(I)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal Agency Actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before March 26, 2018. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter period of time still applies.
For ODOT: Timothy M. Hill, Administrator, Office of Environmental Services, Ohio Department of Transportation, 1980 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio, 43223, 614-644-0377,
Effective December 11, 2015, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that ODOT, has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of Ohio. The project will involve construction of an interchange at I-71, south of the existing US 36/SR 37 interchange. This interchange will carry the new Sunbury Parkway over I-71 and run east and west of the interstate, operating in conjunction with the existing interchange to the north at US 36/SR37. Specifically, the revisions to the interchange will include a relocated I-71 northbound off-ramp which will provide access to both Sunbury Parkway and US 36/SR 37 and will occur south of the current northbound off ramp. Access to US 36/SR 37 from northbound I-71 will be accommodated by a collector-distributor road. Access to I-71 northbound from Sunbury Parkway will also occur via the collector/distributor road. Southbound on-ramps to I-71 from Sunbury Parkway eastbound and westbound will be provided. The existing interchange at US 36/SR 37 will remain, but as stated above, the northbound exit from I-71 to access both Sunbury Parkway and US 36/SR 37 will be at the same exiting point.
The project will also construct Sunbury Parkway from Africa Road at US 36/SR 37 east to Wilson Road as a six lane road with a median, multi-use path and sidewalk. The Africa Road intersection with US 36/SR 37 will be realigned to create a four-legged intersection with Sunbury Parkway. 3B's & K Road south of Sunbury Parkway will be relocated to create an intersection with Sunbury Parkway and the future Fourwinds Drive, which will be extended south by others. A cul-de-sac will be constructed on 3B's & K Road, north of Sunbury Parkway.
East of Wilson Road, a new arterial roadway, also identified as Sunbury Parkway, is listed on the Village of Sunbury's Comprehensive Plan which was adopted by Village of Sunbury Council on November 2, 2016. This project is currently on the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) 2018-2021 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for construction by the Village of Sunbury New Community Authority 1 (NCA1), by 2019. This project, the “Committed Sunbury Parkway,” will be built with two travel lanes (one in each direction), with left turn lanes at the intersections with South Galena Road, Domigan Road, and US 36/SR 37 (Cherry Street). Because a five-lane corridor will eventually be necessary to meet the future traffic needs of development, all the right-of-way and grading along the Committed Sunbury Parkway will be for the ultimate (five-lane) configuration. All culverts and the bridge over Little Walnut Creek, will also be built wide enough for the ultimate (five-lane) configuration.
The ODOT project will widen on the inside of the Committed Sunbury Parkway in order to provide five lanes with a grass median from Wilson Road to US 36/SR 37 (Cherry Street) along with constructing additional turn lanes to accommodate the future traffic demands at Galena Road. ODOT's project east of Wilson Road will not involve construction of bridges or culverts or include any earth disturbing activity outside of the right-of-way previously established for the Committed Sunbury Parkway.
Subsequent to the distribution of the June 20, 2017 EA and the July 11, 2017 public hearing, several roadway design features were altered to improve roadside safety. These alterations were
The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Environmental Assessment (EA), the Addendum to the EA, and the Finding on No Significant Impact (FONSI), approved on October 16, 2017. The EA, Addendum to the EA, FONSI, and other project records are available by contacting ODOT at the address provided above and can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at
(1) Council on Environmental Quality regulations;
(2) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
(3) Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21);
(4) Department of Transportation Act of 1966;
(5) Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970;
(6) Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990;
(7) Noise Control Act of 1970;
(8) 23 CFR part 772 FHWA Noise Standards, Policies and Procedures;
(9) Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f);
(10) Clean Water Act of 1977 and 1987;
(11) Endangered Species Act of 1973;
(12) Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
(13) National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended;
(14) Historic Sites Act of 1935; and,
(15) Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public meeting.
NHTSA is announcing a public meeting to seek input regarding the recently released
The objective of the public meeting is to identify if further clarification is necessary to support voluntary implementation of the new Voluntary Guidance. The public meeting will be an open listening session style to provide as great an opportunity for comment as possible. All comments will be oral and any presentations should be submitted to the docket for consideration.
NHTSA will hold the public meeting on November 6, 2017, in Washington, DC. The meeting will start at 9 a.m. and continue until 12 a.m., local time. Check-in (through security) will begin at 8 a.m. Attendees should arrive early enough to enable them to go through security by 8:50 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the DOT headquarters building located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (Green Line Metro station at Navy Yard) on the [Ground Floor Atrium]. This facility is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The meeting will also be webcast live, and a link to the actual webcast will be available.
