Page Range | 60099-60279 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 60196 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
82 FR 60189 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
82 FR 60252 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
82 FR 60197 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
82 FR 60135 - Exclusion of Foreign Currency Gain or Loss Related to Business Needs From Foreign Personal Holding Company Income; Mark-to-Market Method of Accounting for Section 988 Transactions | |
82 FR 60276 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
82 FR 60275 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
82 FR 60269 - Hours of Service of Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles: Proposed Regulatory Guidance Concerning the Use of a Commercial Motor Vehicle for Personal Conveyance | |
82 FR 60253 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 60264 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 60274 - Proposed Collection of Information: Claim Against the United States for the Proceeds of a Government Check | |
82 FR 60177 - Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review | |
82 FR 60178 - Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination | |
82 FR 60200 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
82 FR 60121 - Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Infrastructure Requirement for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
82 FR 60099 - Blended Retirement System | |
82 FR 60195 - Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators Rule; Reconsideration of the Minimum Age Requirements | |
82 FR 60194 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an Existing Collection (EPA ICR No. 1250.11); Comment Request | |
82 FR 60122 - Amine Salt of Styrene Acrylic Polymer, Ammonium Salt; Tolerance Exemption | |
82 FR 60197 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
82 FR 60116 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Newark Bay, Newark, NJ | |
82 FR 60219 - Global Nuclear Fuels-Americas, L.L.C. | |
82 FR 60184 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meetings | |
82 FR 60187 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
82 FR 60218 - Earth Science Advisory Committee; Meeting. | |
82 FR 60180 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 60186 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Vessel and Gear Marking | |
82 FR 60184 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 60176 - Information Collection; Generic Clearance for Citizen Science Projects | |
82 FR 60174 - Information Collection; National Woodland Owner Survey | |
82 FR 60176 - Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
82 FR 60185 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meetings | |
82 FR 60168 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Vermilion Snapper Management Measures; Amendment 47 | |
82 FR 60170 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Authorization of an Oregon Recreational Fishery for Midwater Groundfish Species | |
82 FR 60181 - Draft 2017 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports | |
82 FR 60114 - Medical Devices; Ophthalmic Devices; Classification of the Tear Electrostimulation Device | |
82 FR 60201 - New Insights for Product Development and Bioequivalence Assessments of Generic Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products; Public Workshop; Request for Comments | |
82 FR 60216 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection Claims Under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act | |
82 FR 60112 - Medical Devices; Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices; Classification of the Fetal Head Elevator | |
82 FR 60207 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Prominent and Conspicuous Mark of Manufacturers on Single-Use Devices | |
82 FR 60204 - Standards Development and the Use of Standards in Regulatory Submissions Reviewed in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
82 FR 60273 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements | |
82 FR 60272 - Waiver Request for Aquaculture Support Operations for the 2018 Calendar Year: RONJA CARRIER, COLBY PERCE, SADIE JANE | |
82 FR 60269 - Productive and Timely Expenditure of Funds | |
82 FR 60215 - Certain Intraoral Scanners and Related Hardware and Software Institution of Investigation | |
82 FR 60277 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Supplemental Income Questionnaire (For Philippine Claims Only) | |
82 FR 60278 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Report of Medical, Legal, and Other Expenses Incident to Recovery for Injury or Death | |
82 FR 60278 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Application for Exclusion of Children's Income | |
82 FR 60214 - Certain Document Cameras and Software for Use Therewith; Commission's Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation Based on Withdrawal of the Complaint | |
82 FR 60196 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
82 FR 60236 - New Postal Product | |
82 FR 60216 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested Cargo Theft Incident Report | |
82 FR 60198 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
82 FR 60199 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
82 FR 60271 - Canadian National Railway's Request for Positive Train Control Safety Plan Approval and System Certification | |
82 FR 60203 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Good Laboratory Practice Regulations for Nonclinical Studies | |
82 FR 60219 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collections; Comment Request | |
82 FR 60268 - Notice of Public Meeting | |
82 FR 60268 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Inventur-Art in Germany, 1943-55” Exhibition | |
82 FR 60209 - Agency Information Collection Request. 30-Day Public Comment Request | |
82 FR 60211 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Incidental Take Permit Application; Draft Range-Wide General Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs and Environmental Assessment | |
82 FR 60173 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 60106 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines | |
82 FR 60277 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Small Business Lending Fund Quarterly Supplemental Report | |
82 FR 60206 - Modified Risk Tobacco Product Applications: Applications for Six Camel Snus Smokeless Tobacco Products Submitted by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; Availability | |
82 FR 60275 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
82 FR 60213 - Final Fire Island Wilderness Breach Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Fire Island National Seashore, New York | |
82 FR 60187 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Experimental Sites Initiative Reporting Tool 2017 | |
82 FR 60214 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From China; Determinations | |
82 FR 60117 - Revisions to the Requirements for Authority To Manufacture and Distribute Postage Evidencing Systems; Customized Postage Products | |
82 FR 60236 - Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU Rates) | |
82 FR 60238 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Relating to LCH SA's Wind Down Plan | |
82 FR 60246 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Relating to LCH SA's Recovery Plan | |
82 FR 60256 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 7600(i) To Allow Split-Price Transactions on the Trading Floor | |
82 FR 60237 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Chapter VIII of the Phlx Pricing Schedule To Waive Port Fees for New PSX Participants for a Limited Time | |
82 FR 60254 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICE Clear Europe Procyclicality Framework | |
82 FR 60242 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to The Options Clearing Corporation's Counterparty Credit Risk Management Policy | |
82 FR 60252 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Collateral Risk Management Policy | |
82 FR 60265 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Options Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to The Options Clearing Corporation's Default Management Policy | |
82 FR 60262 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Concerning Liquidity for Same Day Settlement | |
82 FR 60259 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Fees Schedule | |
82 FR 60210 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 60217 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decrees Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and Notice of Availability and Request for Comments on Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment | |
82 FR 60190 - East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Lewis Creek Amendment Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
82 FR 60193 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
82 FR 60193 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
82 FR 60213 - Public Notice of Legal Land Descriptions and Map Availability; White Sands Missile Range Withdrawal, New Mexico | |
82 FR 60188 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Annual Report on Appeals Process RSA-722 | |
82 FR 60168 - Mercury; Reporting Requirements for the TSCA Mercury Inventory; Extension of Comment Period | |
82 FR 60119 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Placer County and Ventura County Air Pollution Control Districts | |
82 FR 60109 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Truckee, CA | |
82 FR 60130 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Pocatello, ID | |
82 FR 60132 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Paris, ID | |
82 FR 60111 - Revocation of Class E Airspace; Eaton Rapids, MI | |
82 FR 60108 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Greenwood/Wonder Lake, IL | |
82 FR 60134 - Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule | |
82 FR 60128 - Airworthiness Directives; GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Airplanes | |
82 FR 60188 - National Assessment Governing Board | |
82 FR 60167 - Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Aluminum tris (O-ethylphosphonate) In or On Fruit, Citrus, Group 10-10 | |
82 FR 60223 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
82 FR 60144 - Centralized Partnership Audit Regime: Rules for Election Under Sections 6226 and 6227, Including Rules for Tiered Partnership Structures, and Administrative and Procedural Provisions | |
82 FR 60126 - Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Flexibilities |
Forest Service
Rural Housing Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Fiscal Service
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
Final rule.
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (“FRTIB”) is amending its regulations to implement changes to the uniformed services' retirement system that are mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.
This rule is effective January 1, 2018.
Brandon Ford, Attorney-Advisor, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Office of General Counsel, 77 K Street NE, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20002, 202-864-8734,
The FRTIB administers the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which was established by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP provisions of FERSA are codified, as amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and 8401-79. The TSP is a tax-deferred retirement savings plan for Federal civilian employees and members of the uniformed services. The TSP is similar to cash or deferred arrangements established for private-sector employees under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)).
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (NDAA), Public Law 114-92, signed into law November 25, 2015, changed the uniformed services' retirement plan from one that relied primarily on a cliff-vested defined benefit to one that blends a reduced defined benefit with enhanced TSP benefits, continuation pay, and lump-sum options. The new retirement system is known as the Blended Retirement System (BRS).
On September 11, 2017, the Agency published a proposed rule with request for comments in the
One individual provided suggestions for improving the Department of Defense (DoD) calculator. Although this comment does not affect these regulations, the comment was forwarded to DoD for its review. Another individual commented supporting the implementation of BRS.
One individual noted that contributing continuation pay to the TSP may potentially limit the amount of Service Matching Contributions available if doing so causes the individual to exceed the IRC section 402(g) elective deferral limit. The commenter suggested that continuation pay not count towards that limit. The TSP is subject to the same elective deferral limits as private-sector 401(k) plans. Therefore, the Agency is bound by the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations which state that elective deferrals from bonuses (such as continuation pay) are included in the overall limit along with contributions made from basic pay.
One individual along with the Department of Defense requested that affirmative (voluntary) contribution elections made by members of the uniformed services who first join a service on or after January 1, 2018 be effective immediately. The proposed regulations had a 60 day delay in automatic enrollment along with a 60 day delay for contributions made by an affirmative election. This design made sense because the underlying purpose of automatic enrollment in retirement plans is to have employees contributing as soon as they are eligible to participate, and DoD requested that automatic enrollment occur 60 days after the service member's Pay Entry Base Date (PEBD). Additionally, these service members would not be eligible to receive the Service Automatic (1%) Contributions until after they have reached 60 days of service.
The comment from DoD presented different positions as to why affirmative contribution elections in the first 60 days of service should be effective immediately and automatic enrollment should remain delayed until the first pay period after 60 days from the member's PEBD. In particular, DoD noted that if automatic enrollment begins immediately upon accession, some service members may not be given ample opportunity to request a refund because they will still be in basic training. However, in the view of DoD, this is not a concern with contributions made through an affirmative election. DoD posits that because the ability to request a refund is unique to automatic enrollment and not contributions made through an affirmative election, it is permissible to delay automatic enrollment for 60 days while allowing for contributions made by affirmative election to be effective immediately, even if made within the first 60 days of service. DoD further suggests that doing so would be beneficial to those service members who make an affirmative contribution election within the first 60 days of service.
The Agency supports the position put forth by DoD. Therefore, in this final rule, the amendments made to section 1600.12 in the proposed rule are deleted. However, the Board is publishing the remaining provisions of the proposed rule as final without modification.
BRS covers service members who first enter a uniformed service on or after January 1, 2018. It also covers service members who (1) have completed fewer than 12 years of service (or, if in the reserve component, have fewer than 4,320 retirement points) as of December 31, 2017, and (2) elect, within a certain timeframe, to transfer from the legacy retirement system to BRS (this process is also known as electing to “opt-in” to BRS). The employing services are responsible for making BRS eligibility determinations and reporting each service member's retirement coverage status to the TSP.
The NDAA placed timing restrictions on the receipt of Service Automatic 1% Contributions to a service member's TSP account. Service members who first enter duty on or after January 1, 2018 cannot receive any Service Automatic (1%) Contributions until the first full
Service Automatic (1%) Contributions must stop the first full pay period that is 26 years after the service member's PEBD. This rule applies to all BRS participants whether they entered duty on or after January 1, 2018, or they elected to transfer to BRS. For example, a member who has served six years before electing to transfer to BRS can receive matching contributions for only 20 years.
The NDAA requires each BRS participant to complete 2 years of military service before they are vested in their Service Automatic (1%) Contributions. A service member's civil service will not count toward the completion of that two years. Therefore, the FRTIB amends section 1603.1 to have separate definitions for civilian service and military service. The definition for civilian service will remain the same as it is today. Military service will be defined as service that is creditable under 37 U.S.C. 205, which is the provision that defines years of service for purposes of computing basic pay. For service members who elect to transfer to BRS, all military service completed prior to the election will count towards the vesting requirement. For example, if a service member has completed 3 years of service prior to transferring to BRS, that member will be immediately vested in the Service Automatic (1%) Contributions made to his or her TSP account.
The NDAA requires employing services to automatically enroll all uniformed service members who first enter service on or after January 1, 2018. Employing services must also automatically enroll all BRS participants (whether they entered duty on or after January 1, 2018, or transferred to BRS) who separate from service and later re-enter service.
Automatic Enrollment is deferred for BRS participants until the first full pay period following the date that is 60 days after the member's PEBD because some service members would be in basic training for the entire refund period if automatic enrollment were not delayed. This delay will mitigate that concern and place all automatically enrolled service members on equal footing.
The Executive Director has the statutory authority to select a default contribution percentage rate for automatically enrolled participants that is no less than 2% and no more than 5%. The default percentage rate for BRS participants is set at 3%. This is the same contribution rate at which civilian participants are automatically enrolled. A participant who is automatically enrolled may change the amount that he or she is contributing by filing a contribution election with his or her payroll office.
Service members who elect to transfer to BRS, absent a contribution election in the alternative, will continue to make contributions at the rate that they were making contributions prior to their election to transfer. They will not be automatically enrolled. However, if a member who transfers to BRS separates from service and later re-enters service, that member will be automatically enrolled to contribute 3% of his or her basic pay beginning the first full pay period following the date that is 60 days after the member's PEBD.
Service members who are not covered by BRS will not be automatically enrolled even if they separate from service and later re-enter service.
NDAA requires employing services to automatically re-enroll, on January 1st of each year, BRS participants who have declined automatic enrollment for a year. Accordingly, service members subject to automatic enrollment who terminate their contributions at any point during the year and do not elect to resume them by the last full pay period of the year will be automatically re-enrolled at a contribution rate of 3% as of January 1st of the following year. The employing services are responsible for determining which BRS participants are not making contributions in the last full pay period of the year.
Service members who are automatically enrolled in the TSP may request a refund of the automatic enrollment contributions deducted from their basic pay (including associated earnings) within the first 90 days of the member's first automatic enrollment contribution. Members who stop making contributions are not eligible for refunds of contributions deducted when they are automatically re-enrolled on January 1st because, under rules mandated by the Internal Revenue Service, a new 90-day refund period is not allowed unless one full calendar year (January through December) has passed since the member's last automatic enrollment contribution.
There are very few participants who will go an entire plan year without any default employee contributions because they will be subject to automatic re-enrollment for each plan year. There are significant programming limitations to track the small number of members who will go an entire plan year without any default employee contributions. For these reasons, the Board has decided to disallow refunds of contributions associated with automatic re-enrollment.
Under existing IRS rules, a participant who obtains a financial hardship in-service withdrawal may not contribute to the TSP for a period of six months after the withdrawal is processed. This final rule provides that no BRS participant will be automatically enrolled or re-enrolled during a six month non-contribution period. For example, a service member who is in a non-contribution period at the end of the year will not be reenrolled in January. However, if the member does not resume contributions after the end of the six month non-contribution period and consequently is not making contributions during the last full pay period of the year, the member's employing service must automatically enroll the member on January 1st of the subsequent year.
Service Matching Contributions begin the first full pay period that is 2 years after the service member's PEBD. For members who elect to transfer to the BRS, Service Matching Contributions begin the first full pay period following their election to transfer. For example, a member who has served 1 year before electing to transfer to BRS will receive Service Matching Contributions beginning the first full pay period following their election even though 2 years have not passed since their PEBD.
Service Matching Contributions must stop at the same time Service Automatic (1%) Contributions stop, which is the first full pay period that is 26 years after the service member's PEBD. This is true
All BRS participants will immediately vest in their Service Matching Contributions.
The NDAA repeals the service matching program described in 37 U.S.C. 211(d) as of January 1, 2018. There are no service members currently participating in the program. Therefore, this final rule deletes all references to 37 U.S.C. 211(d).
A member who first enters service on or after January 1, 2018, will have his or her contributions invested in an age-appropriate L Fund by default until the member makes an affirmative contribution allocation that directs incoming contributions into a different fund or combination of funds. Likewise, if a service member who elects to transfer to BRS has not made either an affirmative contribution allocation or an interfund transfer, then any contributions made after becoming covered by BRS will be invested in an age-appropriate L Fund.
If a service member who elects to transfer to BRS has made an interfund transfer in the past but not a contribution allocation, then any contributions made after becoming covered by BRS will be invested in the G Fund. If a service member who elects to transfer to BRS has made an affirmative contribution allocation in the past, then any contributions made after becoming covered by BRS will be invested in accordance with the member's contribution allocation. However, if a member elects to transfer to BRS and has a zero account balance, contributions will be invested in an age-appropriate L Fund regardless of any past contribution allocation or interfund transfer. The investment of contributions made prior to becoming covered by BRS will remain unchanged. Uniformed service members who are not covered by BRS will continue to have their contributions defaulted into the G Fund.
When an employing agency automatically re-enrolls a participant because they were not making contributions in the last full pay period of the year, the participant's contributions will be invested in the same manner as they were prior to re-enrollment (regardless of whether it was an affirmative contribution allocation or a default investment). Likewise, contributions of a rehired service member will be invested in the fund(s) to which they were being invested prior to being rehired (regardless of whether the fund(s) were an affirmative contribution allocation or a default investment and regardless of how much time has passed since the rehired service member separated from service). However, if a re-enrolled or re-hired service member has a zero account balance, future contributions will be defaulted to an age-appropriate L Fund.
The first time a BRS participant's employing agency automatically enrolls him or her, or when he or she first transfers to BRS, or as soon as practicable thereafter, the TSP will provide each BRS participant who is subject to default investment in an age-appropriate L Fund with a notification concerning the risk of investing.
BRS introduces new potential errors that are not currently addressed in regulations. Specifically, employing services may classify members of the uniformed services in the wrong retirement system (
If a BRS participant is misclassified by an employing agency as a non-BRS participant, when the misclassification is corrected, the participant may, under the rules of § 1605.11, elect to make up contributions that he or she would have been eligible to make as a BRS participant during the period of misclassification. In addition, the employing service must, under the rules of § 1605.11, make up Service Automatic (1%) Contributions and Service Matching Contributions on employee contributions.
If a non-BRS participant is misclassified by an employing service as a BRS participant, employee contributions may remain in the participant's account when the misclassification is corrected. If the participant requests a refund of employee contributions, the employing service must submit a negative adjustment record to remove the funds under the procedure described in § 1605.12. The TSP will forfeit all service contributions that were made to a non-BRS participant's account, except that an employing service may submit a negative adjustment record to request the return of an erroneous contribution that has been in the participant's account for less than one year.
The TSP will charge the employing service for any positive breakage that results from an incorrect default investment. To initiate a breakage calculation for the uniformed service member, the employing service must notify the TSP that the participant is entitled to breakage. Notification from the employing service to the TSP that the participant has been misclassified will not itself trigger the TSP to take corrective action other than to update the participant's retirement system coverage.
Finally, the FRTIB amends section 1605.31 to reduce makeup civilian agency contributions by any Service Automatic (1%) Contributions the participant receives while in military service. Currently, USERRA requires civilian agencies to makeup automatic (1%) and matching contributions missed while a member was separated or in a non-pay status for military service. The regulations currently reduce the agency makeup matching contributions by any matching contributions received while performing military service. These amendments will extend that reduction to include Service Automatic (1%) Contributions received while performing military service. The amendments also provide that breakage on agency or service contributions will be based on the contribution allocation(s) on file for the participant during the period of military service.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation will affect Federal employees and members of the uniformed services who participate in the TSP.
I certify that these regulations do not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, 653, and 1501-1571, the effects of this regulation on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector have been assessed. This regulation will not compel the expenditure in any one year of $100 million or more by state, local,
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 810(a)(1)(A), the Agency submitted a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States before publication of this rule in the
Government employees, Pensions, Retirement.
Government employees, Pensions, Retirement.
Government employees, Pensions, Retirement.
Claims, Government employees, Pensions, Retirement.
Alimony, Claims, Government employees, Pensions, Retirement.
Claims, Government employees, Pensions, Retirement.
Government employees, Pensions, Retirement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the FRTIB amends 5 CFR Chapter VI as follows:
5 U.S.C. 8351, 8432(a), 8432(b), 8432(c), 8432(j), 8432d, 8474(b)(5) and (c)(1), and 8440e.
(a) If a uniformed service member elects to be covered by BRS, the member may make a contribution election at any time.
(b) Eligibility to make employee contributions, and therefore to have Agency Matching Contributions made on the member's behalf, is subject to the restrictions on making employee contributions after receipt of a financial hardship in-service withdrawal described at 5 CFR part 1650.
(c) If the member had elected to make TSP contributions while not covered by BRS, the election remains effective until the member makes a new election.
(d) Agency Automatic (1%) Contributions for all members covered under this section and, if applicable, Agency Matching Contributions attributable to employee contributions must begin the first full pay period that the transfer to BRS becomes effective.
(a)
(b)
(2) A uniformed service member is not entitled to matching contributions for contributions deducted from special or incentive pay (including bonuses).
(c)
(2) A uniformed service member covered by BRS will be eligible to receive employing agency contributions pursuant to the following rules:
(i) A uniformed service member who first entered service on or after January 1, 2018 is entitled to:
(A) Agency Automatic (1%) Contributions beginning in the first full pay period following the date that is 60 days after the uniformed service member's PEBD and ending in the first full pay period following the date that is 26 years after the uniformed service member's PEBD.
(B) Agency Matching Contributions beginning in the first full pay period following the date that is 2 years after the uniformed service member's PEBD and ending in the first full pay period following the date that is 26 years after the uniformed service member's PEBD.
(ii) A uniformed service member who elects to enroll in BRS is entitled to:
(A) Agency Automatic (1%) Contributions beginning in the first full pay period following the date the uniformed service member enrolled in BRS and ending in the first full pay period following the date that is 26 years after the Uniformed service member's PEBD.
(B) Agency Matching Contributions beginning in the first full pay period following the date the uniformed service member enrolled in BRS and ending in the first full pay period following the date that is 26 years after the uniformed service member's PEBD.
(a) All newly hired civilian employees who are eligible to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan and those civilian employees who are rehired after a separation in service of 31 or more calendar days and who are eligible to participate in the TSP will automatically have 3% of their basic pay contributed to the employee's traditional TSP balance (default employee contribution) unless, by the end of the employee's first pay period (subject to the agency's processing time frames), they elect:
(1) To not contribute;
(2) To contribute at some other level; or
(3) To make Roth contributions in addition to, or in lieu of, traditional contributions.
(b) All uniformed service members who either enter service on or after January 1, 2018 or re-enter service after a separation in service of 31 or more calendar days after having been covered by BRS at the time of separation will automatically have 3% of their basic pay contributed to the member's traditional TSP balance (default employee contribution) beginning the first full pay period following the date
(1) To not contribute;
(2) To contribute at some other level; or
(3) To make Roth contributions in addition to, or in lieu of, traditional contributions.
(c) If, for any calendar year, a uniformed service member described in paragraph (b) of this section does not make a contribution in the final full pay period of such calendar year due to the member's election to terminate contributions prior to the final full pay period, then that member will automatically have 3% of his or her basic pay contributed to his or her traditional TSP balance beginning the first full pay period of the following calendar year unless he or she makes a subsequent election by December 31st:
(1) To not contribute;
(2) To contribute at some other level;
(3) To make Roth contributions in addition to, or in lieu of, traditional contributions.
(a) Subject to the limitations in paragraph (f) of this section, a participant may request a refund of any default employee contributions made on his or her behalf (
(f) A participant may not receive a refund of default employee contributions made pursuant to § 1600.34(c).
The Board shall furnish all new employees and all rehired employees covered by the automatic enrollment program, and all employees described in paragraph (c) of § 1600.34, covered by the automatic enrollment program a notice that accurately describes:
(d) The employee's ability (or inability) to request a refund of any default employee contributions (adjusted for allocable gains and losses) and the procedure to request such a refund; and
5 U.S.C. 8351, 8432d, 8438, 8474(b)(5) and (c)(1).
(a)
(1) Contribution allocations must be made in one percent increments. The sum of the percentages elected for all of the TSP Funds must equal 100 percent;
(2) The percentage elected by a participant for investment of future deposits in a TSP Fund will be applied to all sources of contributions and transfers (or rollovers) from traditional IRAs and eligible employer plans. A participant may not make different percentage elections for different sources of contributions;
(3) The following default investment rules shall apply to civilian participants:
(i) All deposits made on behalf of a civilian participant enrolled prior to September 5, 2015 who does not have a contribution allocation in effect will be invested in the G Fund. A civilian participant who is enrolled prior to September 5, 2015 and subsequently rehired on or after September 5, 2015 and has a positive account balance will be considered enrolled prior to September 5, 2015 for purposes of this paragraph; and
(ii) All deposits made on behalf of a civilian participant first enrolled on or after September 5, 2015 who does not have a contribution allocation in effect will be invested in the age-appropriate TSP Lifecycle Fund;
(iii) A civilian participant enrolled prior to September 5, 2015 who elects for the first time to invest in a TSP Fund other than the G Fund must execute an acknowledgement of risk in accordance with § 1601.33;
(4) The following default investment rules shall apply to uniformed services participants:
(i) All deposits made on behalf of a uniformed services participant who first entered service prior to January 1, 2018, has not elected to be covered by BRS, and does not have a contribution allocation in effect will be invested in the G Fund;
(ii) All deposits made on behalf of a uniformed services participant who first entered service on or after January 1, 2018 and who does not have a contribution allocation in effect will be invested in the age-appropriate TSP Lifecycle Fund;
(iii) If a uniformed services participant makes an election to be covered by BRS as described in 5 CFR 1600.14 and does not have a contribution allocation in effect at the time of the election, then all deposits made after the date of such election will be invested in the age-appropriate TSP Lifecycle Fund. Deposits made prior to the date of the election will remain invested in the G Fund.
(iv) A uniformed services participant who first entered service prior to January 1, 2018 and has not made an election to be covered by the BRS who elects for the first time to invest in a TSP Fund other than the G Fund must execute an acknowledgement of risk in accordance with § 1601.33;
(5) Once a contribution allocation becomes effective, it remains in effect until it is superseded by a subsequent contribution allocation or the participant's account balance is reduced to zero. If a rehired participant has a positive account balance and a contribution allocation in effect, then the participant's contribution allocation will remain in effect until a new allocation is made. If, however, the participant (other than a participant described in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section) has a zero account balance, then the participant's contributions will be allocated to the age-appropriate TSP Lifecycle Fund until a new allocation is made.
(b)
(c)
(a) Uniformed services participants who first entered service prior to January 1, 2018 and who have not elected to be covered by BRS and civilian participants who enrolled prior to September 5, 2015 must execute an acknowledgement of risk in order to
5 U.S.C. 8432(g), 8432b(h)(1), 8474(b)(5) and (c)(1).
(b) * * *
(a) All amounts in a CSRS employee's individual account are immediately vested.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, all amounts in a FERS employee's or uniformed service member's individual account (including all first conversion contributions) are immediately vested.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, upon separation from Government service without meeting the applicable service requirements of § 1603.3, a FERS employee's or a BRS uniformed service member's Agency Automatic (1%) Contributions and attributable earnings will be forfeited.
(d) If a FERS employee or uniformed service member dies (or died) after January 7, 1988, without meeting the applicable service requirements set forth in § 1603.3, the Agency Automatic (1%) Contributions and attributable earnings in his or her individual account are deemed vested and shall not be forfeited. If a FERS employee died on or before January 7, 1988, without meeting those service requirements, his or her Agency Automatic (1%) Contributions and attributable earnings are forfeited to the Thrift Savings Plan.
(a) Except as provided under paragraph (b) of this section, FERS employees will be vested in their Agency Automatic (1%) Contributions and attributable earnings upon separating from Government only if, as of their separation date, they have completed three years of civilian service.
(b) FERS employees will be vested in their Agency Automatic (1%) Contributions and attributable earnings upon separating from Government service if, as of their separation date, they have completed two years of civilian service and they are serving in one of the following positions:
(c) Uniformed service members who are covered by BRS will be vested in their Agency Automatic (1%) Contributions and attributable earnings upon separation from the uniformed services only if, as of their separation date, they have completed two years of military service.
5 U.S.C. 8351, 8432a, 8432d, 8474(b)(5) and (c)(1). Subpart B also issued under section 1043(b) of Public Law 104-106, 110 Stat. 186 and § 7202(m)(2) of Public Law 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388.
(b) * * *
(c) If a uniformed services participant's retirement system is misclassified and the error results in default investment in the wrong fund, when the error is corrected pursuant to § 1605.14(f)-(g), the TSP will charge the employing agency for any positive breakage that results from the incorrect default investment. The retirement misclassification correction received from an employing agency will not trigger corrective action other than to update the participant's retirement system coverage. To initiate a breakage calculation for the uniformed service member, the employing agency must notify the TSP that the participant is entitled to breakage.
(b)
(f) If a BRS participant is misclassified by an employing agency as a non-BRS participant, when the misclassification is corrected:
(1) The participant may not elect to have the contributions made while classified as non-BRS removed from his or her account;
(2) The participant may, under the rules of § 1605.11, elect to make up contributions that he or she would have been eligible to make as a BRS participant during the period of misclassification;
(3) The employing agency must, under the rules of § 1605.11, make Agency Automatic (1%) Contributions and Agency Matching Contributions on employee contributions that were made while the participant was misclassified; and
(4) The employing agency must submit makeup employee contributions on current payment records and service makeup contributions may be submitted on either current or late payment records.
(g) If a non-BRS participant is misclassified by an employing agency as a BRS participant, when the misclassification is corrected:
(1) Employee contributions may remain in the participant's account. If the participant requests a refund of employee contributions, the employing agency must submit a negative adjustment record to remove these
(2) The TSP will forfeit all agency contributions that were made to a non-BRS participant's account. An employing service may submit a negative adjustment record to request the return of an erroneous contribution that has been in the participant's account for less than one year.
(c) * * *
(1) The employee is entitled to receive the Agency Automatic (1%) Contributions that he or she would have received had he or she remained in civilian service or pay status. Within 60 days of the employee's reemployment or restoration to pay status, the employing agency must calculate the Agency Automatic (1%) makeup contributions and report those contributions to the record keeper, subject to any reduction in Automatic (1%) Contributions required by paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
(5) If the employee received uniformed services Automatic (1%) Contributions, the Agency Automatic (1%) Contributions will be reduced by the amount of the uniformed services Automatic (1%) Contributions.
(d)
5 U.S.C. 8351, 8432d, 8433, 8434, 8435, 8474(b)(5) and 8474(c)(1).
(b) * * * Therefore, the participant's employing agency will discontinue his or her contributions (and any applicable Agency Matching Contributions) for six months after the agency is notified by the TSP; in the case of a FERS or BRS participant, Agency Automatic (1%) Contributions will continue. * * *
5 U.S.C. 8424(d), 8432d, 8432(j), 8433(e), 8435(c)(2), 8474(b)(5) and 8474(c)(1).
(c) * * *
(3) Be signed and properly dated by the participant and signed and properly dated by one witness;
(i) The participant must either sign the form in the presence of the witness or acknowledge his or her signature on the form to the witness;
(ii) All submitted and attached pages of the form must be signed and dated by the participant;
(iii) All submitted and attached pages of the form must be signed and dated by the same witness;
(iv) A witness must be age 21 or older; and
(v) A witness designated as a beneficiary will not be entitled to receive a death benefit payment; if a witness is the only named beneficiary, the designation of the beneficiary is invalid. If more than one beneficiary is named, the share of the witness beneficiary will be allocated among the remaining beneficiaries pro rata.
5 U.S.C. 8474.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B64/P2, -1B67/P2, -1B70/P2, -1B70/75/P2, -1B70C/P2, and -1B74/75/P2 turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by a report of the failure of the high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 blade retainer and subsequent in-flight shutdown of the engine. This AD requires inspection of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 23, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 23, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain GE GEnx-1B64/P2, -1B67/P2, -1B70/P2, -1B70/75/P2, -1B70C/P2, and -1B74/75/P2 turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
American Airlines (AA) requested that we change the compliance time in this AD to align with the compliance schedule in GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017. AA indicated the SB identifies two populations of HPT stage 1 blade retainers, one that requires inspection at the next shop visit and a second that requires inspection when the part is removed from the engine. The proposed AD, however, proposed inspection of all affected retainers at next shop visit. Due to this discrepancy between the proposed AD and the SB, AA requested this AD require inspections of the HPT stage 1 blade retainers at next shop visit and at part removal, as required by GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02.
GE commented that, based on its analysis, conducting the required inspection of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer at its next piece-part exposure is sufficient. GE requested that this final rule AD be changed to require inspection of all affected parts at piece-part exposure rather than at the next shop visit.
We partially agree. We disagree with AA that requiring inspections of HPT stage 1 blade retainers at next shop visit and at part removal, per GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017, is necessary. We agree with GE that the risk assessment justifies waiting until exposure of the part to perform the inspection and the change clarifies the compliance action. We revised the compliance section of this AD to require that the HPT stage 1 blade retainer be inspected at its next piece-part exposure.
Japan Airlines (JAL) requested that the compliance be changed to two populations of parts with two different compliance intervals. JAL indicated this change would align this AD with the two populations of affected parts identified in GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017.
We disagree. Although the SB specifies certain part numbers be inspected sooner than at piece-part exposure, our risk assessment determined that performing the inspection for all affected parts at piece-part exposure addresses the safety concern represented by failure of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer. We did not change this AD.
AA requested that we incorporate the RC label into GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017. AA indicated this change would clarify which sections of the SB are required to accomplish this AD. Using the RC label in the SB would also be consistent with FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 20-176A, “Service Bulletins Related to Airworthiness Directives and Indicating FAA Approval on Service Documents,” dated June 16, 2014, and FAA Order 8110.117A, “Service Bulletins Related to Airworthiness Directives,” dated June 18, 2014.
We disagree. FAA Order 8110.117A and AC 20-176A provide guidance, respectively, to FAA aviation safety engineers in the review of SBs and to design approval holders (DAHs) in the development and drafting of these SBs. These documents do not require use of the RC label by DAHs in drafting in SBs, and GE is not required to use this label. The paragraph from GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017,
An individual commenter requested that GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0327 R02, revised August 16, 2017, be mentioned in this AD since this SB is related to GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017. The commenter indicated GEnx-1B SB 72-0327 also relates to inspection of the stage one HPT blade retainer, but references an alternate part number. The commenter requested that the relationship between GEnx-1B SB 72-0327 R02 and GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02 be stated clearly.
We partially agree. Although GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0327 R02, revised August 16, 2017, has a part number in common with the parts identified in GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017, the serial numbers for the parts identified in GEnx-1B SB 72-0327 differ from those in GEnx-1B SB 72-0326. The serial numbered parts identified in GEnx-1B SB 72-0327 pose a lower risk to flight safety and are not affected by this AD. We did not change this AD.
The Air Line Pilots Association expressed support for the NPRM as written.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We reviewed GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017. The SB describes procedures for piece-part inspection of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 11 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 23, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B64/P2, -1B67/P2, -1B70/P2, -1B70/75/P2, -1B70C/P2, and -1B74/75/P2 turbofan engines, with a high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 blade retainer, part number (P/N) 2445M91P01 or 2383M99P02, with a serial number listed in Planning Information, Paragraph 1.A., of GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by a report of the failure of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer and subsequent in-flight shutdown of the engine. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) At the next piece-part exposure of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-time inspection of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(1), in GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017.
(2) If any cracks are found in the HPT stage 1 blade retainer, or the retainer does not meet the dimensional criteria found in the Accomplishment Instructions, Paragraph 3.A.(1), in GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017, replace the HPT stage 1 blade retainer with a part eligible for installation.
For the purpose of this AD, “piece-part exposure” is defined as when the part is completely disassembled.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B Service Bulletin 72-0326 R02, revised August 16, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For GE service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Galt Field Airport, Greenwood/Wonder Lake, IL. This action is required due to the decommissioning of the Kenosha VHF omnidirectional range (VOR), which provided navigation guidance for the standard instrument approach procedures to this airport. The Kenosha VOR is being decommissioned as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. This action enhances the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. Additionally, the geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Effective 0901 UTC, March 29, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Galt Field Airport, Greenwood/Wonder Lake, IL, to support standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
On June 20, 2017, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Subsequent to publication, the FAA determined that the exclusionary language contained in the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface airspace description is no longer required and has been removed in this action.
Except for an editorial change and the change noted above, this rule is the same as published in the NPRM.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from an 8.8-mile radius) of Galt Field Airport, and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
The name of the city associated with the airport has been removed from the airspace description to comply with a recent change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. Except for the change noted above, the action in this rule is the same as published in the NPRM.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Kenosha VOR as part of the VOR MON Program and to bring the airspace in compliance with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, at this airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for safety and the management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Galt Field Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as an extension, and modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Truckee-Tahoe Airport, Truckee, CA. This airspace redesign is necessary to support standard instrument approach and departure procedures under instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport due to the commissioning of the Truckee-Tahoe Airport Non-Federal Contract Tower and enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The Class E surface area airspace was inadvertently referenced as Class E extension airspace when referring to NOTAM information in the preamble, and was inadvertently omitted from the regulatory text.
Effective 0901 UTC, March 29, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class D and E airspace at Truckee-Tahoe Airport, Truckee, CA, in support of IFR operations at the airport.
On July 28, 2017, the FAA published in the
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has discovered a clerical error in the text of the preamble contained in the Proposal section of the NPRM. The second paragraph incorrectly states: “The associated Class D airspace and Class E extension airspace areas would be effective during the specific dates and times established, in advance by NOTAM.” This sentence is corrected to reference Class D and E surface area airspace. Class E extension airspace would remain in effect continuously. Also, the order of the geographic coordinates after the beginning lat./long. coordinates used to define Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is reversed to assist in cartography and publication. There is no change in the overall dimensions or location of the airspace as listed in the NPRM.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class D airspace, and Class E airspace designated as an extension, and amending Class E surface area airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Truckee-Tahoe Airport, Truckee, CA, to support the commissioning of a Non-Federal Contract Tower, and to support standard instrument approach and departure procedures under IFR operations at the airport. Additionally, the following sentences are added to the Class E surface area airspace to designate effective times when the Class D is not in effect: “This Class E surface area is effective during the specific dates and times established, in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.”
Class D airspace is established upward from the surface to and including 8,400 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Truckee-Tahoe Airport, and includes the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time language.
Class E surface area airspace, inadvertently omitted from the NPRM, is amended to include the NOTAM part-time language.
Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area is established in two segments approximately four (4) miles wide, one extending to approximately 10 miles north, and one 12 miles northwest, of Truckee-Tahoe Airport. The additional language “extending upward from the surface” was added to the regulatory text to improve clarity.
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is shifted slightly east to precisely align with the RNAV instrument approach procedures to runways 11 and 02. Also, a small area is expanded north of Truckee-Tahoe Airport to provide controlled airspace for IFR departures using runway 29.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 8,400 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Truckee-Tahoe Airport. This Class D surface area is effective during the specific dates and times established, in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-mile radius of Truckee-Tahoe Airport. This Class E surface area is effective during the specific dates and times established, in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a line beginning at the point where the 279° bearing from Truckee-Tahoe Airport intersects the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to lat. 39°26′41″N, long. 120°20′43″W, to lat. 39°29′27″N, long. 120°16′17″ W, to the point where the 344° bearing from the airport intersects the 4.2-mile radius of the airport, thence counterclockwise along the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to the point of beginning, and that airspace within a line beginning at the point where the 352° bearing from the airport intersects the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to lat. 39°29′18″ N, long. 120°06′57″ W, to lat. 39°28′11″ N, long. 120°01′44″ W, to the point where the 053° bearing from the airport intersects the 4.2-mile radius of the airport, thence counterclockwise along the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to the point of beginning.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a line beginning at lat. 39°26′41″ N, long. 120°20′43″ W, to lat. 39°30′34″ N, long. 120°23′37″ W, to lat. 39°32′45″ N, long. 120°18′59″ W, to lat. 39°29′27″ N, long. 120°16′17″W, thence to the point of beginning; and that airspace within a line beginning at lat. 39°29′18″N, long. 120°06′57″ W, to lat. 39°37′23″ N, long. 120°04′08″ W, to lat. 39°36′17″ N, long. 119°58′54″ W, to lat. 39°28′11″ N, long. 120°01′44″ W, thence to the point of beginning; and that airspace within 1.8 miles each side of a line extending from the point where the Truckee-Tahoe Airport 328° bearing intersects the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to the point on the 348° bearing from the airport extending 6.3 miles northwest of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Skyway Estates Airport, Eaton Rapids, MI. The cancellation of the standard instrument approach procedures at the airport has resulted in the airspace no longer being required.
Effective 0901 UTC, March 29, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes Class E airspace no longer required at Skyway Estates Airport, Eaton Rapids, MI.
On April 25, 2017, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Skyway Estates Airport, Eaton Rapids, MI.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the cancellation of the standard instrument approach procedures at the airport as the airspace is no longer being required in compliance with FAA Order JO 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the fetal head elevator into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the fetal head elevator's classification. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective December 19, 2017. The classification was applicable on July 27, 2017.
David Birsen, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G623, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-6655,
Upon request, FDA has classified the fetal head elevator as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and part 807 (21 U.S.C. 360(k) and 21 CFR part 807, respectively).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On November 20, 2015, Safe Obstetrics Systems, Ltd., submitted a request for De Novo classification of the Fetal Pillow. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on July 27, 2017, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 884.4350. We have named the generic type of device fetal head elevator, and it is identified as a prescription device consisting of a mechanism that elevates the fetal head to facilitate delivery during a Caesarean section.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In order for a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
At the time of classification, fetal head elevators are for prescription use only. Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) and 21 CFR 801.5, as long as the conditions of 21 CFR 801.109 are met (referring to 21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)).
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 884 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(a)
(b)
(1) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(2) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of patient-contacting components of the device.
(3) Performance data must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating continued sterility, package integrity, and device functionality over the identified shelf life.
(4) Non-clinical performance data must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested:
(i) Reliability testing of device deployment and retrieval under relevant use conditions must be conducted.
(ii) Testing of the maximum force applied to the fetal head in an anatomic model must be conducted.
(iii) Testing of uniform application of the elevator mechanism on the fetal head must be conducted.
(5) Labeling must include the following:
(i) Contraindication for use in the presence of active genital infection;
(ii) Specific instructions regarding the proper placement and use of the device; and
(iii) A shelf life.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the tear electrostimulation device into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the tear electrostimulation device's classification. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective December 19, 2017. The classification was applicable on April 24, 2017.
Scott Steffen, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2574, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-8795,
Upon request, FDA has classified the tear electrostimulation device as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and part 807 (21 U.S.C. 360(k) and 21 CFR part 807, respectively).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On July 7, 2016, Oculeve, Inc., submitted a request for De Novo classification of the Intranasal Tear Neurostimulator. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the generals controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on April 24, 2017, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 886.5300. We have named the generic type of device tear electrostimulation device, and it is identified as a non-implantable, electrostimulation device intended to increase tear production.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In order for a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other 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 the guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices, Ophthalmic goods and services.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 886 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(a)
(b)
(1) Non-clinical performance testing must assess the following electrical output specifications: waveforms, output modes, maximum output voltage, maximum output current, pulse duration, frequency, net charge per pulse, maximum phase charge at 500 ohms, maximum current density, maximum average current, and maximum average power density.
(2) Patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(3) Performance testing must demonstrate the electrical, thermal, and mechanical safety along with electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) of the device in the intended use environment.
(4) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
(5) Physician and patient labeling must include:
(i) Summaries of electrical stimulation parameters;
(ii) Instructions on how to correctly use and maintain the device;
(iii) Instructions and explanations of all user-interface components;
(iv) Information related to electromagnetic compatibility classification; and
(v) Instructions on how to clean the device.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Lehigh Valley Railroad Bridge across the Newark Bay, mile 4.3, at Newark, New Jersey. The deviation is necessary to test a change to the drawbridge operation schedule to determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is needed. This deviation allows the Lehigh Valley RR Bridge to operate under an alternate schedule for ninety (90) days to alleviate high volume of rail service across the Lehigh Valley RR Bridge and to better accommodate vessel traffic.
This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2018 to 11:59 p.m. on March 31, 2018.
Comments and related material must reach by the Coast Guard on or before March 31, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-1026 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District; telephone 212-514-4336, email
The Lehigh Valley Railroad Bridge across the Newark Bay, mile 4.3, at Newark, New Jersey is a lift bridge with a vertical clearance of 35 feet at mean high water and 39 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5 and 33 CFR 117.735.
The owner of the bridge, Consolidated Rail Corporation, requested a change to the Drawbridge Operation Regulations because the volume of train traffic and maneuvering of train movements from the adjacent rail yard across the bridge cause significant delays to marine traffic.
The waterway users are seasonal recreational vessels and commercial vessels of various sizes.
The Coast Guard is publishing this temporary deviation to test the proposed regulation change to determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is necessary to better balance the needs of marine and rail traffic.
Under this deviation, in effect from 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2018 to 11:59 p.m. on March 31, 2018, the Lehigh Valley Railroad Bridge will open on signal if at least one hour advance notice is given.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. There are no alternate routes. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies.
The Coast Guard contacted the waterway users regarding this proposed temporary deviation to test a proposed change to the Drawbridge Operation Regulations and no objections were received. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners and other appropriate local media of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators may arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicating the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
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
Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Postal Service.
Final rule.
In January, 2017, the Postal Service proposed to amend its Postage Evidencing Systems regulations to standardize requirements for the authorization to produce Customized Postage, a Special Service approved by the Postal Regulatory Commission. Comments were received by all authorized providers of Customized Postage products and the Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers. The Postal Service considered these comments and addresses them below.
Customized Postage products are provided through authorized Postage Evidencing System manufacturer-distributors or through companies affiliated with authorized Postage Evidencing System manufacturer-distributors and approved by the Postal Service. During the development of the Customized Postage program, requirements for authorization to produce Customized Postage products were described in
These amendments take effect on May 15, 2018.
Christy Noel, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice, U.S. Postal Service, (202) 268-3484.
The Postal Reorganization Act authorizes the Postal Service to provide such evidence of postage payment “as may be necessary or desirable.” 39 U.S.C. 404(a)(4). The Postal Service exercises this authority through 39 CFR part 501, which protects postal revenues by regulation of manufacturer-distributors of Postage Evidencing Systems. Customized Postage products were developed through market tests allowing Authorized Postage Evidencing System providers to combine evidence of prepayment of postage with a customer-selected or customer-provided graphic image for printing and fulfillment.
All comments received in response to the proposed rules published at 82 FR 1294 (January 5, 2017) requested the creation of a nonprofit category of content in addition to the strictly commercial or limited social categories of content designated as eligible for customer-provided or customer-selected images. All comments claimed that the inclusion of an eligible nonprofit content category would increase program revenues, and the Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers specifically alleged that excluding nonprofit content from the categories of eligible content would constitute unlawful discrimination against nonprofit mailers. The Postal Service disagrees on both counts. Customized Postage products are not U.S. stamps; they are a specialized form of evidence of prepayment of postage offered through statutory authority contained in 39 U.S.C. 404(a)(4). Because they share the function and appearance of U.S. stamps, however, the Postal Service must limit eligible private content to protect its own business and brand interests against dilution, false attribution, appearances of endorsement, and other potential impacts. The First Amendment requires that such content- or speaker-based restrictions be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.
Comments from existing providers argued that Customized Postage restrictions should be uniformly applied across other Postal Service programs or products that allow some degree of customization. However, tailoring content restrictions to the unique context of each of its various customizable products or programs is necessary to serve the Postal Service's diverse interests and goals and is consistent with First Amendment forum analysis.
Comments from Authorized Postage Evidencing System providers also requested acceptance of otherwise eligible images containing incidental depictions of certain prohibited content. For alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and weapons, the Postal Service agrees that allowing incidental depictions of these prohibited categories of content contained within otherwise eligible images would be consistent with program purposes while maintaining or increasing revenues. For example, an image of toasting wedding celebrants may remain eligible despite depictions of alcohol, an image of an armed services member may remain eligible despite depictions of weaponry, and so on. However, for religious, violent, or political content, the Postal Service does not agree that incidental depictions of these prohibited categories of content contained within otherwise eligible images would be consistent with program purposes. Such an expansion would delegate unduly fine-grained distinctions to providers and increase First Amendment and brand liability.
The eligibility of alcoholic beverage logos in the commercial content category was requested. Although allowing incidental depictions of alcohol in a commercial or social context, as explained above, is acceptable under the final rules, allowing the non-incidental display of logos promoting alcoholic beverage sales creates more brand risks, and arguably opens other commercial categories that the Postal Service may be compelled to accept by First
Comments from Authorized Postage Evidencing System providers sought elimination of the “not suitable for minors” restriction in the proposed regulations, arguing that the phrase is too subjective and impractical to apply. The final rules replace “not suitable for minors” with “not suitable for all-ages audiences” and clarify that the phrase applies to all eligible content. The Postal Service believes that original program purposes are better served by this phrase, which seeks to limit content to family-friendly images or text that would not cause concern among mainstream, multi-generational users of the mail. To further comport with program purposes, the Postal Service intends that the list of specific content prohibitions (alcohol, tobacco, gambling, weapons, controlled substances, politics, religion, sex, violence, etc.) be read as illustrative and not exhaustive, making ineligibility the default presumption for all content considered under the Eligibility Criteria. In other words, if proposed content is not a commercial or social image that is suitable for all-ages audiences, it is not eligible, even if not explicitly included in the list of prohibitions. To emphasize this restrictive nature, the final rules include a statement indicating that content that is not expressly allowed is presumed to be prohibited.
The Authorized Postage Evidencing System provider
Authorized Postage Evidencing System providers argued that violations of Customized Postage requirements should not constitute grounds for suspension or revocation of authorization to provide Postage Evidencing Systems. The Postal Service agrees that Customized Postage is a Special Service distinct from Postage Evidencing Systems, and these final rules separate the procedures for suspension or revocation of authorization accordingly. Furthermore, because Customized Postage products have potential to create significant risks for Postal Service philatelic programs and brand interests, the final rules allow for immediate suspension of authority to provide Customized Postage products in the event that the Postal Service determines that unacceptable business risks are posed by the provider's Customized Postage products or infrastructure.
Additionally, the final rules specify that providers must publish the USPS Eligibility Criteria for customers. Although comments did not raise this issue, the inconsistency of publicly available provider content guidelines has caused confusion over Customized Postage products. Because these amendments are intended to standardize and formalize program requirements, the final rules clarify that, in addition to adhering to USPS Eligibility Criteria, providers must publish the USPS Eligibility Criteria for customers.
Finally, existing providers requested that Customized Postage products be authorized for Forever status or rates outside of First Class postage,
Administrative practice and procedure.
For the reasons discussed above, the Postal Service amends 39 CFR part 501 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 410, 2601, 2605, Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (Pub. L. 95-452, as amended); 5 U.S.C. App. 3.
(a)
(i) A Postage Evidencing System provider as defined under § 501.1(d) that is authorized by the Postal Service to produce Customized Postage products in accordance with this section and subject to any additional requirements set forth in individual approval letters; or
(ii) An entity that is affiliated under conditions respecting postage revenue security with a Postage Evidencing System provider and authorized by the Postal Service to produce Customized Postage products in accordance with this section and subject to any additional requirements set forth in individual approval letters.
(2)
(3) As used in this section, a
(b)
(1) Images or text must be “commercial” or “social,” as defined below:
(i)
(ii)
(2) Acceptable commercial or social images or text must not contain content that is unsuitable for all-ages audiences, including but not limited to:
(i) Any non-incidental depiction of alcohol, tobacco, gambling, or firearms or other weapons;
(ii) Any depiction of controlled substances, including but not limited to marijuana;
(iii) Any depiction of political, religious, violent or sexual content; or
(iv) Any depiction of subject matter prohibited for display under U.S. law.
(3) Acceptable commercial or social images or text must not contain content that the customer or provider does not have the right to use either directly or under license, including but not limited to images or text that may be the subject of third party rights such as copyright, trademarks, or rights of publicity or privacy.
(4) The Postal Service reserves the right to determine independently whether any image, text, or category of images or text meets any of the Eligibility Criteria contained in this section.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(i) Providers may not use any other eligibility criteria, represent the use of any other eligibility criteria to customers, or otherwise give the appearance that any eligibility criteria other than the Eligibility Criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section is used in providing or accepting images and/or text for Customized Postage products.
(ii) In the event that full and good faith administration of the process required by this paragraph (c)(2) of this section fails to determine eligibility of an individual image, text, or category of images or text, providers may seek clarification from the Postal Service.
(3)
(i) Are fully compatible with the Eligibility Criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section; and
(ii) Do not give the appearance that images that are not fully compatible with the Eligibility Criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section are available or offered for purchase through providers or otherwise.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO
These rules will be effective on January 18, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0332. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3073,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On September 12, 2017 in 82 FR 42765, the EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the California SIP.
We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. We received four comments during this period, all of which were supportive of our proposed approval of these rules.
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving these rules into the California SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the PCAPCD and VCAPCD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 20, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(41) * * *
(x) * * *
(J) Previously approved on November 15, 1978 in paragraph (c)(41)(x)(A) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(497)(i)(B)(
(497) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Placer County Air Pollution Control District.
(
(i)
(
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. This revision addresses the interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), referred to as the good neighbor provision, with respect to the 2010 primary sulfur dioxide (SO
This rule is effective on January 18, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0151. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Donald Dahl, (617) 918-1657; or by email at
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On August 30, 2017 (82 FR 41197), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Rhode Island proposing to approve an October 15, 2015 SIP revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. The specific requirements of this SIP element and the rationale for EPA's proposed actions on the State's submittal is explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.
The EPA received two comments on the NPR. One comment stated our action is a good regulation as it makes communities conscious that our society's actions have consequences on the environment.
A second comment agreed that Rhode Island's plan will result in sufficient control of NO
EPA is approving the October 15, 2015 SIP submission from Rhode Island certifying that the State's current SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure elements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 20, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of amines, coco alkyl, ethoxylated, compds. with acrylic acid-Bu acrylate-methylstyrene-styrene polymer, ammonium salts (CAS Reg. No. 1186094-73-4) also known as amine salt of styrene acrylic polymer, ammonium salt when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. BASF Corp. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of amines, coco alkyl, ethoxylated, compds. with acrylic acid-Bu acrylate-methylstyrene-styrene polymer, ammonium salts on food or feed commodities.
This regulation is effective December 19, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 20, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0248, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0248 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before February 20, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0248, by one of the following methods.
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” and specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the
1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
7. The polymers do not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as specified in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(6).
Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
8. The polymer's number average MW of 2700 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.
Thus, amine salt of styrene acrylic polymer, ammonium salt meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to amine salt of styrene acrylic polymer, ammonium salt.
For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that amine salt of styrene acrylic polymer, ammonium salt could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of amine salt of styrene acrylic polymer, ammonium salt is 2700 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since amine salt of styrene acrylic polymer, ammonium salt conforms to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA has not found amine salt of styrene acrylic polymer, ammonium salt to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and amine salt of styrene acrylic polymer, ammonium salt does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that amine salt of styrene acrylic polymer, ammonium salt does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of amine salt of styrene acrylic polymer, ammonium salt, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.
Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of amine salt of styrene acrylic polymer, ammonium salt.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for amine salt of styrene acrylic polymer, ammonium salt.
Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of amine salt of styrene acrylic polymer, ammonium salt from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.
This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule.
To correct an asymmetry in the insurance market for Federal employees and annuitants, this proposed regulation provides all Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program carriers the ability to offer the same number and types of plan options. Currently, OPM regulations defining minimum standards for health benefits plans allows certain plans to have two options and a high deductible health plan, while other plans may have three options of any type or two options and a high deductible health plan, creating an asymmetry between the potential offerings of health benefits plans. We are revising the regulations so all health benefits plans are able to offer three options or two options and a high deductible health plan. This rule will give FEHB enrollees more health plan choices allowing them to select a health plan that best meets their family's health care needs.
OPM must receive comments on or before February 20, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing at
Michael W. Kaszynski, Senior Policy Analyst, at
The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program is administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in accordance with Title 5, Chapter 89 U.S.C. and our implementing regulations (Title 5, Part 890 and Title 48, Chapter 16). The statute establishes the basic rules for benefits, enrollment, and participation. OPM is authorized to contract with health insurance carriers; approve health plans for participation in the program; negotiate with carriers about benefit and premium levels; determine the times and conditions for an annual open enrollment period known as “open season” during which eligible individuals may elect coverage or change plans; make information available to employees concerning plan options; evaluate health plans on key parameters of clinical quality, customer service, resource use in comparison with national benchmarks and contract oversight requirements; apply administrative sanctions to health care providers that have committed certain violations; and administer the program's financing.
OPM is also responsible for maintaining the funds that hold contingency reserves for the plans and the fund that receives premium payments from enrollees and Federal agencies, from which premiums are disbursed to participating plans. OPM determines whether retiring employees or survivor annuitants meet the requirements to continue health insurance coverage; takes the action necessary to terminate, accept, or continue enrollment; oversees the automatic deduction of premiums from monthly annuity checks and credits the premiums, along with the applicable Government contribution, to the proper account; processes all enrollment changes; notifies affected carriers of enrollment changes; and keeps enrolled retirees advised of rate and benefit changes within their plan.
The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program provides health insurance to about 8.2 million Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents each year. It is the largest employer-sponsored health insurance program in the country providing more than $53 billion in health care benefits annually. Eligible individuals include Federal employees, retirees, and their family members. As of May 2012, certain Indian tribal employers began purchasing coverage for their employees. Coverage options available to eligible individuals include individual or family coverage in an approved health benefits plan. Beginning in calendar year 2016, individuals have a third coverage option: Self plus one coverage for themselves and one eligible family member.
Generally, available health benefits plans fall into two broad categories: Fee-for-service (FFS) or health maintenance organizations (HMOs). FFS plans tend to be available nationwide, and HMOs tend to be locally available. Based on our March 2017 headcount reports, 16 percent of all contracts are enrolled in HMO plans and 84 percent are enrolled in FFS plans. Premiums are shared between the Federal Government and the employee or retiree. Benefits and cost sharing vary among FEHB plans, but all plans must cover basic services such as hospital and physician care and may require cost sharing in the form of deductibles, co-payments, or coinsurance. FEHB financing includes Government contributions to premiums, policyholder contributions to premiums, contingency reserves in the U.S. Treasury to offset unexpected increases in costs, and administrative expenses incurred by OPM.
By statute, Government and the employee or retiree share the cost of health insurance, with the Federal Government contributing 72 percent of the weighted average premium of all plans but no more than 75 percent of any given plan's premium, with the exception of employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS), whose
Title 5 U.S.C. 8903 specifies the types of health plans with which OPM may contract for FEHB. Enrollees choose a health plan from a health insurance carrier that offers one or more plans. There are currently 262 different health plan options to choose from. As a practical matter, depending on where an enrollee resides, his or her choice of plans is limited to about 15 different plans on average.
Individuals may enroll or change plans during the FEHB annual open season, or through a Qualifying Life Event (QLE), such as marriage. Plan offerings in terms of benefits and premiums may change during each open season. Details for all FEHB plans are available on OPM's website at
Generally, health insurance carriers and their health plans fall into two broad categories: Fee-for-service (FFS) plans (plans under 5 U.S.C. 8903(1), (2) and (3)) or health maintenance organizations (HMOs) (plans under 5 U.S.C. 8903(4)). FFS plans are generally available nationwide, and HMOs tend to be locally available.
FFS plans and HMOs are structured differently. Enrollees may base their decision to join a FFS plan or an HMO based on a variety of factors, such as whether they already have a preferred medical provider and where they live. However, a key difference for enrollees is the flexibility that FFS plans usually provide around the use of out-of-network providers. FFS plans are more likely to allow access to out-of-network providers, with increased out-of-pocket costs, than HMOs.
The FEHB Program typically offers about 19 FFS plans that are available nationally across the Federal Government (although 4 are open only to certain types of Federal employees). Many FFS plans have a preferred provider organization (PPO) whereby medical providers have contracted with the health plan to offer discounted charges. Enrollees may choose providers outside of the PPO but will pay a larger share of the cost of services from these providers. Some FFS plans only offer in-network providers, except in emergencies.
To correct an asymmetry in the insurance market for Federal employees and annuitants, this proposed regulation provides all Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program carriers the ability to offer the same number and types of plan options. Currently, OPM regulations at 5 CFR 890.201 on minimum standards for health benefits plans allows 5 U.S.C. 8903(1) and (2) to have two options and a high deductible health plan, but plan types under 5 U.S.C. 8903(3) and (4) may have three options or two options and a high deductible health plan creating an asymmetry between the potential offerings of types of health benefits plans. We are revising the regulations so all health benefits plans under 5 U.S.C. 8903 have the language that includes three options or two options and a high deductible health plan. This will give enrollees additional options when considering which health plan is best suited for them, for example, using a variety of variables such as premium, co-pay, and deductible costs, provider networks, and referral and pre-authorization policies. Since all health plans must compete annually for enrollees, adding additional options could create an incentive for plans to keep premiums as low as possible to attract enrollees. This regulation fully aligns with the Administration's goal of promoting affordable health plan choices.
The FEHB Program currently contracts with 83 health plan carriers which offer a total of 262 health plan options. These proposed changes are projected to create two additional plan options in the FEHB Program.
OPM expects that this regulatory change allowing an increase in the number plan options will have a positive effect on the market dynamics in the FEHB Program by potentially increasing competition between health plans. This regulatory change will allow health plans under 5 U.S.C. 8903(1) and (2) to offer lower cost, higher quality options to better serve FEHB Program enrollee interests.
It is difficult to anticipate potential changes in enrollment due to this regulatory change because our regulations have previously prohibited plans in these statutory categories from having three options. However, we anticipate that a portion of enrollees will move to lower cost, higher quality options because OPM will ensure that additional options are distinct and meet enrollee interests and enrollees will have access to adequate information to understand the available plan options.
While this rule will allow another option for certain carriers, a carrier is not mandated to offer a new option and this regulation does not increase the number of insured individuals in the FEHB Program. If a current enrollee enrolls in one of the new plan options they will be disenrolled from their old one.
OPM does not believe that this regulation will have a large impact on the broader health insurance market since FEHB generally constitutes a smaller percentage of the overall health insurance carrier's book of business. OPM also believes that employees and annuitants make their health care decisions based on a variety of factors, including networks, premiums, etc., so changes in plan enrollments will be determined by individual choice. However, because OPM does not have extensive data to determine the impact of this regulation, we are seeking comments on the following:
1. How will the changes made by this regulation impact the broader health insurance market?
2. How will the changes made by this regulation impact the enrollment of annuitants compared to employees?
3. How will the regulation impact changes to enrollment in the FEHB Program?
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule involves an OMB approved collection of information subject to the PRA—OMB No. 3206-0160, Health Benefits Election Form. The public reporting burden for this collection is
The FEHB Program currently has a total of 262 health plan options for employees to choose from for their health benefits coverage. Historically, about 18,000 of FEHB participants switch health care plans in any given year. This regulation has the potential to add two new enrollment codes representing new plan options and is not anticipated to significantly change the burden associated with this collection.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule is expected to be an EO 13771 deregulatory action as it addresses an asymmetry in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program market by allowing all carriers to offer three plan options. Additional information can be found in the “Expected Impact of Proposed Changes” section of the rule.