If you have questions about the public meeting, please contact us at
Although attendees will be given the opportunity to offer technical remarks, there will not be time for attendees to make audio-visual presentations during the meeting. Note: We may not be able to accommodate all attendees who wish to make oral remarks. Should it be necessary to cancel the meeting due to inclement weather or other emergency, NHTSA will take all available measures to notify registered participants.
NHTSA will conduct the public meeting informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the meeting and keep the official record open for 30 days after the meeting to allow submission of supplemental information. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcripts directly with the court reporter, and the transcript will also be posted in the docket when it becomes available.
•
•
•
•
On September 12, 2017, DOT released
This public meeting is being held during the open comment period and provides an opportunity for individuals and stakeholders to express feedback regarding both
Issued in Washington, DC under authority delegated by 49 CFR 1.95.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Request for public comment.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is in the process of reviewing the
Written comments may be submitted to this agency and must be received no later than December 26, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID number NHTSA-2017-0081 by any of the following methods:
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should identify the Docket number of this notice.
When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512) Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
For programmatic issues: John Siegler, Office of Traffic Records and Analysis, NVS-423, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366-1268. For legal issues: Megan Brown, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-113, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366-1834.
States need timely, accurate, complete, and uniform traffic records data to identify and prioritize traffic safety issues, and choose appropriate safety countermeasures and evaluate their effectiveness. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published the
The Advisory describes the capabilities of an ideal traffic records system and includes a set of questions, which are the basis for an in-depth review of State highway safety data and State traffic records systems. Specifically, these questions examine how the State Highway Safety Office (SHSO), State Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC), and the representative TRCC agencies plan, collect, manage, and integrate information from the crash, driver, vehicle, roadway, citation and adjudication, and injury surveillance data systems.
In order to qualify for a State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements grant under 23 U.S.C. 405(c), a State must certify that “an assessment of the State's highway safety data and traffic records system was conducted or updated during the preceding 5 years.”
The
Between 2012 and 2017, NHTSA conducted 55 traffic records assessments where independent subject matter expert assessors evaluated the response to each question and rated State responses as either (1) meeting the description of the ideal traffic records system, (2) partially meeting the description, or (3) not meeting the description. These assessments identified the strengths and opportunities of each component of the State's traffic records systems and provided States with recommendations to improve their traffic records programs.
During the first five-year assessment cycle (2012-2017), NHTSA received feedback on the assessment process from State coordinators and respondents as well as the assessment facilitators and assessors. NHTSA intends to consider this feedback in addition to comments received on this notice to update the Advisory. Specifically, NHTSA will revise as appropriate the questions and evidence for the nine topical areas. Based on the feedback received during the first assessment cycle, anticipated changes may include updates to the ideal traffic records system description, expansion of suggested evidence notes, alteration and/or elimination of questions—particularly regarding performance measures—and a restructuring of the Injury Surveillance System section.
NHTSA is seeking comment on the description of the ideal traffic records system and associated assessment questions in the
23 U.S.C. Section 405(c)(3)(E).
Issued in Washington, DC.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition.
Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. (Harley-Davidson), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2016-2017 Harley-Davidson XL 1200CX Roadster motorcycles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120,
For further information on this decision, contact Kerrin Bressant, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-1110, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day public comment period, on April 7, 2017, in the
Each vehicle shall show the information specified in S5.3.1. and S5.3.2 . . . in the English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than 2.4 millimeters high and in the format set forth following this paragraph. This information shall appear either:
(a) After each GAWR listed on the certification label required by § 567.4 or § 567.5 of this chapter; or at the option of the manufacturer,
(b) On the tire information label affixed to the vehicle in the manner, location, and form described in § 567.4(b) through (f) of this chapter as appropriate of each GVWR-GAWR combination listed on the certification label.
Paragraph S5.3.2 of FMVSS No. 120 states:
S5.3.2 Rims. The size designation and, if applicable, the type designation of Rims (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate for those tires.
In support of its petition, Harley-Davidson submitted the following reasoning:
1. Harley-Davidson believes this labeling noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because consumers have the following sources to reliably identify the correct tire and rim combination:
a. The correct tire size is listed on the sidewall of the tire originally installed on the rim;
b. The correct tire, including tire size, is listed in the Owner's Manual;
c. The correct wheel size is shown in the Original Equipment & Recommended Replacement Tires table in the Harley-Davidson Genuine Motor Parts and Accessories catalog; and
d. The correct wheel size is imprinted in the wheel.
Harley-Davidson believes these sources, particularly the tire size information listed on the rear tire's sidewall, are the most likely places for consumers to look when replacing tires and rims.