Administration and general provisions; Health benefits plans; Enrollment, temporary extension of coverage and conversion; Contributions and withholdings; Transfers from retired FEHB Program; Benefits in medically underserved areas; Benefits for former spouses; Limit on inpatient hospital charges, physician charges, and FEHB benefit payments; Administrative sanctions imposed against health care providers; Temporary continuation of coverage; Benefits for United States hostages in Iraq and Kuwait and United States hostages captured in Lebanon; Department of Defense Federal Employees Health Benefits Program demonstration project; Administrative practice and procedure, employee benefit plans, Government employees; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Retirement.
Accordingly, OPM is amending title 5, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 8913; Sec. 890.301 also issued under sec. 311 of Pub. L. 111-03, 123 Stat. 64; Sec. 890.111 also issued under section 1622(b) of Pub. L. 104-106, 110 Stat. 521; Sec. 890.112 also issued under section 1 of Pub. L. 110-279, 122 Stat. 2604; 5 U.S.C. 8913; Sec. 890.803 also issued under 50 U.S.C. 403p, 22 U.S.C. 4069c and 4069c-1; subpart L also issued under sec. 599C of Pub. L. 101-513, 104 Stat. 2064, as amended; Sec. 890.102 also issued under sections 11202(f), 11232(e), 11246(b) and (c) of Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251; and section 721 of Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 2061; Pub. L. 111-148, as amended by Pub. L. 111-152.
(b) * * *
(3)(i) Have either more than three options, or more than two options and a high deductible health plan (26 U.S.C. 223(c)(2)(A)) if the plan is described under 5 U.S.C. 8903(1), (2), (3) or (4).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-19-12 for GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Models GA8 and GA8-TC320 airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the fuel system integral sump tank does not meet FAA regulations. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 2, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd, c/o GippsAero Pty Ltd, Attn: Technical Services, P.O. Box 881, Morwell Victoria 3840, Australia; telephone: + 61 03 5172 1200; fax: +61 03 5172 1201; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2013-19-12, Amendment 39-17594 (78 FR 58872, September 25, 2013) (“AD 2013-19-12”). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Models GA8 and GA8-TC320 airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.
Since we issued AD 2013-19-12, the related service information has been amended to incorporate a modification to ventilate the area around the integral sump tank.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which is the aviation authority for Australia, has issued AD No. AD/GA8/7, Amendment 1, dated November 13, 2017 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
The GippsAero GA8 and GA8-TC 320 aircraft Mk II fuel system features an integral sump tank located in the floor structure forward of the co-pilot seat. The current configuration of the compartments adjacent to the Mk II sump tank does not meet the requirements of regulation 23.967 (b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations of the United States of America in that they are not suitably ventilated and drained to prevent the accumulation of flammable fluids or vapours.
Amendment 1 of this [CASA] directive mandates ventilation of the area around the integral sump tank as presented in SB-GA8-2012-96 Issue 6 to meet the requirements of regulation 23.967 (b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations of the United States of America.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
GippsAero has issued Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2012-96, Issue 6, dated July 21, 2016. This service information describes procedures for modifying the fuel ventilation and drainage system. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 47 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to do fuel system ventilation and drainage modification requirement of this proposed AD (this action is retained from AD 2013-19-12). The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this portion of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $11,985, or $255 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to do the supplementary fuel ventilation modification requirement of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $932 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this portion of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $59,784, or $1,272 per product.
In addition, we estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to do the cargo pod modification requirement of this proposed AD (this action is retained from AD 2013-19-12). The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,000 per product, for a proposed cost of $1,340 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need this action.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes and domestic business jet transport airplanes to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by February 2, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2013-19-12, Amendment 39-17594 (78 FR 58872, September 25, 2013) (“AD 2013-19-12”).
This AD applies to the following GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd airplane models and serial numbers (S/Ns) presented in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) that are certificated in any category:
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
The last three digits (third tier designation) of the affected airplane model S/Ns are sequential regardless of the model designation (first tier designation) or the year produced (second tier designation).
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 21: Fuel System.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the fuel system integral sump tank does not meet FAA regulations. We are issuing this AD to prevent the accumulation of flammable fluids or vapors, which could lead to a flammability issue.
Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)
(2)
(3)
This AD allows credit for airplanes that were previously affected by AD 2013-19-12 and the actions required in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD were previously done following Part 1 and Part 2 of GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2012-96, Issue 4, dated August 12, 2013.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which is the aviation authority for Australia, has issued AD No. AD/GA8/7, Amendment 1, dated November 13, 2017; and GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2012-96, Issue 4, dated August 12, 2013. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend controlled airspace at Pocatello Regional Airport, Pocatello, ID, by amending Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as a surface area; removing Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or E surface area; and amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. Also, this action would update the airport's geographic coordinates for the associated Class D and E airspace areas to reflect the FAA's current aeronautical database. Additionally, reference to the Pocatello VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) would be removed from the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface description. This proposal would enhance the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before February 2, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0855; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-17, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D and Class E airspace at Pocatello Regional Airport, Pocatello, ID, in support of IFR operations at the airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2017-0855; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-17) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0855, Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-17.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:
Amending Class D airspace at Pocatello Regional Airport, Pocatello, ID, by raising the vertical limit to 7,000 feet (from 6,900 feet) and increasing the airspace south of the airport to a 5.6-mile radius (from a 4.5-mile radius) to laterally protect IFR departures as they climb to 700 feet above the surface, due to rising terrain;
Amending Class E surface area airspace to be coincident with the Class D airspace area;
Removing Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area as it contains no arrival aircraft within 1,000 feet of the surface, and is not necessary;
Amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to reduce the area southwest of the airport and slightly increase the area south of the airport. This redesign is necessary to ensure sufficient controlled airspace to contain IFR arrival aircraft within 1,500 feet above the surface and IFR departure aircraft until reaching
Lastly, this proposal would update the airport's geographic coordinates for the associated Class D and E airspace areas to reflect the FAA's current aeronautical database, and would replace the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement” in the Class D and Class E surface airspace legal descriptions. These modifications are necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017 and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 7,000 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of Pocatello Regional Airport from the airport 195° bearing clockwise to the airport 168° bearing, and within a 5.6-mile radius of the airport from the airport 168° bearing clockwise to the airport 195° bearing. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace within a 4.5-mile radius of Pocatello Regional Airport from the airport 195° bearing clockwise to the airport 168° bearing, and within a 5.6-mile radius of the airport from the airport 168° bearing clockwise to the airport 195° bearing. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 7.8 miles northwest and 5 miles southeast of the 045° bearing from Pocatello Regional Airport extending to 21 miles northeast of the airport, and within 7.8 miles northwest and 5 miles southeast of the 225° bearing from the airport extending to 10.8 miles southwest of the airport. That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within 15 miles northwest and 5 miles southeast of the 045° bearing from Pocatello Regional Airport extending to 43 miles northeast of the airport, and within 15 miles northwest and 5 miles southeast of the 225° bearing from the airport extending to 15 miles southwest of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bear Lake County Airport, Paris, ID, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) procedures at the airport. This action would ensure the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.
Comments must be received on or before February 2, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace to support new RNAV procedures at Bear Lake County Airport, Paris, ID.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0973; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-30”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bear Lake County Airport, Paris, ID, within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport, and within a rectangular segment east of the airport extending approximately 15.3 miles wide (from east to west) and 28.1 miles tall (from north to south), and a trapezoidal area west of the airport extending approximately 10.5 miles wide (from east to west) and 33.8 miles tall (from north to south).
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of Bear Lake County Airport within the area bounded by lat. 42°29′26″ N, long. 111°36′13″ W; to lat. 42°29′32″ N, long. 111°28′55″ W; to lat. 42°21′52″ N, long. 111°28′07″ W; to the point where the airport 325° bearing intersects the airport 6.6-mile radius; thence clockwise along the 6.6-mile radius of the airport to the airport 017° bearing, to lat. 42°34′39″ N, long. 111°19′45″ W; to lat. 42°35′06″ N, long. 110°59′38″ W; to lat. 42°08′06″ N, long. 110°54′19″ W; to lat. 42°05′45″ N, long. 111°15′34″ W; to the point where the airport 150° bearing intersects the 6.6-mile radius of the airport, thence clockwise along the 6.6-mile radius of the airport to the airport 226° bearing, to lat. 41°55′22″ N, long. 111°25′20″ W; to lat. 41°55′58″ N, long. 111°44′44″ W; thence to the point of beginning.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notification of extension of time to take final action on the proposed rule.
On October 10, 2017, the Department of Energy (the Department or DOE) published a proposed Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule for final action by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC). Secretary of Energy Rick Perry (the Secretary) directed FERC either to publish an immediately-effective interim rule or to take final action on the proposed rule within 60 days of publication, thereby establishing a deadline of December 11, 2017. By letter dated December 7, 2017, the Commission requested an extension of the proposed rule's deadline. By letter dated December 8, 2017, the Secretary granted the Commission's request. The Secretary's letter is set forth in full below.
The Commission is granted an extension for final action on the proposed rule published in the
Ronald (R.J.) Colwell, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Electricity and Fossil Energy (GC-76), Forrestal Building, Room 6D-033, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-9507; email
On October 10, 2017, pursuant to authority in section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7173, the Department published a proposed Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule for final action by the Commission. 82 FR 46940. The Secretary proposed that the Commission exercise its authority under the Federal Power Act (FPA) to establish just and reasonable rates for wholesale electricity sales. Under the proposal, the Commission would impose rules on Commission-approved independent system operators (ISOs) and regional transmission organizations (RTOs) to ensure that certain reliability and resilience attributes of electric generation resources are fully valued. The Secretary directed the Commission to take final action on this proposal within 60 days of publication of the proposed rule in the
On December 7, I received your request for an extension of time (“Extension Request”) for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) to take final action on the proposed Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Notice” or “Proposal”) published in the
In the Notice and in my accompanying letter of September 28, I made clear that there is a problem today and that urgent action is required to reform the Commission's market rules. I stated that, in light of serious threats to the nation's electricity grid, it is the Commission's immediate responsibility to take action to ensure that generation resources with on-site fuel supplies and the ability to provide essential energy and ancillary reliability services including voltage support, frequency services, operating reserves, and reactive power are fully valued and, in particular, to exercise its authority to develop new market rules that will achieve this urgent objective. In the letter I further stated that failure to act expeditiously would be unjust, unreasonable, and contrary to the public interest. The voluminous comments filed in the record of this proceeding provide substantial evidence of, and otherwise confirm, the threat to the nation's electricity grid and the urgent need for Commission action to reform market rules to preserve fuel-secure generation resources.
Because of the urgency of this matter, the 60-day deadline imposed in the Notice is reasonable within the meaning of Section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act and is otherwise compliant with applicable law. The better course would be for the Commission to adopt the Proposal within this reasonable deadline. If the Commission fails to adopt the Proposal within the original
However, I understand that Section 403 assigns the Commission the responsibility to take final action on the Proposal within the reasonable time period set forth by me and it is solely within my authority under Section 403 to grant an extension of time for final action. On the assumption that the Commission cannot act on the proposal within the 60-day deadline, I hereby grant the request for an extension of time for the Commission to deliberate and take final action on the Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule for an additional 30 days.
I continue to believe that urgent action must be taken to ensure the resilience and security of the electric grid, which is so vitally important to the economic and national security of the United States. I look forward to the Commission taking final action in this matter for the benefit of the American people.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations that provide guidance on the treatment of foreign currency gain or loss of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) under the business needs exclusion from foreign personal holding company income (FPHCI). The proposed regulations also provide an election for a taxpayer to use a mark-to-market method of accounting for foreign currency gain or loss attributable to section 988 transactions. In addition, the proposed regulations permit the controlling United States shareholders of a CFC to automatically revoke certain elections concerning the treatment of foreign currency gain or loss. The proposed regulations affect taxpayers and United States shareholders of CFCs that engage in transactions giving rise to foreign currency gain or loss under section 988 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by March 19, 2018.
Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-119514-15), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-119514-15), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Jeffery G. Mitchell, (202) 317-6934; concerning submissions of comments or requests for a public hearing, Regina Johnson, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
The collections of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collections of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by February 20, 2018.
Comments are specifically requested concerning:
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the duties of the IRS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information;
How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced;
How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchases of services to provide information.
The collection of information in these proposed regulations is in proposed §§ 1.954-2(g)(3)(iii) and (4)(iii) and 1.988-7. The information is required to be provided by taxpayers and United States shareholders of CFCs that make an election or revoke an election with respect to the treatment of foreign currency gains and losses. The information provided will be used by the IRS for tax compliance purposes.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
This document contains proposed amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under sections 446, 954(c)(1)(D), and 988 of the Code. Section 446 requires taxpayers to compute taxable income using accounting methods that clearly reflect income. Section 954(c)(1)(D) provides that FPHCI includes the excess of foreign currency gains over foreign currency losses (as defined in section 988(b)) attributable to section 988 transactions, other than transactions directly related to the business needs of the CFC. Section 988 provides rules for determining the source and character of
Section 954 defines foreign base company income (FBCI), which generally is income earned by a CFC that is taken into account in computing the amount that a United States shareholder of the CFC must include in income under section 951(a)(1)(A). Under section 954(a)(1), FBCI includes FPHCI, which is defined in section 954(c). The excess of foreign currency gains over foreign currency losses from section 988 transactions is generally included in FPHCI pursuant to section 954(c)(1)(D).
Section 988 transactions generally include the following: The accrual of any item of income or expense that is to be paid or received in a nonfunctional currency after the date of accrual; lending or borrowing in a nonfunctional currency; entering into or acquiring a forward, future, option, or similar contract denominated in a nonfunctional currency; and the disposition of nonfunctional currency.
Notwithstanding the general rule that includes the excess of foreign currency gains over foreign currency losses from section 988 transactions in FPHCI, section 954(c)(1)(D) excludes from FPHCI any foreign currency gain or loss attributable to a transaction directly related to the business needs of the CFC (business needs exclusion). To qualify for the business needs exclusion, a foreign currency gain or loss must, in addition to satisfying other requirements, arise from a transaction entered into, or property used, in the normal course of the CFC's business that does not itself (and could not reasonably be expected to) give rise to subpart F income (as defined in section 952) other than foreign currency gain or loss.
Foreign currency gain or loss attributable to a bona fide hedging transaction (as defined in § 1.954-2(a)(4)(ii)) with respect to a transaction or property that qualifies for the business needs exclusion also qualifies for the business needs exclusion, provided that any gain or loss with respect to such transaction or property that is attributable to changes in exchange rates is clearly determinable from the records of the CFC as being derived from such property or transaction.
Section 1.954-2(g)(2)(ii)(C) provides special rules for applying the business needs exclusion to CFCs that are regular dealers as defined in § 1.954-2(a)(4)(iv). Transactions in dealer property (as defined in § 1.954-2(a)(4)(v)) that are entered into by a CFC that is a regular dealer in such property in its capacity as a dealer are treated as directly related to the business needs of the CFC.
Under section 954(c)(1)(D), although a foreign currency loss that does not qualify for the business needs exclusion reduces the amount of foreign currency gain that is included in FPHCI, an excess of foreign currency losses over foreign currency gains from section 988 transactions generally does not reduce FPHCI. Such a net foreign currency loss does, however, reduce earnings and profits for purposes of the current earnings and profits limitation on subpart F income in section 952(c)(1). Additionally, as described in Part D of this Background section, when an election under § 1.954-2(g)(3) or (4) is in effect, a foreign currency loss can reduce FPHCI or, in the case of an election under § 1.954-2(g)(3), another category of subpart F income.
In order for the business needs exclusion to apply to exclude foreign currency gain and loss from the computation of FPHCI, the foreign currency gain or loss must arise from a transaction or property that does not itself (and could not reasonably be expected to) give rise to any subpart F income other than foreign currency gain or loss. For example, foreign currency gains and losses related to the purchase and sale of inventory are excluded from the computation of FPHCI if none of the income from the purchase and sale is subpart F income under section 952. However, if the transaction or property gives rise to, or could reasonably be expected to give rise to, any amount of subpart F income (other than foreign currency gain or loss), none of the foreign currency gain or loss attributable to the transaction or property would qualify for the business needs exclusion. Thus, there is a cliff effect: If even a de minimis amount of income or gain from the transaction or property is subpart F income, the entire amount of the foreign currency gain or loss from the transaction or property, or from a bona fide hedging transaction with respect to the transaction or property, is included in the FPHCI computation.
A CFC may conduct business through a qualified business unit (as defined in
For business and financial accounting reasons, a CFC may enter into transactions to manage the exchange rate risk associated with its net investment in its QBU. Under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (U.S. GAAP), a majority owner of a business entity (parent corporation) must consolidate the accounts of the majority-owned entity, including a foreign entity, with its own accounts for purposes of financial reporting. Under U.S. GAAP, the income, assets, liabilities, and other financial results of foreign operations that are conducted in a functional currency that differs from the consolidated parent's functional currency must be translated into the functional currency of the consolidated parent. Foreign currency gains or losses arising from the translation are recorded in a “cumulative translation adjustment” account and reported as a component of shareholders' equity on the balance sheet.
The transactions that a CFC uses to manage its exchange rate risk with respect to its net investment in a QBU are typically section 988 transactions. Thus, foreign currency gains or losses attributable to those transactions are taken into account in computing FPHCI, unless the transactions qualify as bona fide hedging transactions that satisfy the requirements of the business needs exclusion.
Also for business and financial accounting reasons, a CFC may enter into transactions to manage the exchange rate risk with respect to its net investment in a subsidiary CFC. A transaction that manages the risk of price or currency fluctuation with respect to a CFC's net investment in a subsidiary CFC is not considered a hedging transaction for federal income tax purposes. In
Section 1.446-4 generally requires gain or loss from a hedging transaction, as defined in § 1.1221-2(b), to be taken into account at the same time as the gain or loss from the item being hedged. As noted in Part A.1 of this Background section, bona fide hedging transactions under § 1.954-2(a)(4)(ii) include both hedging transactions as defined in § 1.1221-2(b) and transactions that manage the risk of price or currency fluctuation with respect to section 1231 property and section 988 transactions. Thus, § 1.446-4 does not explicitly apply to all bona fide hedging transactions, which has led to some uncertainty about whether gain or loss from a bona fide hedging transaction that is not described in § 1.1221-2(b) is properly taken into account in the same taxable year as gain or loss on the hedged item. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS understand that some taxpayers have applied the hedge timing rules of § 1.446-4 to all bona fide hedging transactions, irrespective of whether those transactions are hedging transactions as defined in § 1.1221-2(b).
It is common for a U.S.-parented multinational group to own one or more CFCs that serve as financing entities for other group members. Such CFCs (treasury center CFCs) may borrow in various currencies from third party lenders or from other members of the group and lend the proceeds to other members of the group. Treasury center CFCs also may be used to centralize the management of currency and other risks of other CFCs within the multinational group. Treasury center CFCs typically qualify as securities dealers under section 475, but if a treasury center CFC transacts primarily or exclusively with related persons, as is often the case, it would not qualify as a regular dealer under § 1.954-2(a)(4)(iv) and thus would not be eligible for the special rules applying the business needs exclusion to certain transactions of regular dealers under § 1.954-2(g)(2)(ii)(C).
When a treasury center CFC borrows nonfunctional currency from related or unrelated parties and makes loans denominated in that nonfunctional currency to a related CFC, the foreign currency gain or loss attributable to the principal amount borrowed by the treasury center CFC will economically offset all or a portion of the foreign currency loss or gain, respectively, attributable to the lending activity. Similarly, the foreign currency gain or loss attributable to the treasury center CFC's accrual of interest income and expense with respect to its lending and borrowing activities, respectively, will offset each other, in whole or in part. Thus, by borrowing and lending in the same nonfunctional currency, a treasury
Although foreign currency gain and loss attributable to lending and borrowing transactions that are denominated in the same nonfunctional currency will typically partially or fully economically offset, the applicable tax accounting methods may cause the treasury center CFC to recognize a gain and an offsetting loss in different taxable years. If a treasury center CFC qualifies as a dealer under section 475, for example because it regularly purchases debt from related CFCs in the ordinary course of a trade or business, the treasury center CFC generally must use a mark-to-market method of accounting for its securities.
As explained in Part A.3 of this Background section, the business needs exclusion does not apply to foreign currency gain or loss with respect to a transaction or property if any subpart F income arises, or could reasonably be expected to arise, from the transaction or property. § 1.954-2(g)(2)(ii)(B)(
Section 1.954-2 provides two elections with respect to foreign currency gains or losses. Under the first election, the controlling United States shareholders of a CFC may elect to include foreign currency gain or loss that relates to a specific category of subpart F income or, in the case of FBCI, a specific subcategory of FBCI described in § 1.954-1(c)(1)(iii)(A)(
Under the second election, the controlling United States shareholders of a CFC may elect to include in the computation of FPHCI all foreign currency gain or loss attributable to any section 988 transaction (except a transaction in which gain or loss is treated as capital gain or loss under section 988(a)(1)(B)) and to certain section 1256 contracts.
The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that foreign currency gain or loss arising from a transaction or property, or from a bona hedging transaction with respect to such a transaction or property, should be eligible for the business needs exclusion to the extent the transaction or property generates non-subpart F income. Accordingly, proposed § 1.954-2(g)(2)(ii)(C)(
The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that a transaction that manages exchange rate risk with respect to a CFC's net investment in a QBU that is not treated as a separate entity for federal income tax purposes should qualify for the business needs exclusion to the extent the underlying property of the QBU does not give rise to subpart F income. Accordingly, proposed § 1.954-2(g)(2)(ii)(C)(
The proposed amendment to § 1.446-4(a), discussed in Part B.1 of this Explanation of Provisions section, provides that a bona fide hedging transaction (as defined in § 1.954-2(a)(4)(ii)) is subject to the hedge timing rules of § 1.446-4. Additionally, as noted earlier, proposed § 1.954-2(g)(2)(ii)(C)(
The Treasury Department and the IRS also request comments regarding whether the business needs exclusion should apply to a transaction that is entered into for the purpose of managing the risk of foreign currency fluctuation with respect to a CFC's net investment in a subsidiary CFC. Comments are requested regarding how the gain or loss on such a transaction could or should be allocated between subpart F and non-subpart F income and whether and how the gain or loss could or should be matched with the foreign currency gain or loss on the “hedged” item.
The Treasury Department and the IRS are aware that a CFC may enter into a transaction that manages exchange rate risk arising from a disregarded loan to a QBU. The Treasury Department and the IRS understand that, for U.S. GAAP purposes, exchange gain or loss with respect to a transaction that manages exchange rate risk with respect to the disregarded loan generally would not be reflected as a cumulative foreign currency translation adjustment. For federal income tax purposes, the loan would be disregarded, and exchange gain or loss on the hedging transaction potentially could be subpart F income. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments regarding whether, taking into account the amendments in the proposed regulations, additional amendments to the business needs exclusion are appropriate to account for foreign currency gain or loss arising from a transaction that is entered into for the purpose of managing the risk of foreign currency fluctuation with respect to disregarded transactions, including disregarded loans, between a CFC and its QBU. Specifically, comments are requested regarding how the foreign currency gain or loss on such a hedging transaction could or should be allocated between subpart F and non-subpart F income and when such foreign currency gain or should be recognized.
The proposed amendment to § 1.446-4(a) extends the hedge timing rules of § 1.446-4 to all bona fide hedging transactions as defined in § 1.954-2(a)(4)(ii). Although this amendment will be particularly useful in connection with foreign currency gains and losses from bona fide hedging transactions of treasury center CFCs, the amendment will eliminate timing mismatches for gains and losses arising from all bona fide hedging transactions and from the hedged property or transaction.
In addition, proposed § 1.954-2(a)(4)(ii) revises the definition of a bona fide hedging transaction to permit the acquisition of a debt instrument by a CFC to be treated as a bona fide hedging transaction with respect to an interest-bearing liability of the CFC, provided that the acquisition of the debt instrument has the effect of managing the CFC's exchange rate risk with respect to the liability within the meaning of § 1.1221-2(c)(4) and (d), determined without regard to § 1.1221-2(d)(5), and otherwise meets the requirements of a bona fide hedging
Treating a debt instrument as a hedge of an interest-bearing liability, rather than treating the interest-bearing liability as a hedge of the debt instrument, is consistent with the principles underlying § 1.861-9T(b)(2), which allocates and apportions foreign currency gain or losses on a transaction that hedges an interest-bearing liability in the same manner as interest expense with respect to the liability is allocated and apportioned. See part C of this Explanation of Provisions section for further discussion of the impact of this rule on the allocation of foreign currency gain or loss on a debt instrument between subpart F income and non-subpart F income.
Proposed § 1.988-7 permits a taxpayer, including a CFC, to elect to use a mark-to-market method of accounting for section 988 gain or loss with respect to section 988 transactions, including becoming an obligor under an interest-bearing liability. This elective mark-to-market method of accounting takes into account only changes in the value of the section 988 transaction attributable to exchange rate fluctuations and does not take into account changes in value due to other factors, such as changes in market interest rates or the creditworthiness of the borrower. The proposed regulations require appropriate adjustments to be made to prevent section 988 gain or loss taken into account under the mark-to-market method of accounting from being taken into account again under section 988 or another provision of the Code.
This election is available to any taxpayer but is expected to be particularly relevant in the case of a treasury center CFC. A treasury center CFC that uses a mark-to-market method for securities under section 475 and that makes the election under proposed § 1.988-7 will be able to match the timing of foreign currency gain or loss with respect to an interest-bearing liability (such as a loan from a related or unrelated party) with economically offsetting foreign currency loss or gain arising from its nonfunctional currency-denominated assets (such as a receivable from a related party). Whether the corresponding foreign currency gains and losses qualify for the business needs exclusion is determined under the rules of § 1.954-2(g)(2), as proposed to be amended pursuant to these proposed regulations. Thus, if the foreign currency gains or losses do not fully offset each other, the difference may increase or decrease the CFC's FPHCI. However, the election under proposed § 1.988-7 does not apply to the following: (1) Any securities that are marked to market under any other provision; (2) any securities that, pursuant to an election or an identification made by the taxpayer, are excepted from mark-to-market treatment under any other provision; (3) any transactions of a QBU that is subject to section 987; or (4) any section 988 transactions denominated in, or determined by reference to, a hyperinflationary currency.
The election applies for the year in which the election is made and all subsequent taxable years unless it is revoked by the Commissioner or the taxpayer or, in the case of a CFC, the controlling domestic shareholders of the CFC. Proposed § 1.988-7(d) permits a taxpayer or CFC to revoke the election to use a mark-to-market method of accounting for foreign currency gains or losses on section 988 transactions at any time. A subsequent election cannot be made until the sixth taxable year following the year of revocation and cannot be revoked until the sixth taxable year following the year of such subsequent election.
The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that it is appropriate to require foreign currency gain or loss from transactions that have the effect of managing exchange rate risk arising from an interest-bearing liability to be allocated between subpart F income and non-subpart F income in the same manner as the foreign currency gain or loss on the hedged liability. Accordingly, the proposed amendments to § 1.954-2(g)(2)(iii) require foreign currency gains and losses arising from a transaction or property (including debt instruments) that manages exchange rate risk with respect to an interest-bearing liability to be allocated and apportioned between subpart F income and non-subpart F income in the same manner that foreign currency gain or loss from the interest-bearing liability would be allocated and apportioned. As noted in Part B.1 of this Explanation of Provisions, the proposed amendment to § 1.954-2(a)(4)(ii) revises the definition of a bona fide hedging transaction to permit the acquisition of a debt instrument by a CFC to be treated as a bona fide hedging transaction with respect to an interest-bearing liability of the CFC under certain circumstances. As a result of that proposed amendment and the amendment described in this Part C, if a CFC identifies a debt instrument that manages exchange rate risk as a hedge of an interest-bearing liability, the foreign currency gain or loss arising from that debt instrument will be allocated between subpart F income and non-subpart F income in the same manner as the foreign currency gain or loss arising from the hedged interest-bearing liability. Thus, the proposed amendments to the regulations permit a CFC that timely and properly identifies a debt instrument as a hedge of an interest-bearing liability to alleviate the character mismatch that may occur under the existing regulations, as described in Part C of the Background section of this preamble. The proposed amendments to § 1.954-2(g)(2)(iii) also clarify that the special rules in that paragraph apply to foreign currency gain or loss arising from an interest-bearing liability, or from a bona fide hedging transaction with respect to the liability, in lieu of the general rule of the business needs exclusion in § 1.954-2(g)(2)(ii).
Proposed § 1.954-2(g)(3)(iii) permits a CFC to revoke its election under § 1.954-2(g)(3) (to characterize foreign currency gain or loss that arises from a specific category of subpart F income as gain or loss in that category) at any time without securing the prior consent of the Commissioner. Similarly, proposed § 1.954-2(g)(4)(iii) permits a CFC to revoke its election under § 1.954-2(g)(4) (to treat all foreign currency gain or loss as FPHCI) at any time without securing the prior consent of the Commissioner. The Treasury Department and the IRS remain concerned about CFCs frequently changing these elections without a substantial business reason but also believe that the ability of a taxpayer to automatically revoke these elections would promote sound tax administration. Therefore, the proposed regulations provide that, if an election has been revoked under proposed § 1.954-2(g)(3)(iii) or proposed § 1.954-2(g)(4)(iii), a subsequent election cannot be made until the sixth taxable year following the year of revocation and any subsequent election cannot be revoked
The proposed amendments generally are proposed to apply to taxable years ending on or after the date the proposed regulations are published as final regulations in the
Certain IRS regulations, including these, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that the collection of information requirement will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these regulations primarily will affect domestic corporations that have foreign operations, which tend to be larger businesses, and that the average burden is minimal. Accordingly, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f), this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under
The principal author of these regulations is Jeffery G. Mitchell of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.954-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 954(b) and (c). * * *
Section 1.988-7 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 446, 988(d), and 989(c). * * *
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a)
(g)
The additions and revision read as follows:
(b) * * *
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Foreign currency gains and losses arising from a transaction or property that gives rise to both non-subpart F income and subpart F income or from a bona fide hedging transaction with respect to such a transaction or property.
(
(
(iii) Special rule for foreign currency gain or loss from an interest-bearing liability and bona fide hedges of an interest-bearing liability.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * * Additionally, the acquisition of a debt instrument by a controlled foreign corporation may be treated as a bona fide hedging transaction with respect to an interest-bearing liability of the controlled foreign corporation, provided that the acquisition of the debt instrument has the effect of managing the controlled foreign corporation's exchange rate risk with respect to the liability within the meaning of § 1.1221-2(c)(4) and (d), determined without regard to § 1.1221-2(d)(5), and otherwise meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section. * * *
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C)
(
(iii)
(3) * * *
(iii)
(4) * * *
(iii)
(i) * * *
(2)
(a)
(b)
(1) Any security, commodity, or section 1256 contract that is marked to market under any other provision, including section 475 or section 1256;
(2) Any security, commodity, or section 1256 contract that, pursuant to an election or an identification made by the taxpayer, is excepted from mark-to-market treatment under another provision, including section 475 or section 1256;
(3) Any transaction of a qualified business unit (as defined in section 1.989(a)-1(b)) that is subject to section 987; or
(4) Any section 988 transaction denominated in, or determined by reference to, a hyperinflationary currency. See § 1.988-2(b)(15), (d)(5), and (e)(7) for rules relating to such transactions.
(c)
(d)
(e)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations implementing section 1101 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), which was enacted into law on November 2, 2015. Section 1101 of the BBA repeals the current rules governing partnership audits and replaces them with a new centralized partnership audit regime that, in general, assesses and collects tax at the partnership level. These proposed regulations provide rules addressing how pass-through partners take into account adjustments under the alternative to payment of the imputed underpayment described in section 6226 and under rules similar to section 6226 when a partnership files an administrative adjustment request under section 6227. To make corresponding changes, these proposed regulations amend portions of the previously proposed regulations under sections 6226 and 6227. Additionally, these proposed regulations provide rules regarding assessment and collection, penalties and interest, and period of limitations under the new centralized partnership audit regime. The proposed regulations also address the rules for seeking judicial review of partnership adjustments.
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by March 19, 2018.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-120232-17; REG-120233-17), room 5207, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-120232-17; REG-120233-17), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations under sections 6225, 6231, and 6234 of the Internal Revenue Code, Joy E. Gerdy-Zogby of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), (202) 317-6834; concerning the proposed regulations under sections 6227, 6232, and 6233, Steven L. Karon of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), (202) 317-6834; concerning the proposed regulations under sections 6226 and 6235, Jennifer M. Black of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), (202) 317-6834; concerning the submission of comments and a request for a public hearing, Regina Johnson, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
This document contains proposed amendments to the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) under Subpart—Tax Treatment of Partnership Items regarding how pass-through partners (as defined in proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(5)) take into account adjustments under the alternative to payment of the imputed underpayment described in section 6226 under the new centralized partnership audit regime and under rules similar to section 6226 when a partnership files an administrative adjustment request (AAR) under section 6227. This document also contains proposed regulations regarding assessment and collection, penalties and interest, periods of limitations, and judicial review under the new centralized partnership audit regime. The new regime was enacted into law by section 1101 of the BBA, Public Law 114-74, as amended by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015, Public Law 114-113, div. Q. The provisions of section 1101 of the BBA are generally effective for partnership taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. See the temporary regulations (TD 9780, 81 FR 51795) and the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-105005-16, 81 FR 51835) published in the
On June 14, 2017, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-136118-15) was published in the
Under section 6225, a partnership subject to the centralized partnership audit regime is generally required to pay an imputed underpayment with respect to adjustments to the partnership's items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit, and any partner's distributive share thereof. However, a partnership may elect under section 6226 to have its partners for the year under audit (the reviewed year partners) take the adjustments into account.
Proposed § 301.6226-1 (June 14 NPRM) provides rules relating to the election under section 6226 by a partnership to have its partners take into account the partnership adjustments in lieu of paying the imputed underpayment determined under section 6225 (the push out election). Proposed §§ 301.6226-2 and 301.6226-3 (June 14 NPRM) provide rules for statements the partnership must send to its partners for the reviewed year (as defined in proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(8) (June 14 NPRM)) and the computation and payment of the partners' liabilities
The June 14 NPRM provides guidance on how a direct partner that is not a pass-through partner (generally defined under proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(5) (June 14 NPRM) as a partnership, an S corporation, certain trusts, and a decedent's estate) takes the adjustments into account under section 6226(b).
The June 14 NPRM reserved, however, on the issue of how the adjustments are taken into account in the case of tiered partnership structures by partners that are pass-through partners. The preamble to the June 14 NPRM noted that the Treasury Department and the IRS were considering an approach under section 6226 for tiered partnerships to “push” the adjustments beyond the first tier partners that would be the subject of other proposed regulations to be published in the near future. These are those proposed regulations.
In the June 14 NPRM, the Treasury Department and the IRS sought comments on how the IRS might administer the requirements of section 6226 in tiered structures, including comments on reducing noncompliance and collection risk in tiered structures, while at the same time reducing costs of effective tax administration. The Treasury Department and the IRS received numerous comments addressing the push out election for tiered structures which uniformly requested that pass-through partners be allowed to push out the adjustments under section 6226 beyond the first tier and through to the ultimate taxpaying partners or owners.
Partnerships, as such, are not subject to tax under chapter 1 of the Code with respect to items of income, gain, loss, deduction, and credit. Rather, these items of the partnership are allocated to its partners who then take them into account based on the partners' tax characteristics, including entity classification. The June 14 NPRM describes generally how adjustments to items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit made with respect to a partnership subject to the TEFRA partnership procedures flow through to the partnership's direct and indirect partners for assessment and collection of the resulting tax. Under certain circumstances, the assessment and collection of such tax required the IRS to follow deficiency procedures after the partnership-level proceeding. The enactment of the centralized partnership audit regime changed this paradigm by introducing the imputed underpayment, an entity-level liability, that is calculated based on the adjustments to a partnership's items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit, and that is assessed and collected at the partnership level, rather than being assessed and collected from the ultimate partners.
Section 6226 provides an alternative to the entity-level imputed underpayment, allowing a partnership to elect under section 6226(a) to push the adjustments out to its partners. In lieu of the partnership paying the imputed underpayment, section 6226(a) provides that when a push out election is made the reviewed year partners “shall take such adjustments into account” as provided in section 6226(b). The language of section 6226(b), however, does not distinguish between partners that are subject to chapter 1 income taxes (for example, individuals and C corporations) and pass-through partners (for example, partnerships and S corporations), which are generally not subject to such taxes. Accordingly, the precise question of how a pass-through partner takes into account the adjustments when a partnership elects to push out the adjustments to its partners is not addressed by section 6226(b).
As discussed in the preamble to the June 14 NPRM, section 6226(b) could be interpreted to treat direct pass-through partners like individuals, allowing the IRS to collect the resulting tax from those direct pass-through partners without allowing them to push out the adjustments past the first tier.
After considering all of the comments, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that adjustments pushed out to partners pursuant to an election under section 6226 should be permitted to be pushed out through the tiers to the ultimate tax-paying owners. Accordingly, these proposed regulations provide rules for pushing the adjustments through tiers of partners that are pass-through partners. Under proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(5) (June 14 NPRM), a “pass-through partner” means a partnership (regardless of whether the partnership made a valid election under section 6221(b) to elect out of the centralized partnership audit regime), an S corporation, certain trusts, and a decedent's estate.
As discussed more fully in the Explanation of Provisions section of this preamble, the proposed regulations provide rules for pushing the adjustments beyond the first tier. Under these rules, each pass-through partner in an ownership chain is given a choice to either push the adjustments to its partners, shareholders, or beneficiaries or pay tax with respect to the adjustments. This optionality is consistent with the framework of the centralized partnership audit regime where the partnership under audit, or the partnership initiating its own adjustments in an AAR, has the choice of either paying a tax amount with respect to the adjustments or pushing the adjustments out to its partners. It also provides maximum flexibility for each pass-through partner in the chain to determine the best course for that partner based on its own facts and circumstances.
The proposed regulations also provide a compliance mechanism to ensure that the section 6226 election does not negatively impact tax administration. As discussed in the June 14 NPRM, the centralized partnership audit regime is designed to improve the IRS's ability not only to audit partnerships, including large, tiered partnerships, but also to efficiently collect the tax due as a result of the audit. The centralized partnership audit regime has two main collection mechanisms. First, section 6225 creates a default entity-level imputed underpayment that the partnership must pay. Second, as an alternative to payment of the imputed underpayment by the partnership under section 6225, section 6226 allows the partnership to move the collection point
Because section 6226 is a collection provision, the IRS must be able to collect any tax due as a result of the adjustments made at the partnership level, even if those adjustments are pushed out through multiple tiers of pass-through partners. Therefore, under a regime where the partnership is allowed to push adjustments through the tiers, there must be a feature that ensures compliance by each pass-through partner in the chain of ownership. Without such a feature, non-compliant entities in the tiers, and the current partners who control those entities, could frustrate collection of the tax due as a result of the partnership audit, and the section 6226 election would become a means for avoidance of tax due with respect to adjustments determined in the audit, undermining the centralized partnership audit regime enacted under the BBA.
Therefore, these proposed regulations provide a mechanism to address pass-through partners in the tiers that fail to comply with the requirement to either push the adjustments out to their owners or pay the tax resulting from the adjustments allocable to that partner. That mechanism is to collect the tax due from the non-compliant pass-through partner. This balances the ability for the tiered structure to push out the partnership adjustments to the partnership's ultimate reviewed year partners while ensuring collection under section 6226.
In cases where the pass-through partner chooses (or, in the case of non-compliance, is required) to pay, the proposed regulations rely on existing rules to determine how an entity that generally does not pay chapter 1 tax would determine the amount due if that entity were to take the adjustments into account. Under these proposed rules, the pass-through partner calculates an amount in the same manner as the imputed underpayment under section 6225 is computed with respect to the partnership under audit, with some refinements, as described in more detail in the Explanation of Provisions section of this preamble, to reflect the fact that the adjustments are taken into account pursuant to a section 6226 election.
The June 14 NPRM also reserved on how pass-through partners in a partnership that files an AAR take the adjustments into account under “rules similar to the rules of section 6226.” As discussed more fully in the Explanation of Provisions section of this preamble, these proposed regulations provide for rules similar to the regulations under section 6226, with some minor changes to reflect the fact that an AAR permits taxpayers to receive refunds of any tax overpaid and to reflect that an AAR occurs outside of an examination.
In the June 14 NPRM, the proposed regulations provide that defenses to any penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts must be raised by the partnership during the partnership-level proceeding under the centralized partnership audit regime, regardless of whether the defense relates to facts and circumstances of the partnership or any other person, including a partner in the partnership. Additionally, those proposed regulations provide that penalties are calculated at the partnership level, even if the partnership makes an election under section 6226. As described more fully in the Explanation of Provisions section of this preamble, those rules are not consistent with the penalty rules proposed in these proposed regulations and, therefore, the rules proposed in the June 14 NPRM are being revised accordingly.
In the June 14 NPRM, the proposed regulations under section 6226 provide a safe harbor amount and interest safe harbor amount that partners can pay in lieu of computing the tax and interest the partner owes as a result of taking the adjustments into account in the year under audit and determining the effect of this computation on tax attributes in subsequent years. These safe harbor amounts were intended to reduce the burden of the complex calculation of the tax and interest due for the reviewed year and the intervening years. These rules were crafted in light of the proposed regulations under section 6226 in the June 14 NPRM, which did not yet provide rules for pushing the adjustments out through multiple tiers of pass-through partners. During the process of developing the rules to permit push out through multiple tiers of pass-through partners, it became apparent that the safe harbor rules no longer reduced burden. In fact, incorporating the safe harbor rules into the rules for pushing through the tiers became more complex and cumbersome than if the safe harbor amounts did not exist. In particular, the safe harbor amounts increased the reporting burden on a pass-through partner that elected to push the adjustments to its partners without a meaningful reduction in burden on the recipient partners. Accordingly, for these reasons, the proposed regulations regarding the safe harbor amount and the interest safe harbor amount have been amended to remove these provisions.
Section 6231(a) provides that the Secretary shall mail to the partnership and the partnership representative (1) notice of any administrative proceeding (NAP) initiated at the partnership level with respect to an adjustment of any item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit of a partnership for a partnership taxable year, or any partner's distributive share thereof; (2) notice of any proposed partnership adjustment (NOPPA) resulting from such proceeding; and (3) notice of any final partnership adjustment (FPA) resulting from such proceeding. These three notices also apply to any proceeding with respect to an AAR filed by a partnership. Section 6231(a) further provides that any FPA shall be mailed no earlier than 270 days after the date on which the notice of the proposed partnership adjustment is mailed and such notices are sufficient if mailed to the last known address of the partnership representative or the partnership, even if the partnership has terminated its existence.
Section 6225(a)(1) provides that in the case of any adjustment by the Secretary in the amount of any item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit of a partnership, or any partner's distributive share thereof, the partnership shall pay any imputed underpayment with respect to such
Section 6232(a) provides that any imputed underpayment shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as if it were a tax imposed for the adjustment year by subtitle A of the Code, except that in the case of an AAR to which section 6227(b)(1) applies, the underpayment shall be paid when the AAR is filed.
Section 6232(b) provides that except as otherwise provided in chapter 63 of the Code, no assessment of a deficiency may be made (and no levy or proceeding in any court for the collection of any amount resulting from such adjustment may be made, begun, or prosecuted) before (1) the close of the 90th day after the day on which an FPA was mailed and (2) if a petition for readjustment is filed under section 6234 with respect to such notice, the decision of the court has become final. A partnership may, at any time (whether or not any notice of partnership adjustment has been issued), by a signed notice in writing filed with the Secretary waive this restriction on the making of any partnership adjustment. Section 6232(d)(2).
Section 6232(c) provides that notwithstanding section 7421(a) (regarding prohibition on suits to restrain assessment or collection), any action that violates section 6232(b) may be enjoined in the proper court, including the Tax Court. The Tax Court shall have no jurisdiction to enjoin any action under subsection 6232(c) unless a timely petition for readjustment has been filed under section 6234. If a timely petition has been filed, the Tax Court has jurisdiction only with respect to the adjustments that are the subject of such petition.
Section 6232(d) provides exceptions to the restrictions on making partnership adjustments. Section 6232(d)(1)(A) provides the general rule that if a partnership is notified that, on account of a mathematical or clerical error appearing on the partnership return, an adjustment to an item is required, rules similar to the rules of paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 6213(b) (relating to assessments on account of mathematical or clerical errors and abatement of such assessments) shall apply to such adjustments. Section 6232(d)(1)(B) provides a special rule that if a partnership is a partner in another partnership, any adjustment on account of such partnership's failure to comply with the requirements of section 6222(a) (requiring that a partner, on its return, treat items attributable to a partnership in a manner that is consistent with the treatment of such item on the partnership return) with respect to its interest in such other partnership shall be treated as an adjustment referred to in section 6232(d)(1)(A) except that paragraph (2) of section 6213(b) (providing the ability to request an abatement of an assessment on account of a mathematical or clerical error) shall not apply to such adjustment.
Section 6232(e) provides that if no proceeding under section 6234 is begun with respect to any FPA during the 90-day period described in section 6232(b), the amount for which the partnership is liable under section 6225 shall not exceed the amount determined in accordance with such FPA.
Section 6233 provides rules related to interest and penalties with respect to imputed underpayments. Except to the extent provided in section 6226(c) (providing rules for penalties and interest where the partnership elects under section 6226 the alternative to payment of the imputed underpayment), the interest computed with respect to any partnership adjustment for a reviewed year is the interest that would be determined under chapter 67 of the Code for the period beginning on the day after the return due date for the reviewed year and ending on the return due date for the adjustment year or, if earlier, the date payment of the imputed underpayment is made. Proper adjustments in the amount of interest determined shall be made for adjustments required for partnership taxable years after the reviewed year and before the adjustment year by reason of such partnership adjustment. Section 6233(a)(1) and (2).
Except to the extent provided in section 6226(c), the partnership shall be liable for any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount imposed with respect to any partnership adjustment for a reviewed year. Any such penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount will be determined at the partnership level as if the partnership had been an individual subject to tax under chapter 1 of subtitle A of the Code for the reviewed year and the imputed underpayment were an actual underpayment (or understatement) for such year. Section 6233(a)(1) and (3).
Section 6233(a)(2) provides that interest with respect to a partnership adjustment for a reviewed year shall also take into account adjustments required by reason of such partnership adjustment for partnership taxable years after the reviewed year and before the adjustment year. The meaning of this provision is not clear because unless multiple years are audited, there may be no adjustments required for taxable years other than the reviewed year. Because of this, the proposed regulations do not address this language from the statute. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments about when and how this language in section 6233(a)(2) may have effect.
In the case of any failure to pay an imputed underpayment on the date prescribed therefor, the partnership shall be liable for interest determined by treating the imputed underpayment as an underpayment of tax imposed in the adjustment year. Section 6233(b)(1) and (2). In the case of any failure to pay an imputed underpayment on the date prescribed therefor, the partnership shall be liable for penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts determined by applying section 6651(a)(2) to such failure to pay and by treating the imputed underpayment as an underpayment of tax for purposes of part II of subchapter A of chapter 68 of the Code (relating to accuracy-related and fraud penalties). Section 6233(b)(1) and (3).
Section 6234(a) provides that within 90 days after the date on which an FPA is mailed under section 6231 with respect to any partnership taxable year, the partnership may file a petition for readjustment for such taxable year with the Tax Court, the district court of the United States for the district in which the partnership's principal place of business is located, or the Court of Federal Claims. A petition for readjustment under section 6234 may be filed in a district court of the United States or the Court of Federal Claims only if the partnership filing the petition deposits with the Secretary, on or before the date the petition is filed, the amount of the imputed underpayment (as of the date of the filing of the petition) if the partnership adjustment was made as provided by the FPA. Section 6234(b)(1). The court may by order provide that the jurisdictional requirements of section 6234(b)(1) have been satisfied where there has been a good faith attempt to satisfy such requirement and any shortfall of the amount required to be deposited is timely corrected. Any such amount deposited shall not, while deposited, be treated as a payment of tax for purposes of the Code (other than chapter 67 of the Code regarding interest). Section 6234(b)(2).
Under section 6234(c), a court with which a petition has been filed in accordance with section 6234 has jurisdiction to determine all items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit of the partnership for the partnership
Section 6235 provides the period of limitations on making adjustments under the centralized partnership audit regime. Under section 6235(a), the general rule is that no adjustment for any partnership taxable year may be made after the later of three dates. The first date is the date that is three years after the latest of (a) the date on which the partnership return for such taxable year was filed, (b) the return due date for the taxable year, or (c) the date on which the partnership filed an AAR under section 6227 with respect to such year. The second date is, in the case of any modification of the imputed underpayment under section 6225(c), the date that is 270 days (plus the number of days of any extension consented to by the Secretary under section 6225(c)(7)) after the date on which everything required to be submitted for purposes of modification is so submitted. The third date is, in the case of any NOPPA issued under section 6231(a)(2), the date that is 330 days (plus the number of days of any extension consented to by the Secretary under section 6225(c)(7)) after the date of such notice. Pursuant to section 6235(b), the period described in section 6235(a) (including an extension period under section 6235(b)) may be extended by agreement entered into by the Secretary and the partnership before the expiration of such period.
Section 6235(c) provides special rules in the case of fraud and other situations. In the case of a false or fraudulent partnership return with intent to evade tax or in the case of a failure by a partnership to file a return for a taxable year, an adjustment may be made at any time. Section 6235(c)(1) and (3). If any partnership omits from gross income an amount properly includable in gross income and such amount is described in section 6501(e)(1)(A) (describing situations where more than 25 percent of gross income has been omitted and situations where more than $5,000 of gross income attributable to one or more assets to which information is required to be reported under section 6038D has been omitted), the period under section 6235(a) is applied by substituting “six” years for “three” years. Section 6235(c)(2). For purposes of section 6235, a return executed by the Secretary under section 6020(b) (concerning returns executed by the Secretary where a person fails to file a return required by the Code or regulations) on behalf of a partnership shall not be treated as a return of the partnership. Section 6235(c)(4).
If an FPA with respect to any taxable year is mailed under section 6231, the period of limitations on making adjustments under section 6235(a) shall be suspended for the 90-day period during which an action may be brought under section 6234 (and, if a petition is filed under section 6234 with respect to such FPA, until the decision of the court becomes final) and for one year thereafter. Section 6235(d).
Proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(1) provides that if a pass-through partner is furnished a statement described in proposed § 301.6226-2 (June 14 NPRM) (including a statement described in proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(i)), the pass-through partner must take into account the adjustments reflected on that statement by either furnishing statements to its partners that held an interest in the pass-through partner at any time during the taxable year to which the adjustments relate or by paying an amount calculated like an imputed underpayment on the adjustments reflected in the statement plus any applicable penalties and interest. As provided in proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(i) and (iv), any statements furnished under these provisions are treated as statements described in proposed § 301.6226-2 (June 14 NPRM), and any pass-through partner receiving a statement under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(i) must also take the adjustments reflected on the statement into account by furnishing statements to its partners or paying an amount calculated like an imputed underpayment. Thus, there is an iterative application of the rules under proposed § 301.6226-3(e) for tiered partnership structures allowing the adjustments to be passed along through the tiers to the ultimate non-pass-through partners who then must take the adjustments into account under proposed § 301.6226-3(a) and (b) (June 14 NPRM).
Under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(2), if a pass-through partner fails to timely take into account the adjustments in accordance with proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3) or (e)(4), the pass-through partner must take into account the adjustments by paying an amount calculated like an imputed underpayment plus any applicable penalties and interest, in accordance with the rules provided under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4). As discussed in the Background section of this preamble, this rule is necessary to prevent tiered structures from electing to push out the adjustments to inappropriately shift the burden of collecting the tax due back to the IRS and to avoid paying the tax owed after completion of a partnership audit. Such behavior would frustrate the orderly administration of the election under section 6226 and the collection efforts of the IRS. Without imposing an entity-level liability against those pass-through entities that fail to pay or push out, there would be a disincentive to take any action upon receipt of a push out statement causing the push out election to become a potential vehicle for non-compliance and abuse. Such a result undermines the efficiencies and increased collections intended by enactment of the centralized partnership audit regime.
The additional burden placed on the IRS of locating the partners of pass-through partners, determining the proper allocation of adjustments, and assessing the resulting tax, if any, would frustrate tax administration in the same manner as the TEFRA partnership procedures, which were administratively untenable. The rule that requires a pass-through partner to pay an amount calculated like an imputed underpayment if it fails to take the adjustments into account significantly alleviates administrative burden, comports with an iterative application of section 6226, and furthers the purpose of the statute by eliminating the ability for a partner to increase costs and inefficiencies of tax administration by failing to comply with the statute.
Proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3) provides the rules for a pass-through partner to take into account the adjustments in the statements furnished to it under proposed § 301.6226-2 (June 14 NPRM)
Under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(ii), statements must be furnished no later than the extended due date for the return for the adjustment year of the partnership that made the election under proposed § 301.6226-1 (June 14 NPRM). For purposes of determining the due date for the statements, the extended due date for the return for the adjustment year of the partnership that made the election under proposed § 301.6226-1 (June 14 NPRM) is the extended due date under section 6081, regardless of whether the partnership that made the election under proposed § 301.6226-1 (June 14 NPRM) is required to file a return for the adjustment year and regardless of whether an extension was actually requested. For example, if the adjustment year of the partnership that made the election under proposed § 301.6226-1 (June 14 NPRM) ended on December 31, 2020, the pass-through partner would be required to furnish statements to its affected partners no later than September 15, 2021, the due date, including extensions, of a partnership return for a taxable year ending December 31, 2020. If a pass-through partner fails to issue statements by the due date under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(ii), the pass-through partner has failed to take into account the adjustments as described in proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3).
The statements furnished to the affected partners must contain all of the information described in proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(iii) and any other information required by the forms, instructions, or other guidance prescribed by the IRS. This information is necessary for an affected partner to take into account the adjustments reflected in the statement furnished to the partner under these provisions in the correct year, to identify the source of the adjustments, and for any affected partner that is also a pass-through partner to be able to take into account the adjustments under these provisions by the applicable due dates.
Proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(iv) provides that the statements furnished to the affected partners in accordance with proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3) are treated as if they were statements furnished under proposed § 301.6226-2 (June 14 NPRM). Accordingly, an affected partner must take into account the adjustments as if the affected partner were a reviewed year partner. Under certain circumstances, the statements furnished to the affected partners may not be furnished until after the unextended due date of the affected partners' returns for the reporting year. To account for this situation, proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(iv) provides that the IRS will not impose any additions to tax under section 6651 related to any additional reporting year tax if the affected partner reports and pays any additional reporting year tax within 30 days of the due date for furnishing the statements to the affected partners under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(ii).
Finally, proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(v) provides special rules for adjustments subject to withholding under chapters 3 and 4 of the Code. Consistent with the regulations proposed in the November 30 NPRM (regarding certain international tax rules under the centralized partnership audit regime), under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(v), if a pass-through partner takes the adjustments into account by furnishing statements under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(3), the pass-through partner must comply with proposed § 301.6226-2(h)(3) (November 30 NPRM) (providing rules for the payment of tax under chapters 3 and 4 when adjustments are pushed out), and an affected partner must comply with proposed § 301.6226-3(f) (November 30 NPRM) (providing rules for partners subject to withholding under chapters 3 and 4) as if the pass-through partner were the partnership that made the election under proposed § 301.6226-1 (June 14 NPRM) and the affected partner were the reviewed year partner.
Proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4) provides rules for pass-through partners that take into account the adjustments reflected in a statement furnished under proposed § 301.6226-2 (June 14 NPRM) by making a payment. Under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4), a pass-through partner takes the adjustments into account by paying an amount computed like an imputed underpayment under section 6225 and any penalties and interest and by providing to the IRS the information required by forms, instructions, or other guidance.
Under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4)(ii), all amounts required to be paid by a pass-through partner must be paid no later than the extended due date for the return for the adjustment year of the partnership that made the election under proposed § 301.6226-1 (June 14 NPRM). The due date for paying the amounts required under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4)(i) is the same as the due date for furnishings statements to partners under proposed 301.6226-3(e)(3)(iii). If a pass-through partner fails to pay and submit the required information by the due date, the pass-through partner has failed to take into account the adjustments as described in proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4).
Proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4)(iii) provides that the amount required to be paid by the pass-through partner is calculated in the same manner as an imputed underpayment under section 6225 and proposed § 301.6225-1 (June 14 NPRM) as if the adjustments reflected on the statement furnished to the pass-through partner were partnership adjustments for the first affected year. The pass-through partner must calculate a payment amount for the first affected year as well as a payment amount for any intervening year by treating the pass-through partner's share of partnership tax attributes for each intervening year as partnership adjustments for that intervening year. In addition, the pass-through partner can take into account modifications approved by the IRS during the audit of the partnership that made the election under proposed § 301.6226-1 (June 14 NPRM) and reflected on the statement when determining the payment amount. This will result in a payment amount that
Proposed § 301.6226-2(e) (June 14 NPRM) provides that the only modifications that must be included on statements are modifications based on an amended return filed or a closing agreement entered into by the reviewed year partner. Proposed § 301.6226-2(e)(5) (June 14 NPRM) is amended. Newly proposed § 301.6226-2(e)(5) expands this rule to require that all modifications approved with respect to the reviewed year partner (including any indirect partner that holds its interest in the partnership making the push out election through that reviewed year partner) be included on the statement. This proposed rule was changed to facilitate the calculation of the payment amount under the rules for push out to pass-through partners under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4)(iii). To further effectuate this change, proposed § 301.6226-2(f)(2) (June 14 NPRM) is also amended in this notice of proposed rulemaking.
A pass-through partner that takes the adjustments into account in accordance with proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4) must also calculate and pay any applicable penalties, additions to tax, and additional amounts. The statement furnished to the pass-through partner must provide information about any penalties applicable to the adjustments allocated to that partner. The pass-through partner calculates the penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts as if the payment amount required under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4)(i)(A) were an imputed underpayment due in the first affected year or any intervening year, as applicable. The pass-through partner must also pay any interest in accordance with proposed § 301.6226-3(d) (June 14 NPRM) as if the amount required under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4)(i)(A) were due in the first affected year or any intervening year, as applicable.
In calculating the payment amount as if it were an imputed underpayment, there could be adjustments that would not result in an imputed underpayment (as defined in proposed § 301.6225-1(c)(2) (June 14 NPRM)). In these cases, the pass-through partner takes into account the adjustments that do not result in an imputed underpayment in a manner similar to the rule in proposed § 301.6225-3 (June 14 NPRM), but in the taxable year of the partnership that includes the date the partnership makes a payment under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4)(i), or if the partnership has no liability when taking the adjustments into account under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4), in the taxable year that includes the date the partnership is furnished the statement.
Proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4)(vi) provides rules for coordination with chapters 3 and 4 of the Code. If a pass-through partner pays an amount as described in proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4)(i), proposed § 301.6225-1(a)(4) (November 30 NPRM) applies to the pass-through partner as if the pass-through partner were the partnership that made the election under proposed § 301.6226-1 (June 14 NPRM). Accordingly, payment of the amount by the pass-through partner means the pass-through partner is treated as having paid the amount required to be withheld with respect to those adjustments under chapters 3 and 4 for purposes of applying §§ 1.1463-1 and 1.1474-4.
Proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(5) clarifies that for purposes of the rules applicable to pass-through partners, S corporations, certain trusts, and estates are treated as a partnership, and their shareholders and beneficiaries are treated as partners. Imposing an amount calculated like an imputed underpayment on all non-compliant pass-through partners is consistent with the iterative application of section 6226 and ensures that the collection burden of a section 6226 election is not inappropriately shifted to the IRS. Accordingly, the rules of proposed § 301.6226-3(e) generally apply equally to all pass-through partners, whether they are partnerships, S corporations, certain type of trusts, or estates.
The term “pass-through partner” as defined in proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(5) (June 14 NPRM), includes entities that are subject to chapter 1 tax under certain circumstances. For example, certain S corporations are liable for the built-in gains tax under section 1374. Trusts and estates may also be required to take certain items into account at the entity level and pay tax under certain circumstances, but in other circumstances trusts and estates do not take items into account at the entity level. Instead, the items flow through to their beneficiaries. To account for this, proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(6) provides a specific rule to address how these types of entities take into account the adjustments. Under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(6), a pass-through partner must calculate any additional reporting year tax under proposed § 301.6226-3(b) (June 14 NPRM) in the same manner as any other non-pass-through partner. Additionally, if the pass-through partner would be required under chapter 1 to pay tax on only a portion of the adjustments (or a portion of a single adjustment) and flow some or all of the remaining adjustments to its owners or beneficiaries, the proposed regulations accommodate this situation by requiring the pass-through partner to furnish statements to its partners reflecting the adjustments that are properly taken into account by the pass-through partner's owners. For instance, if a trust is a pass-through partner and could be subject to tax under chapter 1 with respect to a partnership adjustment, the trust must calculate and pay its additional reporting year tax as if it were a non-pass through partner. In addition, if it would also be required under ordinary trust reporting rules to report adjustments to its beneficiaries as a result of taking the adjustments into account, the trust must report those adjustments to its beneficiaries who also must take the adjustments into account under proposed § 301.6226-3 (June 14 NPRM). Finally, proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(6) clarifies that if a pass-through partner that is subject to tax under chapter 1 fails to comply with the provisions of proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(6), the rules of proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(2) apply, and the pass-through partner will be required to take into account the adjustments under proposed § 301.6226-3(e)(4).
Proposed § 301.6226-3(j) clarifies that in the case of a disregarded entity or a trust that is a wholly-owned trust (if the trust reports the owner's information to payors under § 1.671-4(b)(2)(i)(A)), the owner of the disregarded entity or the trust must take into account the partnership adjustments. For instance, in the case of a disregarded entity wholly-owned by a C corporation, the C corporation must take into account the adjustments reflected on a statement furnished to the disregarded entity under proposed § 301.6226-2 (June 14 NPRM). Accordingly, a partner that is a disregarded entity or wholly-owned trust is disregarded for purposes of taking the adjustments into account under proposed § 301.6226-3(j).
In addition to proposing § 301.6226-3(e), this notice of proposed rulemaking also adds examples in proposed § 301.6226-3(g) to illustrate the concepts of proposed § 301.6226-3(e).
These proposed regulations also provide rules for pass-through partners to take into account adjustments requested in an AAR if the partnership elects to have its partners take into account the adjustments (or if the partnership is required to have its partners take into account the adjustments). The proposed regulations generally follow the rules in proposed § 301.6226-3(e), with modifications to accommodate the rules applicable to AARs.
Proposed § 301.6226-3(i) provides the rules for the calculation of penalties, additions to tax, and additional amounts by the partner when a partnership has made an election under section 6226. The applicability of any penalties, additions to tax, and additional amounts with respect to a partnership adjustment are determined at the partnership level in accordance with section 6221(a). Under proposed § 301.6226-3(i)(2), when each partner takes the adjustments into account under section 6226 and proposed § 301.6226-3 (June 14 NPRM), the partner must compute any penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts applying any applicable rules or thresholds based on the particular facts and circumstances of that partner as if each correction amount were an underpayment or understatement for the first affected year (or intervening year, if applicable). Changes were made to other provisions in the June 14 NPRM to conform to the addition of proposed § 301.6226-3(i).