2. Harley-Davidson states that NHTSA has granted petitions for inconsequential noncompliance for similar labeling errors regarding the rim size or the omission of the rim size. (Please see Harley-Davidson's petition for a complete list of referenced petitions.)
In these cases, Harley-Davidson stated that the agency reasoned that consumers were unlikely to mismatch tires and rims because “the rim size information can be found in the vehicle's owner's manual or on the rim itself, and the tire size information is available from multiple sources including the owner's manual, the sidewalls of the tires on the vehicle and on the tire placard or information label located on the door or door opening. The rim size can be derived using this tire information.
3. The incorrect rim size on the subject motorcycles' certification label is unlikely to expose operators to a significantly greater risk than an operator riding a compliant motorcycle. Operators have several reliable sources to assist them in correctly matching the rims and tires.
4. Lastly, Harley-Davidson is not aware of any warranty claims, field reports, customer complaints, legal claims, or any incidents or injuries related to the subject condition.
Harley-Davidson concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
To view Harley-Davidson's petition analyses in its entirety you can visit
The 2016 Tire and Rim Association guide for rim contours for motorcycle tires, indicates that both the 4.25-inch and the 4.50-inch rim widths are approved rim contours for the tire size (150/70R18), which is the size specified on the certification label and the size of the tires fitted to the vehicle. Therefore, use of either rim size is acceptable for the tire indicated and tire/rim mismatch should not occur.
If the rim size listed on the certification label is not used to determine tire and rim combination when either is being replaced, there are numerous other sources and locations of that information available to the consumer and service technician. These sources include: (1) The correct wheel size imprinted on the wheel, (2) correct wheel size shown in the original equipment and recommended replacement tires table in the Harley-Davidson Genuine Motor Parts and Accessories Catalog, (3) the correct tire size listed in the Owner's Manual, and (4) the correct tire size listed on the sidewall of the tire originally installed on the wheel rim. In particular, we agree with Harley-Davidson's assertion that source number “4” is the most likely place for consumers to look when replacing tires and rims to verify tire size.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject motorcycles that Harley-Davidson no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, on the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Harley-Davidson notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition.
Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (PCNA), on behalf of Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG (PAG), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2017 Porsche 911 Turbo and Porsche 911 Turbo Cabriolet motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101,
For further information on this decision contact Stu Seigel, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5287, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day public comment period, on April 11, 2017, in the
S5.2.1 Except for the Low Tire Pressure Telltale, each control, telltale and indicator that is listed in column 1 of Table 1 or Table 2 must be identified by the symbol specified for it in column 2 or the word or abbreviation specified for it in column 3 of Table 1 or Table 2. If a symbol is used, each symbol provided pursuant to this paragraph must be substantially similar in form to the symbol as it appears in Table 1 or Table 2. If a symbol is used, each symbol provided pursuant to this paragraph must have the proportional dimensional characteristics of the symbol as it appears in Table 1 or Table 2 . . .
Paragraphs S5.5.5 of FMVSS No. 135 requires in pertinent part:
S5.5.5. Labeling. (a) Each visual indicator shall display a word or words in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 101 (49 CFR 571.101) and this section, which shall be legible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions when activated. Unless otherwise specified, the words shall have letters not less than 3.2 mm (one-eighth inch) high and the letters and background shall be of contrasting colors, one of which is red. Words or symbols in addition to those required by Standard No. 101 and this section may be provided for purposes of clarity.
(b) Vehicles manufactured with a split service brake system may use a common brake warning indicator to indicate two or more of the functions described in S5.5.1(a) through S5.5.1(g). If a common indicator is used, it shall display the word “Brake.” . . .
(d) If separate indicators are used for one or more of the conditions described in S5.5.1(a) through S5.5.1(g), the indicators shall display the following wording: . . .
(3) If a separate indicator is provided for the condition specified in S5.5.1(b), the letters and background shall be of contrasting colors, one of which is yellow. The indicator shall be labeled with the words “Antilock” or “Anti-lock” or “ABS”; or “Brake Proportioning,” in accordance with Table 2 of Standard No. 101 . . .
In support of its petition, PCNA submitted the following reasoning:
(a) The Owner's Manual for the subject vehicles is written for multiple markets and depicts both the “BRAKE” and ISO symbols telltales for brake warning, as well as the “ABS” and ISO symbol telltales for ABS lamp.
(b) The ISO symbol for ABS lamp also contains the word “ABS”, which is additionally embedded in a circle with two vertical lines. In case of an illumination of the ISO symbol, the malfunction display, located in the instrument cluster will display an additional warning message that states “ABS/PSM failure. Drive with caution” and an initial warning chime will sound. Porsche believes that in the event the ISO ABS telltale is displayed, the driver would recognize a possible ABS malfunction.