Proposed § 301.6226-3(i)(3) provides that a partner may assert a defense against a penalty based on a defense that is personal to the partner (partner-level defense), such as reasonable cause or good faith, by first paying the tax and penalty due and then filing a claim for refund that asserts the partner's specific penalty defense.
Proposed § 301.6226-2(e)(7) (June 14 NPRM) is amended in this notice of proposed rulemaking. Under proposed § 301.6226-2(e)(7) (as modified in these proposed regulations), instead of providing the reviewed year partner's share of any penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts on the statement furnished to the reviewed year partner under proposed § 301.6226-2 (June 14 NPRM), the partnership provides the applicability of any penalty, additions to tax, or additional amounts and the adjustments to which those penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts relate. Under this proposed rule, the partnership furnishes the reviewed year partner the reviewed year partner's share of the adjustments to which the penalties, additions to tax, and additional amounts relate and other information such as the applicable rate of any penalty and the Code section under which the penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount was imposed.
Proposed § 301.6226-3(b)(4) (June 14 NPRM) is amended by removing the last sentence from the June 14 NPRM, which read “A deficiency dividend deduction under this paragraph (b)(4) and section 860(a) has no effect on a QIE's liability for any penalties reflected in a statement described in § 301.6226-2(a).” This change reflects that, under proposed § 301.6226-3(i), a partner who is furnished a statement under proposed § 301.6226-2 (June 14 NPRM) is not furnished its share of the penalty amount determined at the partnership level but instead must calculate the penalty utilizing the normal penalty rules applicable under the Code.
Proposed § 301.6226-3(a) (June 14 NPRM) is amended below. The amended § 301.6226-3(a) changes the requirement that reviewed year partners pay the reviewed year partner's share of any penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts, to a requirement that the reviewed year partner must calculate and pay any penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts as determined under proposed § 301.6226-3(i). In addition, proposed § 301.6226-3(d)(3) (June 14 NPRM) regarding interest on penalties is amended below. Amended § 301.6226-3(d)(3) conforms to the addition of proposed § 301.6226-3(i) by providing that the reviewed year partner calculates and pays interest on any penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts calculated by the partner instead of on the share of penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts reflected in the statement furnished to the partner.
Finally, Example 1 in proposed § 301.6226-3(g) (June 14 NPRM) and Example 6 in proposed § 301.6226-3(g) (November 30 NPRM) are amended below with changes that conform to proposed § 301.6226-3(i).
As described in the Background section of this preamble, these proposed regulations amended proposed § 301.6226-2(g) (June 14 NPRM) and proposed § 301.6226-3(c) and (d)(2) (June 14 NPRM) which concern the calculation of, and the election to pay, the safe harbor amount and interest safe harbor amount. In addition, these proposed regulations make conforming changes to the proposed rules in the June 14 NPRM to reflect the removal of the safe harbor amount and interest safe harbor amount. Proposed §§ 301.6226-1(d), 301.6226-3(a), and 301.6227-3(b)(1) (June 14 NPRM) are amended below. Finally, Examples 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in proposed § 301.6226-3(g) (June 14 NPRM) and Example 6 in proposed § 301.6226-3(g) (November 30 NPRM) are amended to reflect the removal of the safe harbor and interest safe harbor.
Proposed § 301.6231-1 provides rules with respect to the NAP described in section 6231(a)(1), the NOPPA described in section 6231(a)(2), and the FPA described in section 6231(a)(3). Under proposed § 301.6231-1(c), such notices are sufficient if mailed to the last known address of the partnership and the partnership representative. An FPA may not be mailed earlier than 270 days after the date on which the NOPPA was mailed. Proposed § 301.6231-1(b)(2) permits a partnership to waive this restriction to allow the IRS to mail the FPA before the expiration of the 270-day period.
Nothing in the centralized partnership audit regime limits the period for IRS to propose adjustments, and section 6231 does not restrict when a NOPPA may be mailed by the IRS. However, a reasonable time limit within which partnership adjustments must be proposed under the centralized partnership audit regime will provide certainty to partnerships and the IRS. Partnerships will know when a taxable year is no longer subject to audit, and the IRS will be better able to allocate resources for examinations under the centralized partnership audit regime. Accordingly, proposed § 301.6231-1(b)(1) imposes a time limit on when adjustments may be proposed for a particular taxable year by providing that a NOPPA may not be mailed after the expiration of the period described in section 6235(a)(1), including any extensions of that period and after applying any of the special rules in section 6235(c) (providing additional time for situations where no return is filed, fraud, etc.). Once a NOPPA is mailed, the time period for mailing the FPA in order to make a final partnership adjustment is generally governed by section 6235(a)(2) or (3).
Proposed § 301.6231-1(f) and (g) provide rules for withdrawal of a NAP or a NOPPA and rescission of an FPA. Section 6231(c) provides that rescission of “any notice of a partnership adjustment” requires consent of the partnership. Because the NAP merely notifies the partnership of the initiation of an examination and the NOPPA only proposes an adjustment, neither of these notices is a notice of a partnership adjustment for purposes of the consent requirement in section 6231(c). Accordingly, proposed § 301.6231-1(g) requires consent of the partnership before rescission of an FPA, but proposed § 301.6231-1(f) does not require consent of the partnership before withdrawing a NAP or a NOPPA.
In the November 30 NPRM, the Treasury Department and the IRS discussed the coordination of the special rules in section 905(c) (relating to certain adjustments to foreign tax credits) with the centralized partnership audit regime. The Treasury Department and the IRS specifically requested comments regarding whether the AAR process can be utilized for purposes of satisfying the notification requirements of section 905(c) with respect to foreign tax redeterminations relating to a foreign tax reported by a partnership as a creditable foreign tax expenditure. If the AAR process can be used, section 905(c) would possibly represent an exception to the normal timing rules discussed in the Explanation of Provisions section of this preamble, just as it represents a departure from the ordinary timing rules in circumstances outside the scope of the centralized partnership audit regime. If the AAR process can be adopted for section 905(c) purposes, these proposed regulations may be modified in separate guidance to account for that process.
Proposed § 301.6232-1(a) restates the rule in section 6232(a) that any imputed underpayment determined under the centralized partnership audit regime must be assessed and collected as if the imputed underpayment were a tax imposed by subtitle A of the Code for the adjustment year. However, proposed § 301.6232-1(a) also clarifies that because the centralized partnership audit regime under subchapter C of chapter 63 applies, the deficiency procedures under subchapter B of chapter 63 do not apply to an assessment of an imputed underpayment. Section 6232(b) and proposed § 301.6232-1(c) explicitly provide the limitations on assessments under the centralized partnership audit regime. Generally, an imputed underpayment determined by the IRS may be assessed only after the IRS sends an FPA, and the partnership has a chance to seek judicial review.
Proposed § 301.6232-1(d)(1) describes exceptions to the restrictions on assessment, including the rules for assessment of amounts attributable to partnership adjustments on account of mathematical or clerical errors or where a partnership-partner (as defined in proposed § 301.6241-1(a)(7) (June 14 NPRM)) is treated as if it had a mathematical or clerical error on its return because it failed to treat items consistently with the partnership's treatment of the items pursuant to section 6222(a). Any resulting assessment of an imputed underpayment attributable to that adjustment is not subject to the limitations under section 6232(b) and proposed § 301.6232-1(c), and therefore may be assessed without the issuance of an FPA.
Under proposed § 301.6232-1(d)(1)(ii)(A), the partnership generally has 60 days to request abatement of the assessment attributable to the mathematical or clerical error, and the IRS must abate the assessment. Consistent with section 6232(d), under proposed § 301.6232-1(d)(1)(ii)(B), this rule does not apply if the assessment is attributable to an adjustment of an inconsistent item on a partnership-partner's return. However, the IRS intends to develop pre-assessment processes to provide the partnership-partner with an opportunity to correct the inconsistency by filing an AAR under section 6227 or, in situations where the partnership-partner has made an election under section 6221(b), an amended partnership return. Therefore, proposed § 301.6232-1(d)(1)(ii)(B) provides that prior to assessment a partnership-partner that has failed to comply with section 6222(a) may correct the inconsistency by filing an AAR under section 6227 or an amended partnership return, as appropriate. Additionally, proposed § 301.6232-1(d)(1)(ii)(B) authorizes a partnership-partner that has elected out of the centralized partnership audit regime under section 6221(b) to furnish amended statements to its partners. This rule provides the consent required by section 6031(b), which prohibits a partnership from amending information required to be furnished by the partnership to its partners after the due date of the return, except as provided by the IRS.
Proposed § 301.6232-1(d)(1)(iii) addresses the situation in which a partnership-partner that elected out of the centralized partnership audit regime pursuant to section 6221(b) for the reviewed year has failed to comply with section 6222(a). Under proposed § 301.6232-1(d)(1)(iii), any tax resulting from an adjustment due to such partnership-partner's failure to comply with section 6222(a) may be assessed against the partners (or indirect partners) of the partnership-partner. The tax may be assessed in the same manner as if the tax were on account of a mathematical or clerical error appearing on the partner's or indirect partner's return. In accordance with section 6232(d)(1)(B), the procedures under section 6213(b)(2) for requesting abatement of such an assessment will not apply.
Proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(a) provides that except to the extent provided in section 6226(c) and the regulations thereunder, in the case of a partnership adjustment for a reviewed year of the partnership, a partnership is liable for interest as computed under proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(b) and for any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount as determined in proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(c).
Proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(b) provides that interest with respect to an imputed underpayment is the interest that would be imposed under chapter 67 of the Code if the imputed underpayment were treated as an underpayment of tax for the reviewed year. Proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(b) further provides that interest on such imputed underpayment begins on the day after the due date of the partnership return for the reviewed year and ends on the earlier of the date prescribed for payment (as described in proposed § 301.6232-1(b)), the return due date of the partnership return for the adjustment year, or the date the imputed underpayment is fully paid by the partnership.
Proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(c)(1) provides that the penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts determined with respect to a partnership adjustment are those penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts that would be imposed under part II of subchapter A of chapter 68 of the Code by treating the imputed underpayment as an underpayment (or understatement) of tax for the reviewed year and by treating the partnership as if it had been an individual subject to tax imposed by chapter 1 of subtitle A of the Code for the reviewed year.
Proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(c)(2) coordinates the rules for determining penalties related to imputed underpayments with the accuracy-related and fraud penalties under sections 6662, 6662A, and 6663. Proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(c)(2)(ii) provides rules to determine the portion of an imputed underpayment subject to penalties when there is at least one adjustment with respect to which no penalty has been imposed and at least one with respect to which a penalty has been imposed, or where there are at least two adjustments with respect to which penalties have been imposed and the penalties have been imposed at different rates. The rules under proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(c)(2)(ii) extend the existing ordering rules under § 1.6664-3 to partnerships subject to the centralized partnership audit regime.
Proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(c)(2)(ii)(B) provides that when computing the portion of the imputed underpayment subject to penalties under sections 6662, 6662A, and 6663, partnership adjustments that did not result in the imputed underpayment are not taken into account. To determine the portion of the imputed underpayment subject to a penalty, partnership adjustments are first grouped together according to whether the adjustments are subject to penalty and if so, by rate of penalty. Negative adjustments as defined in proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(c)(2)(ii)(C) are included in these groupings according to the allocation rule in proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(c)(2)(ii)(D) and are netted against the positive adjustments within each grouping to the extent provided in proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(c)(2)(ii)(E). After grouping the partnership adjustments, each non-credit adjustment within a grouping is multiplied by the rate that applied to such adjustment when determining the imputed underpayment. After the appropriate rate is applied to each adjustment, the results within a grouping are totaled. The total within each grouping is then adjusted to account for any credit adjustments. The result is the portion of the imputed underpayment that is subject to the penalty rate corresponding to the grouping.
Proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(c)(2)(ii)(F) through (iv) provide clarifying rules for applying the penalties for fraud under section 6663, reportable transaction understatements under section 6662A, and substantial understatements of tax under section 6662(d) to imputed underpayments determined under the centralized partnership audit regime.
Proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(c)(2)(v) provides rules for application of the reasonable cause and good faith exception to the penalties under sections 6662, 6662A, and 6663. See sections 6664(c) and (d). Proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(c)(2)(v) provides that for these purposes the partnership is treated as the taxpayer and, therefore, the facts and circumstances taken into account in determining whether the partnership has established reasonable cause and good faith are those facts and circumstances applicable to the partnership. This may include facts and circumstances with respect to partners or other individuals acting on behalf of the partnership. In addition, proposed § 301.6233(a)-1(c)(2)(v) provides that any partner-level defense, for example a reasonable cause defense that is based on the personal circumstances of the partner, will not be considered in a partnership-level proceeding except in accordance with the amended return and closing agreement modification procedures set forth in the regulations under section 6225(c) and proposed § 301.6225-2 (June 14 NPRM).
Proposed § 301.6233(b)-1(a) provides rules that apply when a partnership fails to pay an imputed underpayment by the date prescribed for such payment. In the case of such a failure, proposed § 301.6233(b)-1(a) provides that the partnership is liable for interest, as well as any penalties, additions to tax, and additional amounts as determined under proposed § 301.6233(b)-1(b) and (c). Proposed § 301.6233(b)-1(b) clarifies that these rules apply to the portion of an imputed underpayment resulting from partnership adjustments determined by the IRS under section 6225(a)(1) that is unpaid after the date prescribed for payment under proposed § 301.6232-1(b) (the date stated in a notice and demand) and to the portion of an imputed underpayment resulting from adjustments requested by the partnership in an AAR under section 6227 that is unpaid after the date the AAR is filed.
Proposed § 301.6234-1 provides rules relating to judicial review of partnership adjustments. Proposed § 301.6234-1(b) and (c) describe the jurisdictional deposit requirement for partnerships that wish to bring an action in a United States district court or the Court of Federal Claims and explain how the jurisdictional deposit is treated for purposes of the Code. Under proposed § 301.6234-1(c), although the deposit is not generally treated as a payment of tax, the deposit will stop additional interest from accruing under section 6233(a) on the imputed underpayment. In addition, interest will be allowed and paid in accordance with section 6611. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on when interest under section 6611 should begin to run in this context.
In response to Notice 2016-23, 2016-13 I.R.B. 490 (March 28, 2016), which requested comments on the new centralized audit regime, one commenter requested that the IRS clarify that only a dismissal on the merits and with prejudice be considered a dismissal within the meaning of section 6234(e). This comment was not adopted. Section 6234 explicitly provides that any decision of the court dismissing the action “shall be considered as [the court's] decision that the [FPA] is correct.” The only exception provided in section 6234 is in the case of a dismissal by reason of the rescission of an FPA under section 6231(c).
Proposed § 301.6235-1 reflects the rules in section 6235 regarding the period within which the IRS must mail an FPA to make a partnership adjustment for a partnership taxable year. Under these rules, an FPA generally must be mailed before the later of: (1) Three years from the later of the date the partnership return is filed or due, or the date an AAR with respect to the year is filed (see proposed § 301.6235-1(a)(1)); (2) 270 days after the date everything required for a modification is submitted plus any extension of time granted by the IRS with respect to a request for modification under section 6225(c)(7) (see proposed § 301.6235-1(b)); or (3) 330 days after the date of the NOPPA plus any extension of time granted by the IRS with respect to a request for modification under section 6225(c)(7) (see proposed § 301.6235-1(c)). The 3-year period described under proposed § 301.6235-1(a)(1) (plus any extensions of the period under proposed § 301.6235-1(d) and taking into account any special rules under section 6235(c)) is also the time period within which the
The proposed regulations do not currently incorporate any rules outside of subchapter C of chapter 63 of the Code that might extend this period. As discussed in the Explanation of Provisions section of this preamble and in the November 30 NPRM, if the AAR process can be used to coordinate sections 905(c) and the adjustment rules under the centralized partnership audit regime, the proposed regulations may need to be modified to account for redeterminations under section 905(c). The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on whether additional guidance would be helpful with respect to any other specific provision, outside of subchapter C of chapter 63 of the Code, which might extend the adjustment period under the centralized partnership audit regime.
Once a NOPPA is mailed, proposed § 301.6235-1(c) provides that the IRS will have at least 330 days from the date of the NOPPA to make a partnership adjustment regardless of whether the partnership requests modification of the imputed underpayment.
If the partnership requests modification of an imputed underpayment, proposed § 301.6235-1(b) provides that the IRS will have at least 270 days from the date on which everything required to be submitted pursuant to section 6225(c) is so submitted to the IRS to make a partnership adjustment. Proposed § 301.6235-1(b)(2) provides that, for purposes of section 6235(a)(2), the date on which everything required to be submitted pursuant to section 6225(c) is so submitted to the IRS is the earlier of: (1) The date on which the time for submitting the modification request and information (as described in proposed § 301.6225-2(c)(3)(i) (June 14 NPRM)) ends (including extensions); or (2) the date on which the partnership and the IRS agree to waive the 270-day period under proposed § 301.6231-1(b)(2)(ii) (June 14 NPRM) before an FPA can be mailed. Therefore, once a NOPPA has been mailed, the IRS will have 330 days from the date the NOPPA is mailed to make a partnership adjustment and in general may have up to 540 days (270 days in the modification period and 270 days from the end of the modification period) from the date the NOPPA is mailed if there are no extensions or waivers executed by the taxpayer.
Proposed § 301.6235-1(d) provides that any of the periods described in proposed § 301.6235-1(a), (b), and (c) may be extended by an agreement, in writing, entered into by the partnership and the IRS before the expiration of such period. A partnership and the IRS may also agree to extend a period of time that has already been extended under proposed § 301.6235-1(d).
Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. Because the proposed regulations would not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
IRS Revenue Procedures, Revenue Rulings, Notices and other guidance cited in this preamble are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website at
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any electronic and written comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the
The principal authors of these proposed regulations are Jennifer M. Black, Joy E. Gerdy-Zogby, Brittany Harrison, and Steven L. Karon of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii)
(d)
The revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(5) Modifications approved by the IRS with respect to the reviewed year partner (or with respect to any indirect partner (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(4)) that holds its interest in the partnership through its interest in the reviewed year partner);
(7) The applicability of any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount determined at the partnership level that relates to any adjustments allocable to the reviewed year partner and the adjustments to which the penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount relates, the section of the Internal Revenue Code under which each penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount is imposed, and the applicable rate of each penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount determined at the partnership level;
(f) * * *
(2)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(b) * * *
(4)
(d) * * *
(3)
(e)
(2)
(3)
(ii)
(iii)
(A) The name and correct taxpayer identification number (TIN) of the partnership that made the election under § 301.6226-1 with respect to the adjustments reflected on the statements described in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section;
(B) The adjustment year of the partnership described in paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(A) of this section;
(C) The extended due date for the return for the adjustment year of the partnership described in paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(A) of this section (as described in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section);
(D) The date on which the partnership described in paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(A) of this section furnished its statements required under § 301.6226-2(b);
(E) The name and correct TIN of the partnership that furnished the statement to the pass-through partner if different from the partnership described in paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(A) of this section;
(F) The name and correct TIN of the pass-through partner;
(G) The pass-through partner's taxable year to which the adjustments reflected on the statements described in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section relates;
(H) The name and correct TIN of the affected partner to whom the statement is being furnished;
(I) The current or last address of the affected partner that is known to the pass-through partner;
(J) The affected partner's share of items as originally reported to such partner under section 6031(b) and, if applicable, section 6227, for the taxable year to which the adjustments reflected on the statement furnished to the pass-through partner relate;
(K) The affected partner's share of partnership adjustments determined under § 301.6226-2(f)(1) as if the affected partner were the reviewed year partner and the partnership were the pass-through partner;
(L) Modifications approved by the IRS with respect to the affected partner or an indirect partner (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(4)) that holds its interest in the partnership that made the election under § 301.6226-1 through the affected partner;
(M) The affected partner's share of any amounts attributable to adjustments to tax attributes (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(10)) for any intervening year (as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section) resulting from the adjustments in the reviewed year with respect to the partnership described in paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(A) of this section;
(N) The applicability of any penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts that relate to any adjustments allocable to the affected partner (as determined under § 301.6226-2(f)(3)) and the adjustments allocated to the affected partner to which such penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts relate, the section of the Internal Revenue Code under which each penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount is imposed, and the applicable rate of each penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount; and
(O) Any other information required by forms, instructions, and other guidance prescribed by the IRS.
(iv)
(v)
(4)
(A) Pays an amount computed under paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section;
(B) Pays any penalties, additions to tax, and additional amounts and interest computed under paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of this section; and
(C) Provides the IRS with information related to such payment as required by forms, instructions, and other guidance.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(B)
(v)
(vi)
(5)
(ii)
(6)
(g)
On its partnership return for the 2020 tax year, Partnership reported ordinary income of $1,000 and charitable contributions of $400. On June 1, 2023, the IRS mails a notice of final partnership adjustment (FPA) to Partnership for Partnership's 2020 year disallowing the charitable contribution in its entirety and determining that a 20 percent accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(b) applies to the disallowance of the charitable contribution. Partnership makes a timely election under section 6226 in accordance with § 301.6226-1 with respect to the imputed underpayment in the FPA for Partnership's 2020 year and files a timely petition in the Tax Court challenging the partnership adjustments. The Tax Court determines that Partnership is not entitled to any of the claimed $400 in charitable contributions and upholds the applicability of the penalty. The decision regarding Partnership's 2020 tax year becomes final on December 15, 2025. Pursuant to § 301.6226-2(b), the partnership adjustments are finally determined on December 15, 2025. On February 2, 2026, Partnership files the statements described under § 301.6226-2 with the IRS and furnishes to partner A, an individual who was a partner in Partnership during 2020, a statement described in § 301.6226-2. A had a 25 percent interest in Partnership during all of 2020 and was allocated 25 percent of all items from Partnership for that year. The statement shows A's share of ordinary income reported on Partnership's return for the reviewed year
On its partnership return for the 2020 tax year, Partnership reported an ordinary loss of $500 million. On June 1, 2023, the IRS mails an FPA to Partnership for the 2020 taxable year determining that $300 million of the $500 million in ordinary loss should be recharacterized as a long-term capital loss. Partnership has no long-term capital gain for its 2020 tax year. The FPA for Partnership's 2020 tax year reflects an adjustment of an increase in ordinary income of $300 million (as a result of the disallowance of the recharacterization of $300 million from ordinary loss to long-term capital loss) and an imputed underpayment related to that adjustment, as well as an adjustment of an additional $300 million in long-term capital loss for 2020 which does not result in an imputed underpayment pursuant to under § 301.6225-1(c)(2)(ii). Partnership makes a timely election under section 6226 in accordance with § 301.6226-1 with respect to the imputed underpayment in the FPA and does not file a petition for readjustment under section 6234. Accordingly, under § 301.6226-1(b)(2) and § 301.6225-3(b)(6), the adjustment year partners (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(2)) do not take into account the $300 million long-term capital loss that does not result in an imputed underpayment. Rather, the reviewed year partners will take into account the $300 million long-term capital loss. The time to file a petition expires on August 30, 2023. Pursuant to § 301.6226-2(b), the partnership adjustments become finally determined on August 30, 2023. On September 30, 2023, Partnership files with the IRS statements described in § 301.6226-2 and furnishes statements to all of its reviewed year partners in accordance with § 301.6226-2. One partner of Partnership in 2020, B (an individual), had a 25 percent interest in Partnership during all of 2020 and was allocated 25 percent of all items from Partnership for that year. The statement filed with the IRS and furnished to B shows B's allocable share of the ordinary loss reported on Partnership's return for the 2020 taxable year as $125 million. The statement also shows an adjustment to B's allocable share of the ordinary loss in the amount of <$75 million>, resulting in a corrected ordinary loss allocated to B of $50 million for taxable year 2020 ($125 million originally allocated to B less $75 million which is B's share of the adjustment to the ordinary loss). In addition, the statement shows an increase to B's share of long-term capital loss in the amount of $75 million (B's share of the adjustment that did not result in the imputed underpayment with respect to Partnership). B must pay the additional reporting year tax as determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. B computes his additional reporting year tax as follows. First, B determines the correction amount for the first affected year (the 2020 taxable year) by taking into account B's share of the partnership adjustments (a $75 million reduction in ordinary loss and an increase of $75 million in long-term capital loss) for the 2020 taxable year. B determines the amount by which his chapter 1 tax for 2020 would have increased if the $75 million adjustment to ordinary loss and the $75 million adjustment to long-term capital loss from Partnership were taken into account for that year. Second, B determines if there is any increase in chapter 1 tax for any intervening year as a result of the adjustment to the ordinary and capital losses for 2020. B's aggregate of the adjustment amounts is the correction amount for 2020, B's first affected year plus any correction amounts for any intervening years. B is also liable for any interest on the correction amount for the first affected year and for any intervening year as determined in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
On its partnership return for the 2020 tax year, Partnership, a domestic partnership, reported U.S. source dividend income of $2,000. On June 1, 2023, the IRS mails an FPA to Partnership for Partnership's 2020 year increasing the amount of U.S. source dividend income to $4,000 and determining that a 20 percent accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(b) applies to the increase in U.S. source dividend income. Partnership makes a timely election under section 6226 in accordance with § 301.6226-1 with respect to the imputed underpayment in the FPA for Partnership's 2020 year and does not file a petition for readjustment under section 6234. The time to file a petition expires on August 30, 2023. Pursuant to § 301.6226-2(b), the partnership adjustments become finally determined on August 30, 2023. On September 30, 2023, Partnership files the statements described under § 301.6226-2 with the IRS and furnishes to partner C, a nonresident alien individual who was a partner in Partnership during 2020 (and remains a partner in Partnership in 2023), a statement described in § 301.6226-2. C had a 50 percent interest in Partnership during all of 2020 and was allocated 50 percent of all items from Partnership for that year. The statement shows C's share of U.S. source dividend income reported on Partnership's return for the reviewed year of $1,000 and an adjustment to U.S. source dividend income of $1,000. In addition, the statement reports that a 20 percent accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(b) applies. Under § 301.6226-2(h)(3)(i), because the additional $1,000 in U.S. source dividend income allocated to C is an amount subject to withholding (as defined in § 301.6226-2(h)(3)(i)), Partnership must pay the amount of tax required to be withheld on the adjustment. See §§ 1.1441-1(b)(1) and 1.1441-5(b)(2)(i)(A) of this chapter. Under § 301.6226-2(h)(3)(ii), Partnership may reduce the amount of withholding tax it must pay because it has valid documentation from 2020 that establishes that C was entitled to a reduced rate of withholding in 2020 on U.S. source dividend income of 10 percent pursuant to a treaty. Partnership withholds $100 of tax from C's distributive share, remits the tax to the IRS, and files the necessary return and information returns required by § 1.1461-1 of this chapter. On his 2023 return, C must report the additional reporting year tax determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the accuracy-related penalty determined in accordance with paragraph (i) of this section, and interest determined in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section on the correction amount for the first affected year, the correction amount for any intervening year, and the penalty. Under paragraph (f) of this section, C may claim the $100 withholding tax paid by Partnership pursuant to § 301.6226-2(h)(3)(i) as a credit under section 33 against C's income tax liability on his 2023 return.
On its partnership return for the 2020 tax year, Partnership reported ordinary income of $100 million and a long-term capital gain of $40 million. Partnership had four equal partners during the 2020 tax year: E, F, G, and H, all of whom were individuals. On its partnership return for the 2020 tax year, the entire long-term capital gain was allocated to partner E and the ordinary income was allocated to all partners based on their equal (25 percent) interest in
On its partnership return for the 2020 taxable year, Partnership reported a long-term capital loss of $5 million. During an administrative proceeding with respect to Partnership's 2020 taxable year, the IRS mails a notice of proposed partnership adjustment (NOPPA) in which it proposes to disallow $2 million of the reported $5 million long-term capital loss. F, a C corporation partner with a 50 percent interest in Partnership, received 50 percent of all long-term capital losses for 2020. As part of the modification process described in § 301.6225-2(d)(2), F files an amended return for 2020 taking into account F's share of the partnership adjustment ($1 million reduction in long-term capital loss) and pays the tax owed for 2020, including interest. Also as part of the modification process, F also files amended returns for 2021 and 2022 and paid additional tax (and interest) for these years because the reduction in long-term capital loss for 2020 affected the tax due from F for 2021 and 2022. See § 301.6225-2(d)(2)(iv). The reduction of the long-term capital loss in 2020 did not affect any other taxable year of F. The IRS approves the modification with respect to F and on June 1, 2023, mails an FPA to Partnership for Partnership's 2020 year reflecting the partnership adjustment reducing the long-term capital loss in the amount of $2 million. The FPA also reflects the modification to the imputed underpayment based on the amended returns filed by F taking into account F's share of the reduction in the long-term capital loss. Partnership makes a timely election under section 6226 in accordance with § 301.6226-1 with respect to the imputed underpayment in the FPA for Partnership's 2020 year and files a timely petition in the Tax Court challenging the partnership adjustments. The Tax Court upholds the determinations in the FPA and the decision regarding Partnership's 2020 tax year becomes final on December 15, 2025. Pursuant to § 301.6226-2(b), the partnership adjustments are finally determined on December 15, 2025. On February 1, 2026, Partnership files the statements described under § 301.6226-2 with the IRS and furnishes to its partners statements reflecting their shares of the partnership adjustment. The statement issued to F reflects F's share of the partnership adjustment for Partnership's 2020 taxable year as finally determined by the Tax Court. The statement shows F's share of the long-term capital loss adjustment for the reviewed year of $1 million and the $1 million reduction in long-term capital losses taken into account by F as part of the amended return modification. Accordingly, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, when F computes its correction amounts for the first affected year (the 2020 taxable year) and the intervening years (the 2021 through 2026 taxable years), F computes any additional chapter 1 tax for those years using the returns for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 taxable years as amended during the modification process.
Partnership has two equal partners for the 2020 tax year: I (an individual) and J (a partnership). For the 2020 tax year, J has two equal partners—K and L—both individuals. On June 1, 2023, the IRS mails a notice of final partnership adjustment (FPA) to Partnership for Partnership's 2020 year increasing Partnership's ordinary income by $500,000 and asserting an imputed underpayment of $200,000. Partnership makes a timely election under section 6226 in accordance with § 301.6226-1 with respect to the imputed underpayment in the FPA for Partnership's 2020 year and does not file a petition for readjustment under section 6234. The time to file a petition expires on August 30, 2023. Pursuant to § 301.6226-1(b), the partnership adjustments become finally determined on August 30, 2023. Therefore, Partnership's adjustment year is 2023, the due date of the adjustment year return is March 15, 2024, and if requested, the extended due date for the adjustment year return is September 16, 2024. On October 12, 2023, Partnership timely files with the IRS statements described in § 301.6226-2 and timely furnishes statements to its partners reflecting their share of the partnership adjustments as finally determined in the FPA. The statements to I and J each reflect a partnership adjustment of $250,000 of ordinary income. I takes its share of the adjustments reflected on the statements furnished by Partnership into account on I's return for the 2023 tax year in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. On April 1, 2024, J takes the adjustments into account under paragraph (e)(3) of this section by timely filing the information required by that section with the IRS and furnishing statements to K and L reflecting each partner's share of the adjustments reflected on the statements Partnership furnished to J. K and L must take their share of adjustments reflected on the statements furnished by J into account on their returns for the 2023 tax year in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section by treating themselves as reviewed year partners for purposes of that paragraph.
On its partnership return for the 2020 tax year, Partnership reported that it placed Asset, which had a depreciable basis of $210,000, into service in 2020 and depreciated Asset over 5 years, using the straight-line method. Accordingly, Partnership claimed depreciation of $42,000 in each year related to Asset. Partnership has two equal partners for the 2020 tax year: M (a partnership) and N (an S corporation). For the 2020 tax year, N has one shareholder, O, who is an individual. On June 1, 2023, the IRS mails an FPA to Partnership for Partnership's 2020 year. In the FPA, the IRS determines that Asset should have been depreciated over 7 years instead of 5 years and adjusts the depreciation for the 2020 tax year to $30,000 instead of $42,000 resulting in a $12,000 adjustment. This adjustment results in an imputed underpayment of $4,800. Partnership makes a timely election under section 6226 in accordance with § 301.6226-1 with respect to the imputed underpayment in the FPA for Partnership's 2020 year and does not file a petition for readjustment under section 6234. The time to
On its partnership return for the 2020 tax year, Partnership reported $1 million of ordinary loss. Partnership has two equal partners for the 2020 tax year: P and Q, both S corporations. For the 2020 tax year, P had one shareholder, R, an individual. For the 2020 tax year, Q had two shareholders, S and T, both individuals. On June 1, 2023, the IRS mails a notice of final partnership adjustment (FPA) to Partnership for Partnership's 2020 year determining $500,000 of the $1 million of ordinary loss should be recharacterized as $500,000 of long-term capital loss and $500,000 of the ordinary loss should be disallowed. The FPA asserts an imputed underpayment of $400,000 ($1 million × 40 percent) on the $1 million reduction to ordinary loss and reflecting an adjustment that does not result in an imputed underpayment of a $500,000 capital loss. Partnership makes a timely election under section 6226 in accordance with § 301.6226-1 with respect to the imputed underpayment in the FPA for Partnership's 2020 year and does not file a petition for readjustment under section 6234. The time to file a petition expires on August 30, 2023. Pursuant to § 301.6226-1(b), the partnership adjustments become finally determined on August 30, 2023. On October 12, 2023, Partnership timely files with the IRS statements described in § 301.6226-2 and furnishes statements to its partners reflecting their share of the partnership adjustments as finally determined in the FPA. The statements to P and Q each reflect a partnership adjustment of $500,000 increase in ordinary income and an increase in capital loss of $250,000 in accordance with § 301.6225-3(b)(6). P takes the adjustments into account under paragraph (e)(3) of this section by timely furnishing a statement to R. Q takes the adjustments into account under paragraph (e)(4) of this section by paying an amount calculated like an imputed underpayment under paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section, as well as interest determined under paragraph (e)(4)(iv)(B) of this section on the amount. After applying the rules set forth in § 301.6225-1 regarding the netting and grouping of adjustments, Q calculates an amount of $200,000 which is equal to the residual grouping of $500,000 multiplied by 40 percent. The residual grouping contains the $500,000 attributable to the adjustment to ordinary income. Q also has one adjustment that does not result in an imputed underpayment—the $250,000 increase to capital loss. On its 2023 return, Q reports and allocates the $250,000 capital loss to its shareholders for its 2023 taxable year as a capital loss as provided in § 301.6225-3. Q must report and pay the amounts due under paragraph (e)(4) of section no later than September 15, 2024, the extended due date of Partnership's return for the 2023 year, which is the adjustment year.
On its partnership return for the 2020 tax year, Partnership reported a $1 million long-term capital gain on the sale of Stock. Partnership has two equal partners for the 2020 tax year: U (an individual) and V (a partnership). For the 2020 tax year, V has two equal partners: W (an individual) and X (a partnership). For the 2020 tax year, X has two equal partners: Y and Z, both of which are C corporations. On June 1, 2023, the IRS mails a NOPPA to Partnership for Partnership's 2020 year proposing a $500,000 increase in the long-term capital gain from the sale of Stock and an imputed underpayment of $200,000 ($500,000 × 40 percent). On July 17, 2023, Partnership timely submits a request to modify the rate used in calculating the imputed underpayment under § 301.6225-2(d)(4). Partnership submits sufficient information demonstrating that $375,000 of the $500,000 adjustment is allocable to individuals (50 percent of the $500,000 adjustment allocable to U and 25 percent of the $500,000 adjustment allocable to W) and the remaining $125,000 is allocable to C corporations (the indirect partners Y and Z). The IRS approves the modification and the imputed underpayment is reduced to $118,750 (($375,000 × 20 percent) + ($125,000 × 35 percent)). See § 301.6225-2(b)(3). On February 28, 2024, the IRS mails an FPA to Partnership for Partnership's 2020 year determining a $500,000 increase in the long-term capital gain on the sale of Stock and asserting an imputed underpayment of $118,750 after the approved modifications. Partnership makes a timely election under section 6226 in accordance with § 301.6226-1 with respect to the imputed underpayment in the FPA for Partnership's 2020 year and does not file a petition for readjustment under section 6234. The time to file a petition expires on May 28, 2024. Pursuant to § 301.6226-1(b), the partnership adjustments become finally determined on May 28, 2024. On July 26, 2024, Partnership timely files with the IRS statements described in § 301.6226-2 and furnishes statements to its partners reflecting their share of the partnership adjustments as finally determined in the FPA. The statements to U and V each reflect a partnership adjustment of a $250,000 increase in long-term capital gain. V takes the adjustments into account under paragraph (e)(4) of this section by paying an amount calculated like an imputed underpayment under paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section, as well as interest determined under paragraph (e)(4)(iv)(B) of this section on the amount. On February 3, 2025, V takes the adjustments into account under paragraph (e)(4) of this section by paying an amount equal to $68,750 (($125,000 × 35 percent for the adjustments allocable to X) + ($125,000 × 20 percent for the adjustments allocable to W)) which includes the rate modifications approved by the IRS with respect to Y and Z. V must also pay any interest on the amount as determined in accordance with paragraph (e)(4)(iv)(B) of this section. V must report and pay the amounts due under paragraph (e)(4) of this section no later than September 15, 2025, the extended due date of Partnership's return for the 2024 year, which is the adjustment year.
(i)
(2)
(3)
(j)
(b) * * *
(1)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(i) The name and correct taxpayer identification number (TIN) of the partnership that filed the AAR with respect to the adjustments reflected on the statements described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section;
(ii) The adjustment year of the partnership described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section;
(iii) The extended due date for the return for the adjustment year of the partnership described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section (as described in § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(ii));
(iv) The date on which the partnership described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section furnished its statements required under § 301.6227-2(d);
(v) The name and correct TIN of the partnership that furnished the statement to the pass-through partner if different from the partnership described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section;
(vi) The name and correct TIN of the pass-through partner;
(vii) The pass-through partner's taxable year to which the adjustments set forth in the statement described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section relate;
(viii) The name and correct TIN of the affected partner (as defined in § 301.6226-3(e)(3)(i)) to whom the statement is being furnished;
(ix) The current or last address of the affected partner that is known to the pass-through partner;
(x) The affected partner's share of items as originally reported to such partner under section 6031(b) and, if applicable, section 6227, for the taxable year to which the adjustments reflected on the statement furnished to the pass-through partner relate;
(xi) The affected partner's share of partnership adjustments determined under § 301.6227-2(e)(2) as if the affected partner were the reviewed year partner and the partnership were the pass-through partner; and
(xii) Any other information required by forms, instructions, and other guidance prescribed by the IRS.
(4)
(a)
(1) Notice of any administrative proceeding initiated at the partnership level with respect to an adjustment of any item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit (as defined in § 301.6221(a)-1(b)(1)) of a partnership for a partnership taxable year, or any partner's distributive share (as described in § 301.6221(a)-1(b)(2)) thereof, under subchapter C of chapter 63 (notice of administrative proceeding (NAP));
(2) Notice of any proposed partnership adjustment resulting from an administrative proceeding under subchapter C of chapter 63 (notice of proposed partnership adjustment (NOPPA)); and
(3) Notice of any final partnership adjustment resulting from an administrative proceeding under subchapter C of chapter 63 (notice of final partnership adjustment (FPA)).
(b)
(2)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The close of the 90th day after the day on which a notice of a final partnership adjustment (FPA) was mailed under section 6231(a)(3); and
(2) If a petition for readjustment is filed under section 6234 with respect to such FPA, the decision of the court has become final.
(d)
(ii)
(B)
(iii)
(2)
(e)
(f)
(2)
(a)
(1) Interest computed in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section; and
(2) Any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount as provided under paragraph (c) of this section.
(b)
(1) The date prescribed for payment (as described in § 301.6232-1(b));
(2) The due date of the partnership return (without regard to extension) for the adjustment year (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(1)); or
(3) The date the imputed underpayment is fully paid.
(c)
(2)
(ii)
(
(
(B)
(
(
(
(
(C)
(D)
(
(
(
(
(
(E)
(F)
(iii)
(B)
(iv)
(v)
(3)
One adjustment with respect to which a penalty is imposed. In an administrative proceeding with respect to Partnership's 2018 partnership return, the IRS determines that Partnership understated ordinary income by $100. The $100 understatement is due to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations under section 6662(c), and a 20-percent accuracy-related penalty applies under section 6662(a). The IRS also determines that Partnership understated long-term capital gain by $300, but no penalty applies with respect to that adjustment. Partnership does not request modification of the imputed underpayment under section 6225 and does not raise any penalty defenses prior to issuance of the notice of final partnership adjustment (FPA). In the FPA, the IRS determines that the imputed underpayment is $160 (($100 + $300) × 40 percent). In determining the penalty, the $100 adjustment (to which the 20-percent penalty relates) is grouped separately from the $300 adjustment (to which no penalty applies). The portion of the imputed underpayment to which the 20-percent penalty applies is $40 ($100 × 40 percent), and the penalty is $8 ($40 × 20 percent).
More than one adjustment with respect to which the same rate of penalty is imposed. The facts are the same as in
Negative adjustment. The facts are the same as in
Two adjustments with respect to which penalties of different rates have been imposed. The facts are the same as in
Modification with respect to tax-exempt partner. The IRS initiates an administrative proceeding with respect to Partnership's 2019 taxable year. Partnership has four equal partners during its 2019 taxable year: Two partners are partnerships, A and B; one partner is a tax-exempt entity, C; and the fourth partner is an individual, D. The IRS timely mails a notice of proposed partnership adjustment (NOPPA) to Partnership for its 2019 taxable year proposing a single partnership adjustment increasing Partnership's ordinary income by $400,000. The $400,000 increase in income is due to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations under section 6662(c). A 20-percent accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) and (c) applies to the portion of the imputed underpayment attributable to the negligence or disregard of the rules or regulations. In the NOPPA, the IRS determines an imputed underpayment of $160,000 ($400,000 × 40 percent); the portion of the imputed underpayment to which the 20-percent penalty applies is $32,000 ($160,000 × 20 percent). Partnership requests modification under § 301.6225-2(d)(3) (regarding tax-exempt partners) with respect to the amount of additional income allocated to C, and the IRS approves the request. After modification of the imputed underpayment, the imputed underpayment is $120,000 (($400,000−$100,000) × 40 percent), and the penalty is $24,000 ($120,000 × 20 percent).
Amended return modification. The facts are the same as in
(d)
(2)
(a)
(1) Interest as determined under paragraph (c) of this section; and
(2) Any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount as determined under paragraph (d) of this section.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2)
(a)
(1) The Tax Court;
(2) The district court of the United States for the district in which the partnership's principal place of business is located; or
(3) The Court of Federal Claims.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(2)
(a)
(1) 3 years after the latest of—
(i) The date on which the partnership return for such taxable year was filed;
(ii) The return due date (as defined in section 6241(3)) for the taxable year; or
(iii) The date on which the partnership filed an administrative adjustment request with respect to such taxable year under section 6227; or
(2) The date described in paragraph (b) of this section with respect to a request for modification; or
(3) The date described in paragraph (c) of this section with respect to a notice of proposed partnership adjustment.
(b)
(2)
(A) The date the modification period ends (including extensions) as described in § 301.6225-2(c)(3)(i) and (ii); or
(B) The date the modification period expires as a result of a waiver of the prohibition on mailing a notice of final partnership adjustment (FPA) under § 301.6231-1(b)(2). See § 301.6225-2(c)(3)(iii).
(ii)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Partnership timely files its partnership return for the 2020 taxable year on March 1, 2021. On September 1, 2023, Partnership files an administrative adjustment request (AAR) under section 6227 with respect to its 2020 taxable year. As of September 1, 2023, the IRS has not initiated an administrative proceeding under subchapter C of chapter 63 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to Partnership's 2020 taxable year. Therefore, as of September 1, 2023, under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the period for making partnership adjustments with respect to Partnership's 2020 taxable year expires on September 1, 2026.
Partnership timely files its partnership return for the 2020 taxable year on the due date, March 15, 2021. On February 1, 2023, the IRS mails to Partnership and the partnership representative of Partnership (PR) a notice of administrative proceeding under section 6231(a)(1) with respect to Partnership's 2020 taxable year. Assuming no AAR has been filed with respect to Partnership's 2020 taxable year and the IRS has not yet mailed a NOPPA under section 6231(a)(2) with respect to Partnership's 2020 taxable year, the period for making partnership adjustments for Partnership's 2020 taxable year expires on the date determined under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, March 15, 2024.
The facts are the same as in
The facts are the same as in
The facts are the same as in
The facts are the same as in
(f)
(2)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification of filing of petition and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial filing of a pesticide petition requesting the modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before January 18, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0639, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the request before responding to the petitioner. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this document contains data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petition. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on this pesticide petition.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this petition is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notification of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
EPA issued a document in the
Comments, identified by docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0421, must be received on or before January 11, 2018.
Follow the detailed instructions provided under
This document extends the public comment period established in the
To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under
Environmental protection, Mercury, Elemental mercury, Mercury compounds, Inventory, Supply, Use, Trade, Manufacture, Import, Export.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 47 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 47 would establish a proxy for the estimate of the stock maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and revise the stock annual catch limit (ACL) for Gulf vermilion snapper. The purpose of Amendment 47 is to ensure that the MSY and ACL values for vermilion snapper are consistent with the results of the most recent stock assessment.
Written comments must be received on or before February 20, 2018.
You may submit comments on the amendment identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0106” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 47, which includes an environmental assessment, a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at:
Lauren Waters, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305; email:
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, publish an announcement in the
The FMP being revised by Amendment 47 was prepared by the Council and implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to specify the MSY for managed stocks. The National Standard 1 Guidelines state that the Council should adopt a reasonable proxy for MSY if data are insufficient to estimate MSY directly.
Amendment 23 to the FMP established MSY for vermilion snapper as the yield associated with F
In 2016, a standard assessment for vermilion snapper was conducted (SEDAR 45) and the stock status was evaluated using several MSY proxies. Under all proxies evaluated in SEDAR 45, overfishing was not occurring and the stock was not overfished. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) determined that the most appropriate proxy for MSY is the yield when fishing at a mortality rate corresponding to 30 percent spawning potential ratio (F
SEDAR 45 also included projections for the overfishing limit and the ABC. The SSC provided the Council two recommendations for ABC: One that is derived from fishing at 75 percent of the MSY proxy (F
Amendment 47 includes measures to establish a proxy for the estimate of the stock MSY and revise the stock ACL for Gulf vermilion snapper consistent with the results of SEDAR 45 and the SSC's new ABC recommendation.
For vermilion snapper, the Council's SSC recommended that a proxy be used for MSY. The Council's SSC recommended F
The current ACL of 3.42 million lb (1.55 million kg), round weight, exceeds the ABCs recommended by the Council's SSC. Therefore, the Council determined that the ACL for vermilion snapper should be decreased to equal the constant catch ABC and Amendment 47 would set the stock ACL at 3.11 million lb (1.41 million kg), round weight.
The current accountability measures for vermilion snapper require NMFS to close the commercial and recreational fishing seasons if the combined commercial and recreational landings reach or are projected to reach the stock ACL. Since 2013, combined landings have been less than 3.00 million lb (1.36 million kg), round weight, every year. Therefore, NMFS does not expect the combined landings of vermilion snapper to reach the proposed stock ACL and result in a closure before the end of the fishing year.
A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 47 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the
The Council has submitted Amendment 47 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 47 must be received by February 20, 2018. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to Amendment 47 or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 47 and will be addressed in the final rule.
All comments received by NMFS on Amendment 47 or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
This proposed rule would authorize the use of midwater long-leader gear for recreational fishing in waters seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40 fathoms depth contour off the coast of Oregon. Midwater long-leader gear would be allowed for both charter and private vessels seaward of the 40 fathom seasonal depth closure and monitored with the existing Oregon Ocean Recreational Boat Sampling (ORBS) program. The use of this long-leader gear is intended to aid in limiting bycatch of overfished and rebuilding rockfish species, such as bottom-dwelling yelloweye rockfish, while still allowing for the catch of abundant midwater species such as yellowtail and widow rockfish. The season would be limited and occur between the months of April and September, months currently subject to depth restrictions.
Comments on this proposed rule must be received by January 18, 2018.
Submit your comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0047, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Christopher Biegel, phone: 503-231-6291, fax: 503-872-2737, or email:
This proposed rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register website at
On the West Coast, recreational fisheries primarily occur in non-federal waters (zero to three nautical miles off the coast) and are managed by the states of Washington, Oregon, and California. Inter-state coordination is facilitated through the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS manage and regulate fisheries that occur within federal waters (three to 200 nautical miles off the coast). Recreational groundfish fisheries are primarily managed with time/area closures, size restrictions, and bag limits. Fishing participation and effort in Oregon recreational fisheries varies seasonally and geographically with participation highest during warmer months.
There are more than 90 species of groundfish managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, including over 60 species of rockfish in the family Scorpaenidae, seven roundfish species, 12 flatfish species, assorted shark species, all endemic skate species, all endemic grenadier species, and a few miscellaneous bottom-dwelling marine fish species. Groundfish species occur throughout the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the coast of Oregon and within state waters, occupying diverse habitats at all stages in their life history.
The area affected by the proposed rule is the recreational groundfish fishing grounds within the west coast EEZ, from 3 to 200 nautical miles off the coast of Oregon. Groundfish fishing is largely confined to depths of 30 fathoms or less, approximately 30 miles or less off the coast. Federally-managed recreational groundfish fishing that could be directly affected by the proposed action occurs in Federal waters seaward of 40 fathoms off the Oregon coast (42 °00′ N lat. to 46 °18′ N lat.). For the period 2011-2015, anglers fished on approximately 84,405 trips per year for bottomfish (groundfish) in Oregon waters. This represents the largest single recreational ocean fishery in Oregon, representing about 44 percent of the total effort over that time period.
Since 2004, the Oregon recreational groundfish fisheries have been restricted to shallow depths (less than 20-40 fm) during the peak effort and catch months to reduce interactions with deeper water species, especially yelloweye rockfish. The recreational groundfish fisheries are an important part of the local economy and social fabric in Oregon's coastal communities, and the implementation of deep-water rockfish closures in 2004 left several ports without any viable groundfish fishing opportunities. In an effort to increase recreational fishing opportunities in these ports, and relieve some pressure from nearshore reefs, exempted fishing permits (EFP) were issued to test the viability of long-leader gear. EFP test fishing, conducted by the Oregon Recreational Fishing Alliance in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), began in 2009 and was completed by 2011. Based in part on favorable EFP test fishing results using midwater long-leader gear on Oregon sport charter fishing vessels, the Council in 2015 requested that regulations authorizing a midwater long-leader fishery off of Oregon be created.
Under the proposed rule, midwater long-leader recreational groundfish fishing would be authorized seaward of a line approximating the 40 fathom depth curve exclusively off the coast of Oregon (42 °00′ N lat. to 46 °18′ N lat.) from April-September to target abundant and healthy midwater species while avoiding or minimizing interactions with overfished rockfish species. The gear configuration would include one fishing line, deployed with a sinker and no more than three hooks, with a minimum of 30 feet (9.14 meters) between the sinker and the lowest hook, and a non-compressible float attached to the line above the hooks. The gear may
The Council approved language in the definition of long-leader gear that included a prohibition on “large lures” but did not include a definition. After consultation with ODFW, this rule is proposing that “large lure” be defined as
Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1854(b)(1)(A), NMFS Acting Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 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.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. When an agency proposes regulations, the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 603
A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the Background section of the preamble and in the
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 603
An estimated 104 recreational charter entities targeted groundfish in Oregon in 2014. Each of these vessels had an estimated average revenue of $35,743 from groundfish, from a total annual average revenue of $116,453, with other significant revenue earned in the salmon, tuna/albacore, and shellfish fisheries. It is estimated that all 104 entities would be considered small entities under the RFA.
In 2015 there were 106,504 angler trips in the Oregon recreational groundfish fisheries. This accounted for $14,225,329 in trip-related expenses (excludes durable goods) and 327 jobs in the state of Oregon. Recreational anglers are not considered small entities under the RFA.
Many charter operations in Oregon earn a majority of their revenue from salmon fishing, however given the natural variability of the salmon fishery year to year, there is a potential for more commercial charter operations to turn to groundfish if the salmon fishery declines.
This rule is expected to give recreational charter entities in Oregon increased flexibility to pursue groundfish fishing opportunities, which is expected to provide positive economic impacts. The rule does not limit any existing activity or impose any mandatory new costs on the fleet, so the overall benefit to small entities is expected to be slightly positive, as some or most vessels may not choose to participate in the midwater fishery due to increased fuel costs from the distance required to travel, and because of midwater gear requirements. If charter operations choose to supplement groundfish in low-salmon years, benefits to these small entities would increase.
There are no new reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this rule.
There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
NMFS prepared, and the Council reviewed, a preliminary draft Environmental Assessment (EA) prior to recommending NMFS move forward with promulgating this rule.
An alternative to establish a midwater long-leader recreational groundfish fishery in Oregon waters for only the sport charter vessel fleet was considered by the Council, as that fleet could carry observers on board the vessels to collect data on interactions with prohibited and constraining species. It was noted that no current program exists for placing observers on private recreational vessels, and such a program would require additional analyses and consideration. The Council decided not to recommend this alternative for further analysis due in part to ODFW policy regarding sector separation and the goal of preserving equality in managing sport recreational fisheries modes in Oregon.
The Council considered an alternative allowing retention of all groundfish species, including lingcod. However, the Council did not recommend further analysis of this alternative given concerns about the increased potential for yelloweye rockfish bycatch should anglers choose to target more bottom-dwelling species, like lingcod.
The Council considered recommending additional monitoring and reporting requirements for anglers fishing in deep waters with the long-leader gear. However, ODFW regards the current sampling rate of the ORBS monitoring program (which includes angler-reported discard estimates by species and area) to be sufficient for adequately covering new activities under the proposed action.
Finally, the Council considered allowing the fishery to operate seaward of 30 fathoms but did not make that part of their recommended alternatives for further analysis. This decision was based in part on input from law enforcement that a 10 fathom buffer zone (
NMFS believes that rule will not have a significant impact on small businesses. An estimated 104 small entities are potentially impacted by this rule. This rule is not anticipated to have a substantial or significant economic impact on small entities, or place small entities at a disadvantage to large entities. We are requesting comments on this conclusion.
Fisheries, Fishing, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B)
(iii) * * *
(B)
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by January 18, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725-17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the renewal of the
Comments must be received in writing on or before February 20, 2018 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Brett Butler, USDA Forest Service, 160 Holdsworth Way, Amherst, MA 01003. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 413-545-1860 or by email to:
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant websites and upon request. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
The public may inspect the draft supporting statement and/or comments received at 160 Holdsworth Way, Room 202, Amherst, MA 01003 during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 413-545-1387 to facilitate entry to the building. The public may request an electronic copy of the draft supporting statement and/or any comments received be sent via return email. Requests should be emailed to
Brett Butler, Northern Research Station, 413-545-1387. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.
• Who owns and manages the forestland of the United States;
• Why they own/manage it;
• How they have used it; and
• How they intend to use it.
The Forest Service's direction and authority to conduct the NWOS is from the Forest and Range Land Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the Forest and Range Land Renewable Resources Act of 1978. These acts assign responsibility for the inventory and
Previous iterations of the NWOS were conducted in 1978, 1993, 2002-2006, 2011-2013, and 2017-2018. Approval for the last iteration of the NWOS expires on November 30, 2018. If renewed, the NWOS will operate for another 3-year cycle.
Information will be collected related to:
• The characteristics of the land holdings;
• Attitudes and perceptions of the owners and managers;
• Resource uses and management activities; and
• Where applicable, landowner demographics.
Separate survey instruments are being developed for families and individuals, corporate, and public ownerships. In addition, the owners in urban areas will be sent a different survey instrument. For the families and individuals, the dominant ownership group of forestland owners, a subset of ownerships will be sent survey instruments addressing the following topics, in addition to the core questions from the base survey instrument:
• Wildfires;
• Invasive species;
• Climate change;
• Land owner values; and
• Decision making.
The NWOS provides widely cited benchmarks for the number, extent, and characteristics of owners of forestland in the United States. These results have been used to assess the sustainability of forest resources at national, regional, and state levels; to implement and assess forest-land owner assistance programs; and to answer a variety of questions with topics ranging from fragmentation to the economics of timber production. This is the only effort to collect in-depth information about owners of forestland at the national scale. It provides longitudinal data to track ownership trends and allows for comparisons across regions of the country.
The respondents will be a statistically selected group of individuals, families, American Indian tribes, partnerships, corporations, nonprofit organizations, and other private groups that own forestland in the United States in addition to a statistically selected group of federal, state, and local government agencies that manage forestland. A well distributed, random set of sampling points has been established across the country. At each point, remotely sensed data, such as aerial photographs or satellite imagery, will be used to identify forested points. For the forested points, public records will be used to identify the owners of record—the names and addresses of the landowners we will contact. The number of owners of forestland to be contacted in each state will be approximately 330.
The NWOS will utilize a mixed-mode survey technique involving cognitive interviews, focus groups, self-administered questionnaires, and telephone interviews. Cognitive interviews will be used to test specific questions. Focus groups will be used to provide more in-depth understanding of the responses and to explore new areas of inquiry.
The implementation of the self-administered survey will involve up to four contacts. First, a pre-notice postcard will be sent to all potential respondents describing this information collection and why the information is being collected. Second, a questionnaire with a cover letter and pre-paid return envelope will be sent to the potential respondents. The cover letter will reiterate the purpose of this information collection and provide the respondents with all legally required information. Third, a reminder will be mailed to thank the respondents and encourage the non-respondents to reply. Those who have yet to respond will be sent a new questionnaire, cover letter, and pre-paid return envelope. Telephone interviews will be used for follow-up with non-respondents. For corporations and public agencies, the primary survey instrument will be electronic, and for all other owners, the primary survey instrument will be paper forms with the option for completing the survey electronically online.
Forest Service researchers will coordinate all components of this information collection. Forest Service personnel with assistance provided by cooperators at the Family Forest Research Center located at the University of Massachusetts Amherst will conduct the mail portion of the survey, cognitive interviews, and focus groups. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service will conduct the telephone follow-ups. Data will be compiled and edited by Forest Service and Family Forest Research Center personnel. Forest Service researchers and cooperators will analyze the collected data. National, regional, and state-level results will be distributed through print and/or electronic media.
This information collection will generate scientifically-based, statistically-reliable, up-to-date information about the owners of forestland in the United States. The results of these efforts will provide more reliable information on this important and dynamic segment of the United States population; thus facilitating more complete assessments of the country's forestland resources and improved planning and implementation of forestry programs on state, regional, and national levels.
Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a new generic information collection request,
Comments must be received in writing on or before February 20, 2018 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Send written comments to Michelle Tamez, USDA—Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 14th St. SW, Washington, DC 20250 or by electronic mail to
All timely and properly submitted comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received on this information collection at the USDA—Forest Service headquarters, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 14th St. SW, Washington, DC 20250 between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on business days. Those wishing to inspect comments should call ahead (202) 205-1194 to facilitate an appointment and entrance to the building.
Agency Coordinator for Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science, Michelle Tamez at (202) 205-1194. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.
Citizen science can support the Forest Service's mission by allowing the Agency to collect qualitative and quantitative data that can help inform scientific research; ecological, social and biological assessments and monitoring efforts; validate environmental models or tools; and enhance the quantity and quality of data collected across the country's diverse communities and ecosystems. Citizen science also creates an avenue to incorporate local knowledge and needs, and can contribute to increased data sharing, open data, and government transparency. The Forest Service may sponsor the collection of this type of information in connection with citizen science projects. When applicable, all such collections will accord with Agency policies and regulations related to human subjects and research. If a new collection is not within the parameters of this generic Information Collection Request (ICR), the Agency will submit a separate information collection request to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval.
Collections under this generic ICR will be from volunteers who participate on their own initiative through an open and transparent process; the collections will be low-burden for participants; collections will be low-cost for both the participants and the Federal Government; and data will be available to support the scientific endeavors of the Agency, states, tribal or local entities where data collection occurs.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request for final Office of Management and Budget approval.
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Proposed collection; comments requested.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Housing Service (RHS), the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), and Rural Utilities Service (RUS) intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of compliance with Civil Rights laws.
Comments on this notice must be received by February 20, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Angilla Denton, Equal Opportunity Specialist, Rural Development, Civil Rights Staff, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0703, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-0703, Telephone (202) 692-0099 (voice) or 692-0107 (TDD).
The RBS, RHS, and RUS are required to provide Federal financial assistance through its housing and community and business programs on an equal opportunity basis. The laws implemented in 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E, require the recipients of RBS, RHS, and RUS Federal financial assistance to collect various types of information, including information on participants in certain of these agencies' programs, by race, color, and national origin.
The information collected and maintained by the recipients of certain programs from RBS, RHS, and RUS is used internally by these agencies for monitoring compliance with the civil rights laws and regulations. This information is made available to USDA officials, officials of other Federal agencies, and to Congress for reporting purposes. Without the required information, RBS, RHS, RUS and its recipients will lack the necessary documentation to demonstrate that their programs are being administered in a nondiscriminatory manner, and in full compliance with the civil rights laws. In addition, the RBS, RHS, RUS and their recipients would be vulnerable in lawsuits alleging discrimination in the affected programs of these agencies, and would be without appropriate data and documentation to defend themselves by demonstrating that services and benefits are being provided to beneficiaries on an equal opportunity basis.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, at (202) 692-0040.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On November 7, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation and preliminary results of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof (diamond sawblades) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). In that notice, we preliminarily determined that Chengdu Huifeng New Material Technology Co., Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Chengdu Huifeng Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. for purposes of determining antidumping duty cash deposits and liabilities. No interested party submitted comments on or requested a public hearing to discuss the
Applicable December 19, 2017.
Yang Jin Chun AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760.
On November 7, 2017, the Department published a notice of initiation and preliminary results of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC.
On November 7, 2017, we initiated a changed circumstances review and preliminarily determined that Chengdu Huifeng New Material Technology Co., Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Chengdu Huifeng Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. for purposes of determining antidumping duty liability.
The products covered by the order are all finished circular sawblades, whether slotted or not, with a working part that is comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and parts thereof, regardless of specification or size, except as specifically excluded below. Within the scope of the order are semifinished diamond sawblades, including diamond sawblade cores and diamond sawblade segments. Diamond sawblade cores are circular steel plates, whether or not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. Diamond sawblade cores are manufactured principally, but not exclusively, from alloy steel. A diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of diamonds (whether natural or synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and metal powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are formed together into a solid shape (from generally, but not limited to, a heating and pressing process).
Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin or electroplated bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond segment, are not included within the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/or sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 inches, or with a thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope of the order. Circular steel plates that have a cutting edge of non-diamond material, such as external teeth that protrude from the outer diameter of the plate, whether or not finished, are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblade cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are excluded from the scope of the order. Diamond sawblades and/or diamond segment(s) with diamonds that predominantly have a mesh size number greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are excluded from the scope of the order. Merchandise subject to the order is typically imported under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). When packaged together as a set for retail sale with an item that is separately classified under headings 8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be imported under heading 8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. On October 11, 2011, the Department included the 6804.21.00.00 HTSUS classification number to the customs case reference file, pursuant to a request by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
For the reasons stated in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice of final results is in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of cast iron soil pipe fittings (soil pipe fittings) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Applicable December 19, 2017.