(c) In the event the brake fluid level in the master cylinder reservoir is less than the recommended safe level, the ISO symbol will illuminate, and the multifunction display will display a warning message that states “Brake fluid level. Park vehicle safely” and an initial warning chime will sound. The message will stay continuously displayed, provided there are no other serious message(s), which would result in the messages being displayed in an alternating manner. If the brake fluid is still low on subsequent ignition key cycles the message will be redisplayed in the message center.
(d) The parking brake in the subject vehicles are set by pushing a button labelled “P”, which is located on the left hand side of the steering wheel. Once the parking brake is set, a red light indicator located in the button will illuminate. Thus, the application of the parking brake is in full view of the operator. When the parking brake is engaged it illuminates the ISO symbol and, should the operator proceed with the parking brake engaged, the parking brake releases automatically if the following prerequisites are fulfilled:
1. Engine is running;
2. Driver's door is closed;
3. Driver's seat belt is fastened.
If one of these prerequisites is not fulfilled, the electric parking brake is not automatically released when the operator attempts to drive off. A message appears on the multifunction display, and the red light indicator in the button as well as the ISO symbol for the brake will flash.
(e) In all cases the ISO symbols for the brake and ABS telltale illuminate and remain illuminated in accordance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 135.
(f) Porsche is unaware of any field or owner complaints regarding the issue of non-compliant telltales.
PCNA concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
1. Per paragraph S5.5.2 of FMVSS No. 135, all indicators are activated as a check function when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the “on” (“run”) position when the engine is not running or when the ignition (start) switch is in a positon between “on” (“run”) and “start.” As such, each time the driver activates the starting system on these affected vehicles, the ISO brake warning symbol and the ISO ABS Malfunction symbol will illuminate. If the driver is not familiar with the ISO symbol meaning, the owner's manual can be referenced, which will explain the relationship between the symbol and its function. NHTSA also believes that as some vehicles have, over time, incorporated both the required telltale labeling with adjacent supplementary ISO symbols, the ISO symbols have evolved to become increasingly recognizable and understandable to drivers. NHTSA further believes drivers recognize that a telltale illuminated in red or amber, as is the case here, even if unlabeled, represents a malfunction which needs to be remedied.
2. PCNA uses an allowed common indicator for the condition of low brake fluid and activation of the parking brake. The symbol is red with a contrasting background color as required in the standard. In a low-brake-fluid situation, in addition to the ISO symbol illumination, the operator is provided multiple sources of information of the existence of a problem. A multifunction display will display a warning message that is clear and definitive stating “Brake fluid level. Park vehicle safely”. In the affected vehicles, the malfunction display is
The combination of the red brake ISO symbol, a detailed message on the instrument cluster for low fluid, and a warning chime provides the operator ample notification of a brake condition requiring action.
3. The parking brake on the subject vehicles is electronically activated by pushing a button labelled “P”, which is located on the left side of the steering wheel. When the parking brake is engaged, the dual-function common ISO symbol will illuminate in red with additional visual feedback to the operator from illumination of a red indicator light located in the button. If the operator proceeds with the parking brake engaged, the brake will release automatically if (1) the engine is running, (2) the driver's door is closed, and (3) the driver's seat belt is fastened. These conditions are met most of the time, so the likelihood of driving with the parking brake engaged is limited. However, if one these three prerequisite conditions is not fulfilled, the electric parking brake will not automatically release when the operator attempts to drive off. Under this circumstance, the red ISO symbol will flash, which makes it highly noticeable to the driver, the red parking brake button will remain illuminated, and a message will appear on the multifunction display. These three redundant visual indicators to the operator provide ample feedback that the parking brake remains activated. The agency also believes that the operator in many cases would be aware of an activated parking brake due to reduced vehicle drivability from brake drag.
4. When an ABS malfunction occurs, the amber ISO symbol with the word “ABS” embedded in it illuminates. Although this is the correct telltale word as specified in the standard, the lettering height is less than the required 3.2mm. There are two additional redundancies that provide notification to the operator of an ABS situation: The statement “ABS/PSM failure. Drive with caution” is displayed on the multifunction instrument cluster and an initial warning chime will sound. An operator is very unlikely to overlook these three separate notifications, and remedial action can be taken.
5. Lastly, the presence of ISO symbols instead of wording on the instrument panel has no effect on the functionality and performance of the parking brake system, the service brake system, and the ABS system.