Dennis McClure or Jinny Ahn, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-5973 or 202-482-0339, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 8, 2017.
The products covered by this investigation are cast iron soil pipe fittings from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
The Department notes that, in making these findings, it relied, in part, on facts available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.
As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), the Department is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion AD investigation of cast iron soil pipe fittings based on a request made by the petitioner.
Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, the Department calculated individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates for Shanxi Xuanshi Industrial Group Co., Ltd. and Wor-Biz International Trading Co., Ltd. (Anhui) that are not zero,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
The Department intends to disclose its calculations and analysis to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Parties are reminded that briefs and hearing requests are to be filed electronically using ACCESS and that electronically filed documents must be received successfully in their entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the Department's final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the Department's final determination.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is cast iron soil pipe fittings, finished and unfinished, regardless of industry or proprietary specifications, and regardless of size. Cast iron soil pipe fittings are nonmalleable iron castings of various designs and sizes, including, but not limited to, bends, tees, wyes, traps, drains, and other common or special fittings, with or without side inlets.
Cast iron soil pipe fittings are classified into two major types—hubless and hub and spigot. Hubless cast iron soil pipe fittings are manufactured without a hub, generally in compliance with Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute (CISPI) specification 301 and/or American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification A888. Hub and spigot pipe fittings have hubs into which the spigot (plain end) of the pipe or fitting is inserted. Cast iron soil pipe fittings are generally distinguished from other types of nonmalleable cast iron fittings by the manner in which they are connected to cast iron soil pipe and other fittings.
The subject imports are normally classified in subheading 7307.11.0045 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): Cast fittings of nonmalleable cast iron for cast iron soil pipe. The HTSUS subheading and specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will host the Sixth National Meeting of the Scientific Coordination Subcommittee of the Council Coordination Committee (SCS6). The meeting theme is “The Use of Management Strategy Evaluation to Inform Management Decisions Made by the Regional Fishery Management Councils,” with three subthemes: Use of MSEs in evaluating and modifying harvest control rules; use of MSEs in investigating and accommodating uncertainty; and use of MSEs in adjusting harvest control rules in changing environments/non-static maximum sustainable yield. The agenda for the SCS6 meeting is available at
The SCS6 meeting will be held on January 17-19, 2018. The meeting will begin at 8 a.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST) each day and finish when business is complete for the day.
The SCS6 meeting will be held at the Kona Kai Resort, 1551 Shelter Island Drive, San Diego, CA; telephone: (619) 221-8000. The meeting is open to the public and will also be streamed online for those who want to follow the proceedings remotely. Instructions for attending the meeting via live stream broadcast are given under
Mr. John DeVore, Staff Officer, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820-2413.
The SCS6 meeting will be live‐streamed on the internet during the following hours: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 through Friday, January 19, 2018 beginning at 8 a.m. PST, ending daily at approximately 5:30 p.m. PST or when business for the
The purpose of the SCS6 meeting is for participants to discuss the use of Management Strategy Evaluations to better inform management decision-making by the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils and NMFS.
No management actions will be decided by the participants attending the SCS6 meeting. The participants' role will be the development of findings, which will be captured in proceedings of the meeting. These proceedings will be provided to the Council Coordination Committee and posted on the U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils' website.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agendas may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent of the meeting participants to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2411 at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
NMFS reviewed the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regional marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs) in accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. SARs for marine mammals in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions were revised according to new information. NMFS solicits public comments on the draft 2017 SARs.
Comments must be received by March 19, 2018.
The 2017 draft SARs are available in electronic form via the internet at
Copies of the Alaska Regional SARs may be requested from Marcia Muto, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-6349.
Copies of the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Regional SARs may be requested from Elizabeth Josephson, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543.
Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs may be requested from Jim Carretta, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037-1508.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0065, by either of the following methods:
Lisa Lierheimer, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402,
Section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361
The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every three years for non-strategic stocks. The term “strategic stock” means a marine mammal stock: (A) For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level or PBR (defined
Prior to public review, the updated SARs under NMFS' jurisdiction are peer-reviewed within NMFS' Fisheries Science Centers and by members of three regional independent Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), which were established under the MMPA to independently advise NMFS on information and uncertainties related to the status of marine mammals.
The period covered by the 2017 draft SARs is 2011-2015. NMFS reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised a total of 67 reports representing 75 stocks in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions to incorporate new information. The 2017 revisions consist primarily of updated or revised M/SI estimates and updated abundance estimates. One stock (Gulf of Maine humpback whale) changed in status from non-strategic to strategic, and three stocks (California/Oregon/Washington (CA/OR/WA) Mesoplodont beaked whales, CA/OR/WA Cuvier's beaked whale, and Hawaii pelagic false killer whale) changed in status from strategic to non-strategic. Substantive revisions to the SARs are discussed below. NMFS solicits public comments on the draft 2017 SARs.
The MMPA provides only general guidance on assessment methods and on the content of the reports. As a result, NMFS and FWS have held a series of workshops (1994, 1996, 2003, and 2011) to develop guidelines for consistently assessing marine mammal stocks and developing reports. The guidelines were most recently revised in 2016 (NMFS 2016), based on the 2011 GAMMS workshop, after opportunity for the public to review and provide comments (81 FR 10830, March 2, 2016). The 2017 draft reports reflect the first year that the 2016 revised guidelines have been applied.
On September 8, 2016, NMFS published a final rule revising the listing status of humpback whales under the ESA (81 FR 62259). We divided the globally listed endangered species into 14 distinct population segments (DPSs), removed the species-level listing, and in its place, listed four DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened. Based on their current statuses, the remaining nine DPSs did not warrant listing. Upon the effective date of the final rule, October 11, 2016, humpback whales listed as threatened or endangered retained their depleted status under the MMPA, and humpback whales not listed as threatened or endangered lost their depleted status under the MMPA.
In response to this revision to the humpback whale listing status, NMFS is currently evaluating the humpback whale stock delineations under the MMPA to determine whether we can align the stocks with the DPSs under the ESA. We note that the DPSs established in this final rule that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States do not necessarily equate to the existing MMPA stocks for which Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) have been published in accordance with section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1386). As described in our
In 2017, NMFS reviewed all 45 stocks in the Alaska region, and updated SARs under NMFS jurisdiction for 18 stocks (13 strategic and 5 non-strategic). Reports for the following strategic stocks were revised for 2017: Steller sea lion, Western U.S.; northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific; beluga whale, Cook Inlet; killer whale, AT1 Transient; harbor porpoise, Southeast Alaska, Gulf of Alaska, and Bering Sea stocks; sperm whale, North Pacific; humpback whale, Western North Pacific and Central North Pacific stocks; fin whale, Northeast Pacific; North Pacific right whale, Eastern North Pacific; and bowhead whale, Western Arctic. Reports for the following non-strategic stocks were revised for 2017: Spotted seal, Alaska; and beluga whale, Beaufort Sea, Eastern Chukchi Sea, Eastern Bering Sea, and Bristol Bay stocks. Information on the remaining Alaska region stocks can be found in the final 2016 reports (Muto
Most revisions to the Alaska SARs included updates of abundance and/or M/SI estimates, including revised abundance estimates for the Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lions; Eastern Pacific northern fur seals; Alaska spotted seals; Eastern Chukchi Sea, Eastern Bering Sea, and Bristol Bay stocks of beluga whales; and Western Arctic bowhead whales.
In 2017, NMFS reviewed all 116 stocks in the Atlantic region (including the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. territories in the Caribbean), and updated SARs for 21 stocks under NMFS jurisdiction (13 strategic and 8 non-strategic). The reports for the following strategic stocks were revised for 2017: North Atlantic right whale, western Atlantic; humpback whale, Gulf of Maine; fin whale, Western North Atlantic (WNA); Bryde's whale, Gulf of Mexico; and 9 common bottlenose dolphin stocks (WNA northern migratory coastal; WNA southern migratory coastal; WNA South Carolina/Georgia coastal; WNA northern Florida coastal; WNA central Florida coastal; northern North Carolina Estuarine System; southern North Carolina Estuarine System; Barataria Bay Estuarine System; and Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau).
Reports for the following non-strategic stocks were revised for 2017: Minke whale, Canadian east coast; Risso's dolphin, WNA; Atlantic white-sided dolphin, WNA; common dolphin, WNA offshore; harbor porpoise, Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy; harbor seal, WNA; gray seal, WNA; and harp seal, WNA. Information on the remaining Atlantic region stocks can be found in the final 2016 reports (Waring
Most revisions to the Atlantic SARs included updates of abundance and/or M/SI estimates. New abundance estimates are available for the North
The draft 2017 North Atlantic right whale, western Atlantic SAR provides an updated abundance estimate for right whales of 455, based on a new statistical model for estimating abundance (Pace
As a result of the humpback whale ESA listing rule (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016), the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whales is no longer considered ESA listed or depleted. Based on the most recent line-transect survey, the estimate of abundance for the Gulf of Maine humpback whales is 335, with a minimum population estimate of 239 whales. The previous estimate of 823 was based on data that are now considered outdated (greater than 8 years old) and those data were not included in this most recent abundance estimate; thus, the 2017 abundance estimate is considered negatively biased and likely not a true reflection of the size of the stock. Although the abundance appears to decline from 2016 to 2017, these estimates should not be compared as they were derived using different methodologies and data sets. As a result of the lower abundance estimate, the PBR for the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock was reduced from 13 to 3.7 whales. The estimate of human-caused M/SI is now above PBR; thus, the stock has changed from non-strategic to strategic. However, because the abundance estimate is fairly imprecise, incomplete in coverage, and known to be negatively biased, the uncertainties associated with this assessment may have produced an incorrect determination of strategic status.
Abundance estimates were updated for the Barataria Bay Estuarine System (BBES) and the Mississippi Sound, Lake Borgne, Bay Boudreau (MS) stocks of common bottlenose dolphins in the draft 2017 SARs. The abundance estimates were derived using a spatially-explicit capture-mark-recapture model using photo-identification data collected during 2010-2014 (McDonald
The best estimate of abundance for the western North Atlantic stock of gray seals in Canada is 424,300 (CV = 0.16) using model-based abundance estimates derived from pup surveys. The ratio of total population size to pups in Canada is applied to the count of pups born in U.S. waters in 2016 (6,274), to approximate an Nbest and Nmin for gray seals in the U.S. The best estimate of abundance of gray seals in U.S waters is 26,985 (95% CI: 22,042-33,036) and the minimum abundance in U.S. waters is 25,768. There is uncertainty in these abundance levels in the U.S. because life history parameters that influence the ratio of pups to total individuals in this portion of the population are unknown. Based on the minimum population estimate in U.S. waters, PBR for the portion of the stock in U.S. waters is 1,546. In U.S. waters, human-caused mortality does not exceed PBR.
In 2017, NMFS reviewed and considered for revising all 85 stocks in the Pacific region (waters along the west coast of the United States, within waters surrounding the main and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), and within waters surrounding U.S. territories in the Western Pacific), and updated SARs for 36 stocks (10 strategic and 26 non-strategic). The reports for the following strategic stocks were revised for 2017: Hawaiian monk seal; killer whale, Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident; sperm whale, CA/OR/WA; humpback whale, CA/OR/WA; blue whale, Eastern North Pacific; false killer whale, Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) Insular; sperm whale, Hawaii (HI); blue whale, Central North Pacific; fin whale, HI; and sei whale, HI.
Reports for the following non-strategic stocks were revised for 2017: Baird's beaked whale, CA/OR/WA; Cuvier's beaked whale, CA/OR/WA; Mesoplodont beaked whales, CA/OR/WA; rough-toothed dolphin, HI; Risso's dolphin, HI; common bottlenose dolphin, Hawaiian Islands Stock Complex (five stocks: HI pelagic, Kaua'i and Ni'ihau, O'ahu, 4-Islands region, and Hawaiian Island); pantropical spotted dolphin, Hawaiian Islands Stock Complex (four stocks: HI pelagic, O'ahu, 4-Islands region, and HI Island); striped dolphin, HI pelagic; Fraser's dolphin, HI; melon-headed whale, Hawaiian Islands; pygmy killer whale, HI; false killer whale, NWHI; false killer whale, HI pelagic; killer whale, HI; short-finned pilot whale, HI; Blainville's beaked whale, HI Pelagic; Longman's beaked
Several abundance estimates for Pacific stocks were updated in the draft 2017 reports based on a new analysis of a 2010 pelagic line-transect survey within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around the Hawaiian Islands (Bradford
The Hawaii pelagic false killer whale stock changed from “strategic” to “non-strategic” because M/SI is now below PBR. However, the stock status is based on information only from within the U.S. EEZ around Hawaii because that is where the stock's abundance has been assessed, even though the stock's range (and fishery bycatch) extends into the adjacent high seas. Mortality and serious injury of this stock outside the EEZ (where there is no PBR) is not factored into the evaluation of stock status.
New approaches were developed to estimate Hawaiian monk seal abundance, both range-wide and at individual subpopulations. In the draft 2017 SAR, the best estimate of the total population size is 1,324 seals with a minimum abundance estimate of 1,261 (1,272 and 1,205, respectively, in the 2016 SAR). Past reports have concluded that Hawaiian monk seal stock dynamics did not conform to the underlying model for calculating PBR because the stock was declining despite being well below OSP. As a result, PBR for the Hawaiian monk seal was undetermined. The trend since 2013 does not indicate the stock has continued to decline, so that PBR may be determined. For the first time, the monk seal SAR provides a valid calculation for PBR of 4.4.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Regulations at 50 CFR parts 665, Subparts D and E, require that the owner of a vessel used to fish for, land, or transship bottomfish management unit species (BMUS) using a large vessel (50 ft or longer) around Guam, fish commercially for BMUS in the EEZ around the Northern Mariana Islands, or use a vessel to fish for BMUS within the EEZ around each of the PRIA, in areas not prohibited to fishing, must register it to a valid federal fishing permit.
Regulations at 50 CFR 665, Subparts B, C, D, and E, require that a vessel used to fish for precious corals within the EEZ of U.S. islands in the central and western Pacific, must be registered to a valid federal fishing permit for a specific precious coral permit area.
The collection is revised by merging currently approved information collections OMB Control Numbers 0648-0584, Northern Mariana Islands Commercial Bottomfish Fishery Permit, 0648-0586, Pacific Islands Crustacean Permit, and 0648-0589, Pacific Islands Pelagic Squid Jig Fishing Permit, into OMB Control No. 0648-0490 Pacific Islands Region Permit Family of Forms. NMFS approved new two-tier processing fees for most permits, resulting in revised cost estimates.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 55 Assessment Webinars I and II.
The SEDAR 55 assessment of the South Atlantic stock of Vermilion Snapper will consist of a series webinars. See
SEDAR 55 Assessment webinar I and II will be held on Thursday, January 11, 2018, from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m.; and Friday, February 9, 2018, from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m.
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. The product of the SEDAR webinar series will be a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the Assessment webinars are as follows:
1. Participants will continue discussions to develop population models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks, and project future conditions, as specified in the Terms of Reference.
2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.
3. Participants will prepare a workshop report and determine whether the assessment(s) are adequate for submission for review.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 56 Assessment Webinars I and II.
The SEDAR 56 assessment of the South Atlantic stock of
SEDAR 56 Assessment webinar I and II will be held on Friday, January 12, 2018, from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m.; and Monday, January 29, 2018, from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m.
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. The product of the SEDAR webinar series will be a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the Assessment webinars are as follows:
1. Participants will continue discussions to develop population models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks, and project future conditions, as specified in the Terms of Reference.
2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.
3. Participants will prepare a workshop report and determine whether the assessment(s) are adequate for submission for review.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before February 20, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Craig Cockrell, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 13533 F/SF1, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; 301-427-8503; or
This request is for an extension of a current information collection. These requirements apply to vessel owners in the Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) Fishery.
Under current regulations at 50 CFR 635.6, fishing vessels permitted for Atlantic HMS fisheries must display their official vessel numbers on their vessels. Flotation devices and high-flyers attached to certain fishing gears must also be marked with the vessel's number to identify the vessel to which the gear belongs. These requirements are necessary for identification, law enforcement, and monitoring purposes.
Specifically, all vessel owners that hold a valid Atlantic HMS permit under 50 CFR 635.4, other than an Atlantic HMS Angling permit, are required to display their vessel identification number. Numbers must be permanently affixed to, or painted on, the port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull and on an appropriate weather deck, so as to be clearly visible from an enforcement vessel or aircraft. The vessel's identification number must be in block Arabic numerals permanently affixed to or painted on the vessel in contrasting color to the background, and must be at least 18 inches (45.7 cm) in height for vessels over 65 ft (19.8 m) in length; at least 10 inches (25.4 cm) in height for all other vessels over 25 ft (7.6 m) in length; and at least 3 inches (7.6 cm) in height for vessels 25 ft (7.6 m) in length or less.
Furthermore, the owner or operator of a vessel for which a permit has been issued under § 635.4 and that uses handline, buoy gear, harpoon, longline, or gillnet, must display the vessel's name, registration number or Atlantic Tunas, Atlantic HMS Angling, or Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit number on each float attached to a handline, buoy gear, or harpoon, and on the terminal floats and high-flyers (if applicable) on a longline or gillnet used by the vessel. The vessel's name or number must be at least 1 inch (2.5 cm) in height in block letters or arabic numerals in a color that contrasts with the background color of the float or high-flyer.
There is no form or information collected under this requirement. Official vessel numbers issued to vessel operators are marked on the vessel and on flotation gear, if applicable.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public scoping meetings.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a series of public scoping meetings via webinar pertaining to Amendment 13 to the Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region. The amendment addresses alternatives for bully net regulations and enhanced cooperative management.
The scoping meetings will be held via webinar on January 8 and January 9, 2018.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The scoping meetings will be conducted via webinar accessible via the internet from the Council's website at
The draft amendment currently addresses inconsistencies between State of Florida spiny lobster regulations and those in federal waters including options for endorsement, marking, and gear prohibitions for bully net gear in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Florida. The amendment also addresses re-establishing the procedure for enhanced cooperative management protocol for roles of federal and State of Florida agencies for the management of spiny lobster. Additional options to address bag limits on board commercial bully netters and divers, degradable panels in lobster traps, and the definition of artificial habitat are also included. The measures are expected to help management and enforcement of spiny lobster harvest by creating consistent regulations in state and federal waters.
During the scoping meetings, Council staff will present an overview of the amendment and will be available for informal discussions and to answer questions via webinar. Members of the public will have an opportunity to go on record to record their comments for consideration by the Council.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 18, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Warren Farr, 202-377-4380.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 20, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Edward West, 202-245-6145.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
National Assessment Governing Board, U.S. Department of Education.
Announcement of closed teleconference meeting.
This notice sets forth the agenda for the January 11, 2018 closed teleconference meeting of the National Assessment Governing Board's (Governing Board) Nominations Committee, which has been delegated by the Governing Board to take action on behalf of the Board. This notice provides information to members of the public who may be interested in providing written comments related to the work of the Governing Board. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
Munira Mwalimu, Executive Officer/Designated Federal Official for the Governing Board, 800 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 825, Washington, DC 20002, telephone: (202) 357-6938, fax: (202) 357-6945, email:
The Governing Board is established to formulate policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The Governing Board's responsibilities include selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment frameworks and specifications, developing appropriate student achievement levels for each grade and subject tested, improving the form and use of NAEP, developing
The Governing Board's Nominations Committee fulfills the responsibility of making recommendations for potential candidates to fill Governing Board vacancies for terms of service established by law in various Governing Board categories. Following Nominations Committee action on the recommendations (per delegation of authority from the Governing Board on nominees from the October 2016 call for nominees), the final slate of candidates is submitted to the Secretary of Education for consideration and appointment to serve on the Governing Board, as defined in Section 302, Public Law 107-279; see
On January 11, 2018, the Nominations Committee will meet in closed session from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The Committee will discuss nominees for the position of Chief State School Officer to complete the term of service (term expires on September 30, 2018) of the former incumbent, Massachusetts Commissioner of Education, Mitchell Chester. The Nominations Committee's discussions pertain solely to internal personnel rules and practices of an agency and information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As such, the discussions are protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of § 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code.
During the November 17, 2017 Governing Board meeting, the Governing Board delegated authority to the Nominations Committee to receive, review, and take action on the final slate of recommended candidates for the position of Chief State School Officer. This delegation of authority allows the timely submission of candidates to the Secretary of Education for consideration and action prior to the March 2018 Governing Board meeting.
Pub. L. 107-279, Title III—National Assessment of Educational Progress § 301.
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
December 21, 2017, 10:00 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
Open.
Agenda, *NOTE—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400. For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's website at
A free webcast of this event is available through
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Lewis Creek Amendment Project (Project). The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to
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 January 8, 2018.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on October 27, 2017, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP18-11-000 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.
East Cheyenne 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 website (
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 (CP18-11-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
East Cheyenne proposes to amend its current certificated Project by:
1. Reconfiguring the Injection/Withdrawal (I/W) wells in the Lewis Creek portion of the Project by converting one existing non-jurisdictional well to an I/W well (LC-D021) and collocating on the existing, non-jurisdictional well pad five directionally drilled I/W wells (LC-D022, LC-D023, LC-D024, LC-D025, and LC-D026).
2. combining the certificated maximum working gas and cushion gas capacities of the West Peetz and Lewis Creek Storage Fields, eliminating the separate certificated West Peetz and Lewis Creek working and cushion gas capacities and reallocating cushion gas capacity as working gas capacity;
3. decreasing the total cushion gas capacity to 12.1 billion cubic feet and increasing the total working gas capacity to 22.5 billion cubic feet;
4. eliminating the currently certificated maximum bottom-hole pressure distinction between the West Peetz Storage Field (2,353 pounds per square inch absolute [PSIA]) and the Lewis Creek Storage Field (1,900 PSIA) and applying a maximum bottom-hole pressure of 2,353 PSIA uniformly across the single, integrated storage reservoir;
5. reconfiguring the pipelines originally certificated for the Lewis Creek Storage Field by:
a. Reducing the diameter of the previously authorized 20-inch-diameter Lewis Creek natural gas mainline pipeline to a 16-inch-diameter pipeline; and
b. reconfigure the 16-inch-diameter Lewis Creek natural gas mainline and the 6-inch-diameter water disposal pipeline as the Lewis Creek produced water mainline to connect directly to the reconfigured I/W wells LC-D021 through LC-D026 on the single LC-D021 well pad.
6. reconfiguring the monitoring wells originally certificated for the Lewis Creek Storage Field. Eight monitoring wells are currently certificated in the Lewis Creek Storage Field: Two are existing and in service, (LC-M001 and LC-M002) and six are authorized but unconstructed (LC-M003, LC-M005 through LC-M009). LC-M003 would be relocated and installed as a new well (LC-M003 was previously authorized to be converted from an existing non-jurisdictional well). East Cheyenne would install one new monitoring well, LC-M004. There would be no change to monitoring wells LC-M005 and LC-M006. East Cheyenne would relocate and convert three existing non-jurisdictional wells to monitoring wells, LC-M007, LC-M008, LC-M009, for a total of nine wells to monitor the D-Sands in the Lewis Creek Storage Field; and
7. Eliminating the currently certificated, but unconstructed produced water disposal well (LC-W002), well pad, and appurtenant facilities certificated for the Project.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
The changes along with the pipelines, wells, well pads, and access roads that East Cheyenne no longer requires as a result of the reconfiguration of the Lewis Creek portion of the certificated Project, would result in a reduction in the overall land requirements for the Project on the order of 55 acres associated with construction and 35 acres for operation. Land requirements for the amended Project would include land to be used temporarily for construction and land to be retained during operations as aboveground facility sites in the Lewis Creek storage field (well pads and access roads). The current land requirements for the amended Project is on the order of 53 acres for construction and 14 acres for operation.
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;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• endangered and threatened species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• air quality and noise;
• 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, beginning 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; 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 website. 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 website 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 Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-12-08_SA 3067 ATC-UMERC GIA (J703) to be effective 11/30/2017.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA 210(m)(3) filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Request for Contractor Access to TSCA CBI” and identified by EPA ICR No. 1250.11 and OMB Control No. 2070-0075, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2018. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before February 20, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0318, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Responses to the collection of information are voluntary but failure to provide the requested information will prevent a contractor employee from obtaining clearance for TSCA CBI. Respondents may claim all or part of a response confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
There is a decrease of 142 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease reflects a decrease in the number of contractor employees that need TSCA CBI clearance. This change is an adjustment.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is providing notice to the public that it has initiated a rulemaking process to revise the minimum age requirements in the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule. EPA expects to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in FY 2018 to solicit public input on these proposed revisions to the rule. EPA is also announcing that the implementation dates in the January 4, 2017
Kevin Keaney, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (703) 305-5557, email address:
This document is directed to the public in general. However, this document may be of particular interest to you if you apply restricted use pesticides (RUPs), use RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator; are a State, Tribe or Federal agency who administers a certification program for pesticide applicators; a pesticide safety educator; or another person who provides pesticide safety training for pesticide applicator certification or recertification. 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:
• Agricultural Establishments (Crop Production) (NAICS code 111).
• Animal Production and Aquaculture). (NAICS code 112).
• Nursery and Tree Production (NAICS code 111421).
• Agricultural Pest Control and Pesticide Handling on Farms (NAICS code 115112).
• Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 115112, 541690, 541712).
• Agricultural (Animal) Pest Control (Livestock Spraying) (NAICS code 115210).
• Forestry Pest Control (NAICS code 115310).
• Wood Preservation Pest Control (NAICS code 321114).
• Pesticide Registrants (NAICS code 325320).
• Pesticide Dealers (NAICS codes 424690, 424910, 444220).
• Insurance Carriers and Related Activities (NAICS code 524).
• Research & Demonstration Pest Control, Crop Advisor (NAICS code 541710).
• Industrial, Institutional, Structural & Health Related Pest Control (NAICS code 561710).
• Ornamental & Turf, Rights-of-Way Pest Control (NAICS code 561730).
• Environmental Protection Program Administrators (NAICS code 924110).
• Governmental Pest Control Programs (NAICS code 926140).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under
In accordance with Executive Order 13777, titled
Through these efforts, EPA received comments on the minimum age requirements in the certification rule, which were discussed at the November 2, 2017, meeting of the Office of Pesticide Program's Federal Advisory Committee, the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC). A transcript of the PPDC meeting will be posted when available on EPA's website at
After considering these comments, revisiting the record, and reviewing the applicable statutory authority, EPA has determined that further consideration of the rule's minimum age requirements is warranted through the rulemaking process. EPA is providing notice to the public that the Agency has begun the internal rulemaking process to address the minimum age requirements in the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule at 40 CFR 171. EPA expects to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in FY 2018 to solicit public input on these proposed revisions to the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule.
EPA is also announcing that the implementation dates in 40 CFR 171.5 of the final rule published on January 4, 2017, for certifying authorities to submit revised certification plans, and for EPA to act on those plans remain in effect; EPA has no plans to change those implementation dates. Therefore, if a certifying authority submits its modified certification plan by March 4, 2020, the existing approved certification plan remains in effect until EPA has approved or rejected the modified plan or March 4, 2022, whichever is earlier.
7 U.S.C. 136-136y.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, December 19, 2017, to consider the following matters:
No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.
Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' Meetings.
Memorandum and resolution re: Civil Money Penalty Annual Inflation Adjustment.
Memorandum and resolution re: Modifications to the Statement of Policy for Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
Summary reports, status reports, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors, and reports of the Office of Inspector General.
Memorandum and resolution re: FDIC 2018 Operating Budget.
The meeting will be held in the Board Room located on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC.
This Board meeting will be webcast live via the internet and subsequently made available on-demand approximately one week after the event. Visit
The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-7043.
82 FR 57756.
Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on December 14, 2017.
This meeting also discussed: Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on any agreements to the Secretary,
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, January 18, 2018.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
1-(866) 867-4769, Passcode: 678-100.
10:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 17, 2018.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter
Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
1-(866) 867-4769, Passcode: 678-100.
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 January 16, 2018.
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on a proposed revision of the information collection project titled
CDC must receive written comments on or before February 20, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0100 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate 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;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Data Collection for the Residential Care Community and Adult Day Service Center Components of the National Study of Long-Term Care Providers (OMB Control Number 0920-0943 Expiration Date, 05/31/2019)—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, “shall collect statistics on health resources . . . [And] utilization of health care, including extended care facilities, and other institutions.”
NCHS seeks approval to collect data for the residential care community (RCC) and adult day services center (ADSC) survey components of the fourth wave of the National Study of Long-Term Care Providers (NSLTCP). The request is for one-year clearance.
As background, here are some details on the complete study design. NSLTCP voluntary survey designed to: (1) Broaden NCHS' ongoing coverage of paid and regulated long-term care (LTC) providers; (2) merge with existing administrative data on LTC providers and service users (
CDC will collect data collected from two types of LTC providers in the 50 states and the District of Columbia: 2,090 RCCs and 1,650 ADSCs. Data collected in 2012, 2014, and 2016 and the data collected in 2018 will include the basic characteristics, services, staffing, and practices of RCCs and ADSCs, and demographics, selected health conditions and health care utilization, physical functioning, and cognitive functioning of RCC residents and ADSC participants. The 2018 wave will include services user questionnaires.
Expected users of data from this collection effort include, but not limited to CDC and other Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) agencies. Other potential users include the following: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; the Administration for Community Living; and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; associations, such as LeadingAge, National Center for
Expected burden from data collection for eligible cases is 80 minutes per respondent: 5 minutes for a contact confirmation call; 15 minutes for a screener and appointment setting call; 30 minutes for a provider questionnaire; and 30 minutes for a sampling and services user questionnaire. We estimate an eligibility rate for ADSCs of 86% and for RCCs of 76%. One-year clearance requested to cover the collection of data. The burden for the collection shown in Table 1 below. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Evaluation of the SAMHSA Naloxone Education and Distribution Program—New—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Overdose deaths involving prescription opioids and heroin have reached epidemic levels in the U.S. and continue to rise. To address the prescription drug/opioid overdose crisis, the federal government has recently allocated funding to improve access to treatment for opioid use disorders, reduce opioid related deaths, and strengthen prevention efforts. One program resulting from the federal government's efforts to address the opioid crisis is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency (SAMHSA) Grants to Prevent Prescription Drug/Opioid Overdose-Related Deaths. This proposed information collection project will help evaluate this program.
Through this program, SAMHSA awarded funding to 12 states. The funding is aimed at reducing the number of prescription drug/opioid overdose-related deaths and adverse events among individuals 18 years of
The intended use of the resulting data is to increase CDC and SAMHSA understanding of the scope and impact of the program on overdose fatalities and how program effectiveness may vary among different sub-populations and settings, and to increase knowledge of barriers and facilitators to program implementation.
Researchers will use key informant interviews and focus groups with participants in the activities enacted by the twelve state grant recipients. Participants will include state administrators of the grant and other PDO/Naloxone stakeholders including advisory council members, first responders, social service providers, laypersons including end users and their family and friend. All focus groups and interviews will be analyzed through qualitative content analysis, including utilization of a systematic coding scheme.
Total burden in hours for this collection is 381. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. CDC requests a three-year OMB approval to collect the necessary project-related information.
If approved program offices will be at liberty to tailor a financial report to their specific needs rather than adhering to a standard form.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap. 35), the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “New Insights for Product Development and Bioequivalence Assessments of Generic Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products.” The purposes of the workshop are to present the outcomes from the research projects conducted under the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA) Regulatory Science Research Program; discuss how regulatory science initiatives have helped address regulatory science knowledge gaps by providing insights on factors that influence the performance of generic orally inhaled and nasal drug products (OINDPs); share the Agency's experience on the utility of novel analytical tools and methods developed under the regulatory science initiative for generic OINDP product development and bioequivalence assessments; and obtain input from the public on what, when, where, and how analytical methods and procedures should be applied in the development and review of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for complex OINDPs.