NHTSA believes that the subject noncompliances on these specific vehicles—use of the ISO symbol for low brake fluid and parking brake actuation and ABS malfunction instead of the required words—are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, primarily because illumination of each ISO symbol is accompanied by multiple redundant operator notifications including messages on an instrument cluster display and audible chimes. The manufacturer has stated and we agree, that the ISO symbol usage for these specific vehicles is unlikely to lead to any misunderstanding since other sources of correct information beyond the provided telltales are available.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject vehicles that PCNA no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after PCNA notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Maritime Administration (MARAD), Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of reopening of comment period and extension of deadline.
DOT is extending the deadline and comment period for materials related to the Interim National Multimodal Freight Network (Interim NMFN), as established in a notice published on June 6, 2016 at 81 FR 36381. The original notice asked for comments by September 6, 2016. The reopening and extension of the comment period is based on input received from DOT stakeholders that the September 6, 2016 closing date did not provide sufficient time for submission of comments to the Department, as well as an analysis that some comments submitted by States did not include the required statutory certification. DOT agrees that the comment period should be reopened and extended. Therefore, the comment period on the establishment of the Interim NMFN is reopened.
Comments must be received on or before February 22, 2018 to receive consideration by DOT with respect to the final designation of the NMFN. Late-filed comments received after this date will be considered to the fullest extent practicable. Comments may be submitted by all interested stakeholders.
To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions, please submit them by only one of the following means:
•
•
•
•
Ryan Endorf, 202-366-4835 or email
On June 6, 2016, the Under Secretary established an Interim NMFN that includes the following components: (1) The National Highway Freight Network (NHFN), as established under section 167 of title 23, U.S.C.; (2) the freight rail systems of Class I railroads as designated by the Surface Transportation Board; (3) the public ports of the United States that have total annual foreign and domestic trade of at least 2,000,000 short tons, as identified by the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center of the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), using the data from the latest year for which such data are available; (4) the inland and intracoastal waterways of the United States, as described in section 206 of the Inland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1804); (5) the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and coastal and ocean routes along which domestic freight is transported; (6) the 50 airports located in the United States with the highest annual landed weight, as identified by the FAA; and (7) other strategic freight assets, including strategic intermodal facilities and freight rail lines of Class II and Class III railroads, designated by the Under Secretary as critical to interstate commerce.
The Interim NMFN was published in the
Several commenters stated in their comments to the docket that the initial 90-day comment period was insufficient in order to coordinate and prepare their comments and additional designations. In particular, multiple States stated that they did not have sufficient time to consider nominations from their public and private stakeholders, which is a requirement that these States would have needed to certify. Additionally, upon a review of comments submitted by the States, DOT has identified that many comments submitted by States lack the statutorily required certification and thus, DOT cannot consider those comments.
As a result, DOT is reopening the comment period for all stakeholders to submit comments on the Interim NMFN. Comments that have previously been submitted will continue to receive consideration, though States that previously submitted comments should refer to the below section on State Input. Any stakeholder or member of the public is free to submit new comments and to amend or supplement previously submitted comments. In the initial June 6, 2016
States are not required to resubmit any comments provided in response to the June 6, 2016
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability and request for public comment.
The Office of the Secretary of Transportation invites the public to comment on the draft DOT Strategic Plan for FY 2018-2022.
Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2017.
Written comments may be submitted by email or U.S. mail. Respondents are encouraged to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. Please include your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and email address.
Barbara McCann, Director, Office of Policy Development, Strategic Planning and Performance, Office of the Under Secretary for Policy,
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, as amended by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-352), requires that Federal agencies revise and update their strategic plan at the beginning of each new presidential term, and in doing so, solicit input from interested stakeholders.
The draft DOT Strategic Plan reflects the Secretary's priorities for achieving DOT's mission through four strategic goals:
These strategic goals are supported by objectives that reflect the outcomes DOT is trying to achieve and strategies that describe how DOT plans to make progress toward the objectives.
The draft DOT Strategic Plan for FY 2018-2022 may be accessed through the DOT Web site at
DOT will consider all input and revise the draft DOT Strategic Plan as appropriate. DOT anticipates that the final DOT Strategic Plan for FY 2018-2022 will be submitted to Congress and posted on the DOT Web site in February 2018.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before November 24, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Leonard by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Pursuant to United States Code, Title 31, section 5135(b)(8)(C), the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for October 25, 2017.
In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5135, the CCAC:
Advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals.
Advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
Makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.
Betty Birdsong, Acting United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7200.
Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the following number: 202-756-6525.
31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).
Loan Guaranty Service, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Loan Guaranty Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 24, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk, Department of Veterans Affairs, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Floor 5, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veteran's Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before December 26, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veteran's Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before December 26, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
| 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 |