The public workshop will be held on January 9, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Individuals who wish to attend the workshop must register by December 30, 2017. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public workshop by February 14, 2018. See the
The public workshop will be held at FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503 B+C), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1, where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before February 14, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Renishkumar Delvadia, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4704, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-7979, email:
In the Regulatory Science Enhancements section of the GDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Program Enhancement Fiscal Years 2018-2022 (GDUFA II Commitment Letter) (available at:
Since its commencement in 2012, the GDUFA Regulatory Science Research Program has continuously aided our understanding about the critical product attributes that are relevant for in vivo performance of OINDPs, and has led to the development of tools beneficial to both industry and FDA for developing and assessing generic OINDPs. Several external and internal research projects have been initiated under the GDUFA Regulatory Science Research Program. The outcomes from these research studies have provided valuable insight about the factors influencing the performance of OINDPs and have helped the Agency fill regulatory science gaps in this area. For instance, advanced modeling tools developed under this initiative, such as CFD and PBPK, can provide insights about patient-device interactions and information about both local and systemic bioavailability, which can better characterize critical device and formulation attributes to further our understanding of generic drug-device combination products. Clinically relevant mouth-throat and nasal models are another example of this research which have shown good in vivo correlations in predicting regional drug deposition; these physical models allow us to predict the impact of certain performance characteristics of OINDPs on regional drug deposition in a realistic manner, potentially without the need for conducting comparative clinical endpoint studies. Similarly, Morphologically Directed Raman Spectroscopy (MDRS), a novel particle sizing method explored under the initiative, has shown promise in differentiating nasal suspension formulations of different drug particle sizes, and has opened the possibility of a new regulatory pathway for the approval of generic nasal suspension products without the need to conduct a comparative clinical endpoint study. Another research outcome developed under the science initiative for OINDPs has been work involving in-vitro dissolution methods, which are providing insights on the bridge between local drug deposition and its downstream systemic bioavailability. Our enhanced understanding about OINDPs from these regulatory science-based initiatives have informed us during the development of product-specific guidances for OINDPs, resulting in the publication of more than 39 product-specific guidance documents since the implementation of GDUFA in 2012.
To enhance communication of recent advances, including those supported by GDUFA funds, FDA plans to hold a public workshop on new analytical methods and assessment criteria for characterization of OINDPs.
The purposes of the workshop are as follows:
1. To present the outcomes from the research projects initiated under the GDUFA Regulatory Science Research Program;
2. To discuss how regulatory science initiatives have helped address regulatory science gaps by providing insight on factors that influence the performance of OINDPs;
3. To share the Agency's experience on the utility of novel analytical tools and methods developed under the regulatory science initiative for OINDP product development and bioequivalence assessments; and
4. To obtain input from the public on what, when, where, and how analytical methods and procedures should be applied in the development and review of complex OINDP ANDAs for therapeutic equivalence.
The scope of the workshop covers the current status of methods for characterization and bioequivalence evaluation of generic OINDPs.
The focus of this public workshop is on the evaluation of these new methods for characterizing and demonstrating therapeutic equivalence of OINDPs, including discussing the areas in which these methods may significantly contribute to generic product development and regulatory understanding, how and under what conditions the methods should be conducted and evaluated, and inherent scientific challenges with this complex class of products.
Public input will improve FDA's current understanding of present and future methods available for evaluating OINDP therapeutic equivalence. The knowledge gained through this workshop discussion will be summarized and disseminated to the scientific community by publication(s).
FDA seeks input from the public on when, where, and how to utilize new methods for development of generic OINDPs and in the regulatory review of bioequivalence. Specific topics to be addressed include:
1. Identifying the areas in which new in vitro and computational methods can contribute to the development of generic OINDPs;
2. Discussing how in vitro testing for demonstrating OINDP therapeutic equivalence should be conducted and evaluated; and
3. Addressing the scientific challenges in assessing critical quality attributes of OINDPs and in developing new
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register by December 30, 2017, midnight Eastern Time. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. If time and space permit, onsite registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided beginning at 8:30 a.m.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Renishkumar Delvadia no later than December 30, 2017.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by January 18, 2018.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Sections 409, 505, 512, and 515 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348, 355, 360b, and 360e) and related statutes require manufacturers of food additives, human drugs and biological products, animal drugs, and medical devices to demonstrate the safety and utility of their product by submitting applications to FDA for research or marketing permits. Such applications contain, among other important items, full reports of all studies done to demonstrate product safety in man and/or other animals. In order to ensure adequate quality control for these studies and to provide an adequate degree of consumer protection, the Agency issued good laboratory practice (GLP) regulations for nonclinical laboratory studies in part 58 (21 CFR part 58). The regulations specify minimum standards for the proper conduct of safety testing and contain sections on facilities, personnel, equipment, standard operating procedures (SOPs), test and control articles, quality assurance, protocol and conduct of a safety study, records and reports, and laboratory disqualification.
Part 58 requires testing facilities engaged in conducting toxicological studies to retain, and make available to regulatory officials, records regarding compliance with GLPs. Records are maintained on file at each testing facility and examined there periodically by FDA inspectors. The GLP regulations require that, for each nonclinical laboratory study, a final report be prepared that documents the results of quality assurance unit inspections, test and control article characterization, testing of mixtures of test and control articles with carriers, and an overall interpretation of nonclinical laboratory studies. The GLP regulations also require written records pertaining to: (1) Personnel job descriptions and summaries of training and experience; (2) master schedules, protocols and amendments thereto, inspection reports, and SOPs; (3) equipment inspection, maintenance, calibration, and testing records; (4) documentation of feed and water analyses, and animal treatments; (5) test article accountability records; and (6) study documentation and raw data.
Recordkeeping is necessary to document the conduct of nonclinical laboratory studies of FDA-regulated products to ensure the quality and integrity of the resulting final study report on which a regulatory decision may be based. Written SOPs and records of actions taken are essential for testing facilities to implement GLPs effectively. Further, they are essential for FDA to be able to determine a testing facility's compliance with the GLP regulations in part 58.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The annual burden for the information collection requirements in these regulations is estimated at 1,304,157 burden hours (517,849 + 786,308 = 1,304,157). The hours per response estimates are based on our experience with similar programs and information received from industry.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Standards Development and the Use of Standards in Regulatory Submissions Reviewed in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.” The draft guidance document recognizes the value of standards and encourages the use of appropriate standards to facilitate the evaluation of products regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). The guidance describes CBER's recommendations on the use of standards in product development and the use of such standards in CBER's managed review process. The draft guidance does not endorse the activities of specific Standards Development Organizations or recommend specific standards for use in regulatory submissions.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by March 19, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
Angela Moy, 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 announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Standards Development and the Use of Standards in Regulatory Submissions Reviewed in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.” The Federal Government's policies on the use of standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies are described in the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities.” The policies outlined in Circular A-119 were codified in the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA). The NTTAA authorizes the National Institute of Standards and Technology to coordinate standards activities for Federal Agencies.
CBER recognizes the value of standards and encourages the use of appropriate standards in the development of CBER-regulated medical products. Sponsors' use of standards can facilitate product development and a more efficient evaluation of regulatory submissions. The draft guidance describes CBER's recommendations on the use of standards in product development and the use of such standards in CBER's managed review process. It describes how standards are developed, the benefits of using standards, and CBER's policy on accepting standards used in regulatory submissions. CBER's use of, and CBER's acceptance of sponsors' use of, voluntary consensus standards do not constitute a delegation of CBER's regulatory responsibilities. Whether or not standards are used, CBER retains the ability to set, and the responsibility for setting, appropriate regulatory criteria for CBER-regulated products.
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 standards development and the use of standards in regulatory submissions reviewed in CBER. 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 with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability for public comment of modified risk tobacco product applications (MRTPAs) for six Camel Snus smokeless tobacco products submitted by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
Electronic or written comments on the applications may be submitted until June 18, 2018; however, FDA may modify the comment period by providing notice as described in section I.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Paul Hart, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 1-877-287-1373, email:
Section 911 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 387k) addresses the marketing and distribution of modified risk tobacco products (MRTPs). MRTPs are tobacco products that are sold or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related disease associated with commercially marketed tobacco products. Section 911(a) of the FD&C Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any MRTP unless an order issued by FDA under section 911(g) of the FD&C Act is effective with respect to such product.
Section 911(d) of the FD&C Act describes the information that must be included in an MRTPA, which must be filed and evaluated by FDA before an applicant can receive an order from FDA. FDA is required by section 911(e) of the FD&C Act to make an MRTPA available to the public (except for matters in the application that are trade secrets or otherwise confidential commercial information) and to request comments by interested persons on the information contained in the application and on the label, labeling, and advertising accompanying the application. The determination of whether an order is appropriate under section 911(g) of the FD&C Act is based on the scientific information submitted by the applicant as well as the scientific evidence and other information that is made available to the Agency, including through public comments.
Section 911(g) of the FD&C Act describes the demonstrations applicants must make to obtain an order from FDA under either section 911(g)(1) or (2). The applicant, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., is seeking orders under section 911(g)(1) for each of the 6 products that are the subject of the submitted MRTPAs. A
FDA is issuing this notice to inform the public that the MRTPAs for the following products submitted by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. have been filed and are being made available for public comment:
In this document, FDA is announcing the availability of the applications for public comment. FDA will make any amendments submitted by the applicant available for public comment on a rolling basis. The applications will be available for public comment for 180 days from the date this notice is published; however, in the event that fewer than 30 days remain in the 180-day comment period when an amendment is posted, FDA will extend or reopen the comment period to allow for at least 30 days of public comment on the amendment. FDA believes that this comment period is appropriate given the volume and complexity of the applications being posted. FDA will notify the public about the availability of amendments to these applications and changes to related comment periods via the Agency's website and other means of public communication. To encourage public participation consistent with section 911(e) of the FD&C Act, FDA is making the redacted MRTPAs that are the subject of this notice available electronically (see section II).
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the documents at:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by February 20, 2018.
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 February 20, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 502 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 352), among other things, establishes requirements that the label or labeling of a medical device must meet so that it is not misbranded and subject to regulatory action. Section 301 of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-250) amended section 502 of the FD&C Act to add section 502(u) to require devices (both new and reprocessed) to bear prominently and conspicuously the name of the manufacturer, a generally recognized abbreviation of such name, or a unique and generally recognized symbol identifying the manufacturer.
Section 2(c) of the Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-43) amends section 502(u) of the FD&C Act by limiting the provision to reprocessed single-use devices (SUDs) and the manufacturers who reprocess them. Under the amended provision, if the original SUD or an attachment to it prominently and conspicuously bears the name of the manufacturer, then the reprocessor of the SUD is required to identify itself by name, abbreviation, or symbol in a prominent and conspicuous manner on the device or attachment to the device. If the original SUD does not prominently and conspicuously bear the name of the manufacturer, the manufacturer who reprocesses the SUD for reuse may identify itself using a detachable label that is intended to be affixed to the patient record.
The requirements of section 502(u) of the FD&C Act impose a minimal burden on industry. This section of the FD&C Act only requires the manufacturer, packer, or distributor of a device to include their name and address on the labeling of a device. This information is readily available to the establishment and easily supplied. From its registration and premarket submission database, FDA estimates that there are 67 establishments that distribute approximately 427 reprocessed SUDs. Each response is anticipated to take 0.1 hours (6 minutes) resulting in a total burden to industry of 43 hours.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The burden for this information collection has not changed since the last OMB approval.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before January 18, 2018.
Submit your comments to
Sherrette Funn,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
The program is requesting a 3-year clearance.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of an Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) meeting.
The purpose of the IACC meeting is to discuss business, agency updates, and issues related to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research and services activities. The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible by webcast and conference call.
Submission of written/electronic statement for oral comments: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 by 5:00 p.m. ET.
Submission of written comments: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 by 5:00 p.m. ET.
For IACC Public Comment guidelines please see:
A limited number of slots for oral comment are available, and in order to ensure that as many different individuals are able to present throughout the year as possible, any given individual only will be permitted to present oral comments once per calendar year (2018). Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present oral comments in any given meeting; other representatives of the same group may provide written comments. If the oral comment session is full, individuals who could not be accommodated are welcome to provide written comments instead. Comments to be read or presented in the meeting will be assigned a 3-5 minute time slot depending on the number of comments, but a longer version may be submitted in writing for the record. Commenters going beyond their allotted time in the meeting may be asked to conclude immediately in order to allow other comments and presentations to proceed on schedule.
Any interested person may submit written public comments to the IACC prior to the meeting by emailing the comments to
In the 2009 IACC Strategic Plan, the IACC listed the “Spirit of Collaboration” as one of its core values, stating that, “We will treat others with respect, listen to diverse views with open minds, discuss submitted public comments, and foster discussions where participants can comfortably offer opposing opinions.” In keeping with this core value, the IACC and the NIMH Office of Autism Research Coordination (OARC) ask that members of the public who provide public comments or participate in meetings of the IACC also seek to treat others with respect and consideration in their communications and actions, even when discussing issues of genuine concern or disagreement.
Individuals wishing to participate in person or by using these electronic services and who need special assistance, such as captioning of the conference call or other reasonable accommodations, should submit a request to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least five days prior to the meeting.
Meeting schedule subject to change. Information about the IACC is available on the website:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the following documents for review and comment by the public and Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments:
• Draft Range-wide General Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs (GCP);
• Draft Implementing Agreement for the GCP; and
• Draft Environment Assessment of the GCP (EA).
We prepared the draft GCP to fulfill the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for issuing permits to authorize take of Utah prairie dogs incidental to development activities within the range of the species in Utah. The draft GCP is designed to streamline incidental take permit authorization for many types of development activities while conserving the species. As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we also prepared a draft EA that analyzes the potential effects to the natural and human environment from issuing permits to Iron, Beaver, and Garfield Counties and from overall implementation of the GCP, including potential issuance of master or individual permits over the 10-year term of the proposed GCP.
•
•
Laura Romin, 801-975-3330, extension 142 (phone), or
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the following documents for review and comment by the public and Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments:
• Draft Range-wide General Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs (GCP);
• Draft Implementing Agreement for the GCP; and
• Draft Environment Assessment of the GCP (EA).
We prepared the draft GCP to fulfill the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Utah prairie dog (
As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered (16 U.S.C. 1538). Under section 3 of the ESA, the term “take” means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term “harm” is defined in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harass” is defined in the regulations as to carry out “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but
Under section 10(a) of the ESA, the Service may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed fish and wildlife species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA contains provisions for issuing incidental take permits to non-Federal entities for the incidental take of endangered and threatened species, provided the following criteria are met:
• The taking will be incidental.
• The applicant will minimize and mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, the impact of such taking.
• The applicant will develop an HCP and ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided.
• The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild.
• The applicant will carry out any other measures that the Secretary of the Interior may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP.
Regulations governing permits for threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.32.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
We propose to make the GCP available to non-Federal parties within the range of the Utah prairie dog for use when they are applying for incidental take permits for development activities. We also propose, at this time, to issue 10-year master permits for incidental take of the Utah prairie dog to Iron, Beaver, and Garfield Counties, if applications from these counties demonstrate commitments to implement the requirements of the GCP to meet all the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit issuance criteria. The master permits would authorize take of the Utah prairie dog incidental to activities associated with residential and commercial development and infrastructure construction, operations, and maintenance. Each county would convey take authorization under its permit to individual project proponents who apply for certificates of inclusion under the GCP. We also propose to issue individual permits to project proponents and master permits to other counties and municipalities as they submit applications over the 10-year term of the GCP.
The GCP's plan area encompasses the entire current range of the Utah prairie dog, which includes all or parts of Iron, Garfield, Wayne, Beaver, Piute, Sevier, and Kane Counties. Individual permits we issue under the GCP would cover the area within which take is expected to occur from each project. The master permits for Iron, Beaver, and Garfield Counties would include any areas where take may occur from covered activities within those counties.
The GCP identifies two zones where take would be authorized for development activities: (1) Major development areas—Non-Federal lands that are already built out or adjacent to built-out areas, and (2) Minor Development Areas—Non-Federal lands that are less likely than the major development areas to have large-scale human development growth over the term of the GCP.
The GCP's measures to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the take include prairie dog translocations, habitat and plague management at translocation sites, and the protection of occupied Utah prairie dog habitats, all of which are consistent with our recovery objectives for this species. The overall conservation goals include: (1) Establishing and augmenting prairie dog colonies on Federal and other protected lands through translocations, and (2) Establishing conservation easements or acquiring lands from willing sellers to protect existing prairie dog colonies on private other non-Federal lands to support connectivity and metapopulation viability. Implementation of the conservation measures would rely on a combination of efforts by the Utah Division of Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State funds and fees paid by developers obtaining a permit or certificate of inclusion would pay for implementation of the conservation measures.
In the draft EA, we evaluate the effects on the natural and human environment from two alternatives to the proposed action: (1) No action (
The draft EA considers the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the two action alternatives, including measures intended to avoid, minimize, and mitigate such impacts.
We request information, views, and opinions from the public specifically on our proposed Federal action, including but not limited to any other aspects of the human environment not already identified in the draft EA. We also solicit information regarding the adequacy of the GCP in meeting the requirements of 50 CFR parts 13 and 17.
Written comments received become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
This Notice provides official publication of the legal land description for the White Sands Missile Range/Fort Bliss addition in New Mexico, which is withdrawn and reserved for military training purposes. The fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requires official publication of the legal land description and notification of availability of the White Sands Missile Range map.
The legal description became effective on December 26, 2013.
Copies of the map are available for public review at the Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87502, and the Bureau of Land Management, Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess Street Las Cruces, NM 88001.
Jeanette Martinez, Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office at 505-954-2196 or via email at
On December 26, 2013, the NDAA for 2014 was passed under Public Law 113-66. Pursuant to Section 2912, Subtitle A, of Title XXIX, Withdrawal, Reservation, and Transfer of Public Lands to Support Military Readiness and Security, this Notice informs the public of the official legal land description for the public lands reserved for use by the Secretary of the Army for military purposes in accordance with Public Land Order No. 833 and added to the exterior boundaries of the White Sands Missile Range by Public Law 113-66. The withdrawn and reserved lands are managed according to the provisions stated under Section 2951 and 2952, Subtitle D of Title XXIX. The public lands withdrawn for the White Sands Missile Range are described as:
The areas described aggregate 5,089.31 acres Dona Ana County.
National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
Notice of availability.
The National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of the final Fire Island Wilderness Breach Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (final Breach Plan/EIS) for Fire Island National Seashore, New York. The final Breach Plan/EIS identifies Alternative 3, No Human Intervention unless Established Criteria are Exceeded, as the NPS preferred alternative. When approved, the management plan will guide the management of the breach that occurred in the Otis Pike Fire Island High Dune Wilderness during Hurricane Sandy.
The NPS will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days following publication by the Environmental Protection Agency of a Notice of Availability of the final Breach Plan/EIS in the
The final Breach Plan/EIS is available electronically at
Kaetlyn Jackson, Fire Island National Seashore, 120 Laurel Street Patchogue, NY, 11772, 631-687-4770,
Fire Island National Seashore (the Seashore), a unit of the NPS, is located along the south shore of Long Island in Suffolk County, New York. The Seashore encompasses 19,579 acres of upland, tidal, and submerged lands along a 26-mile stretch of the 32-mile barrier island—part of a much larger system of barrier islands and bluffs stretching from New York City to the very eastern end of Long Island at Montauk Point.
On October 29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy created three breaches in the barrier island system off the south shore of Long Island, New York, including one within the Otis Pike Fire Island High Dune Wilderness Area (Fire Island Wilderness) within the Seashore. Managing a breach in designated wilderness is different from managing breaches outside wilderness areas, as the NPS must manage federal wilderness to preserve wilderness character. The existing Breach Contingency Plan is the only guidance currently in effect to address breaches along coastal Long Island from Fire Island Inlet east to Montauk Point but it does not adequately address management of breaches in the Fire Island Wilderness. As a result, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
The NPS released the draft Breach Plan/EIS for public and agency review and comment beginning on October 27, 2016 and ending on December 12, 2016. The draft Breach Plan/EIS evaluated two action alternatives (1 and 3) and the no-action alternative (2). Each alternative presented a different management strategy to address the breach in the Fire Island Wilderness.
•
•
After reviewing and considering all comments received on the draft Breach Plan/EIS, the NPS has prepared the final Breach Plan/EIS. The final Breach Plan/EIS identifies Alternative 3 as the NPS preferred alternative with one change from the draft Breach Plan/EIS. The description of alternative 3 was edited in the final Breach Plan/EIS to include one additional criterion suggested by commenters:
•
Other changes made as a result of comments consisted of clarifying text added to the final Breach Plan/EIS that did not substantively change the range of alternatives considered or the environmental consequences of implementing any of the alternatives. Appendix C of the final Breach Plan/EIS discusses the comments received on the draft Breach Plan/EIS and provides NPS responses to substantive comments.
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on December 13, 2017.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted these reviews on November 1, 2016 (81 FR 75854) and determined on February 6, 2017 that it would conduct full reviews (82 FR 10588, February 14, 2017). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on December 13, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4746 (December 2017), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 20) terminating the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint.
Amanda Fisherow, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be 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, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on March 24, 2017, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Pathway Innovations and Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”) of San Diego, California. 82 FR 15069-70 (March 24, 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 document cameras and software for use therewith by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,508,751. The complaint named IPEVO, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California; AVer Information Inc. of Fremont, California; and Lumens Integrations Inc. (“Lumens”) of Fremont, California as respondents. Lumens was previously terminated from the investigation.
On November 21, 2017, Complainant filed an unopposed motion to terminate the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint.
On November 24, 2017, the ALJ issued an ID granting the unopposed motion. Order No. 20. The ALJ found that Complainant complied with Commission Rule 210.21. Specifically, the Complainant represented that there are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied concerning the subject matter of the investigation. The ALJ also found that termination of the investigation is not contrary to the public interest and there are no extraordinary circumstances that prevent termination of the investigation. No petitions for review were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
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 November 14, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Align Technology, Inc. of San Jose, California. An amended complaint and supplement were filed on December 4, 2017. The amended 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 intraoral scanners and related hardware and software by reason of infringement of one or more of U.S. Patent No. 9,615,901 (“the '901 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,638,448 (“the '448 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,638,447 (“the '447 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,845,175 (“the '175 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 6,334,853 (“the '853 patent”). The amended 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 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
The Office of Docket Services, 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 intraoral scanners and related hardware and software by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-7 and 15-20 of the '901 patent; claims 1-9 and 15-22 of the '448 patent; claims 1-7, 10, 12, and 17-24 of the '447 patent; claims 1-4, 14, 15, and 18-20 of the '175 patent; and claims 1, 3-7, and 9-13 of the '853 patent, 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) The complainant is: Align Technology, Inc., 2820 Orchard Parkway, San Jose, CA 95134.
(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:
(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.
The Chief Administrative Law Judge is authorized to consolidate Inv. No. 337-TA-1090 with Inv. No. 337-TA-1091 if he deems appropriate.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in
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.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encourages and will be accepted for an additional 30 day until January 18, 2018.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Mrs. Amy Blasher, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, CJIS Division, ModuleE-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306; facsimile (304) 625-3566. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
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)
Civil Division, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Division, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 20, 2018.
Written comments concerning this information collection should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: DOJ Desk Officer. The best way to ensure your comments are received is to email them to
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.
On December 12, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged three proposed Consent Decrees with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed Consent Decrees will resolve claims for natural resource damages at the Sheboygan River & Harbor Superfund Site (“Sheboygan River Site”) brought by the governments under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607. The Sheboygan River Site consists of the lower 14 river miles of the Sheboygan River and adjacent floodplain areas. The filed complaint alleges that the three Defendants are liable under CERCLA for historical industrial discharges of polychlorinated biphenyl (“PCB”) and/or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (“PAH”) compounds at the Sheboygan River Site. PCBs and PAHs were identified in river sediments throughout the Site in sufficient concentrations to cause injury to many types of natural resources, including invertebrates, fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals. In addition, PCB and PAH-contaminated natural resources resulted in the loss of recreational fishing services.
Under CERCLA, federal and state natural resource trustees have authority to seek compensation for natural resources harmed by hazardous industrial waste and by-products discharged into the Sheboygan River. The natural resource trustees here include the U.S. Department of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the U.S. Department of Commerce, acting through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (collectively, the “Trustees”).
Under the proposed Consent Decrees, the Defendants will pay a combined $4,523,000, of which $2,532,500 will fund Trustee-sponsored natural resource restoration projects in accordance with the RP/EA, $1,295,500 will be paid to Sheboygan County as partial reimbursement for costs it incurred in acquiring the Amsterdam Dunes restoration project area, and $695,000 will provide reimbursement for costs incurred by the Trustees in assessing the scope of natural resource damages incurred. The RP/EA presents the restoration projects proposed by the Trustees to restore natural resources and services injured by hazardous substances released in and around the Sheboygan River site.
Consistent with the CERCLA natural resource damages assessment and restoration (“NRDAR”) regulations, 43 CFR part 11, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321
Under the preferred alternative, the Trustees envision conducting wetland and riparian restoration; wetland, riparian, and ecologically-associated upland preservation; and recreational enhancement projects within the Sheboygan River Basin within Sheboygan County. This would include preservation and potential restoration of Amsterdam Dunes and Willow Creek.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree and RP/EA.
Comments on the Consent Decrees should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should
During the public comment period, the Consent Decrees may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $46.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For paper copies of the Consent Decrees without the attached RP/EA, the cost is $20.50. For a paper copy of only the RP/EA, the cost is $26.25.
Comments on the RP/EA should be addressed to Betsy M. Galbraith, and reference “Sheboygan RP/EA” in the subject line. All comments on the RP/EA must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:
During the public comment period, the RP/EA may be examined and downloaded at this U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Region Natural Resource Damage Assessment website:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Earth Science Advisory Committee. This Committee reports to the Director, Earth Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Wednesday, January 24, 2018, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., and Thursday, January 25, 2018, 8:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 6H41, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20546.
KarShelia Henderson, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355, fax (202) 358-2779, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the meeting room. This meeting is also available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the USA toll free number 1-888-677-3055 or toll number 1-517-623-4737, passcode 2652931, for both days. The WebEx link is
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA Headquarters security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; passport information (number, country, telephone); visa information (number, type, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees with U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) are asked to provide full name and citizenship status no less than 3 working days in advance by contacting KarShelia Henderson via email at
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice and request for comment.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the following renewals of currently approved collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments should be received on or before February 20, 2018 to be assured consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the information collections to Dawn Wolfgang, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Suite 5080, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; Fax No. 703-519-8579; or Email at
Requests for additional information should be directed to the address above or telephone 703-548-2279.
By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on December 14, 2017.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Confirmatory order; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a confirmatory order (Order) to Global Nuclear Fuels—Americas, L.L.C., (the licensee), confirming the agreement reached in an Alternative Dispute Resolution mediation session held on October 25, 2017. This Order will ensure the licensee restores compliance with NRC's regulations.
The Order was issued on December 14, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0234 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Scott Sparks, Region II, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1257; telephone: 404-997-4422; email:
The text of the Order is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Global Nuclear Fuels—Americas, L.L.C. (GNF-A, or the licensee) is the holder of NRC License No. SNM-1097, issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to Part 70 of Title 10 of the
This Confirmatory Order (CO) is the result of an agreement reached during an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mediation session conducted on October 25, 2017.
NRC Inspection Report (IR) 70-1113/2017-003, dated July 25, 2017, documented a transportation incident occurring in September of 2016, when GNF-A made arrangements with a private industrial contractor to ship a dumpster of scrap metal piping to a local metal recycling facility. On September 29, 2016, the dumpster was loaded onto a truck and shipped offsite to a scrap metal recycling facility, located approximately 15 minutes from GNF-A. Prior to entering the recycling facility, the shipment was checked by a radiation portal monitor as part of the normal receipt process of the scrap metal recycling facility. The dumpster of scrap metal piping from GNF-A caused the radiation portal monitor to alarm. The shipment was not allowed to enter the scrap metal facility, and was returned to GNF-A's facility soon thereafter that same day.
The NRC's IR documented five apparent violations (AVs). Three AVs were considered for escalated enforcement:
1. Failure to make or cause to be made surveys of scrap metal piping prior to its release and transportation as required by 10 CFR 20.1501(a).
2. Failure to comply with applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations appropriate to the mode of transport of contaminated materials as required per 10 CFR 71.5(a).
3. Failure to notify the NRC as required by 10 CFR 20.1906(d)(1) when removable radioactive surface contamination exceeds the limits of 10 CFR 71.87(i).
Two additional non-escalated AVs were also documented in the IR:
4. Failure to perform the monitoring within 3 hours after receiving the shipment back at the site as required by 10 CFR 20.1906(c).
5. Failure to maintain records of surveys as required by 10 CFR 20.2103(a).
In response to the NRC's inspection report of July 25, 2017, GNF-A advised the NRC of its desire to participate in the Agency's ADR program to resolve the enforcement aspects of this matter.
On October 25, 2017, the NRC and GNF-A met in an ADR session mediated by a professional mediator, arranged through Cornell University's Institute on Conflict Resolution. The ADR is a process in which a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority assists the parties in reaching an agreement or resolving any differences regarding their dispute. This CO is issued pursuant to the agreement reached during the ADR process. The elements of the agreement consist of the following:
1. During the ADR, GNF-A expressed agreement with the following four AVs: (1) Failure to make or cause to be made surveys of scrap metal piping prior to its release and transportation as required by 10 CFR 20.1501(a); (2) Failure to comply with applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations appropriate to the mode of transport of contaminated materials as required per 10 CFR 71.5(a); (3) Failure to perform the monitoring within 3 hours after receiving the shipment back at the site as required by 10 CFR 20.1906(c); (4) Failure to maintain records of surveys as required by 10 CFR 20.2103(a).
GNF-A raised reservations regarding the AV associated with notifying the NRC as required by 10 CFR 20.1906(d)(1). In particular, GNF-A questioned whether the circumstances of the contaminated scrap metal required NRC notification per 10 CFR 20.1906(d)(1).
The NRC continues to conclude that this issue represents a violation of 10 CFR 20.1906(d)(1).
At the ADR, the NRC and GNF-A agreed to disagree regarding whether this issue represents a violation of 10 CFR 20.1906(d)(1).
Consequently, within 30 days after the issuance of the CO, GNF-A will make a report to the NRC Operations Center, pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1906(d)(1), stating that the NRC has concluded that GNF-A received a package on September 29, 2016, which had removable radioactive surface contamination on its external surfaces that exceeded the applicable limits set forth in 10 CFR 71.87(i). GNF-A will make this report solely for the purposes of reaching resolution at ADR because it maintains that the removable radioactive surface contamination on the external surfaces of the package (an open metal dumpster) and the removable surface contamination on the scrap pipes contained in the dumpster did not exceed the applicable limits set forth in 10 CFR 71.87(i).
2. The NRC views the safety significance of three violations (i.e., failure to make surveys as required by 10 CFR 20.1501(a), failure to comply with DOT regulations as required by 10 CFR 71.5(a), and failure to notify the NRC as required by 10 CFR 20.1906(d)(1)) as interrelated to one incident and consistent with a Severity Level III problem in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy.
The NRC views the safety significance of two additional violations (i.e., failure to perform the monitoring within 3 hours after receiving the shipment back at the site as required by 10 CFR 20.1906(c), and failure to maintain records of surveys as required by 10 CFR 20.2103(a)) as consistent with Severity Level IV violations in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy.
Based on GNF-A's view of the low actual and potential safety significance of the shipment, GNF-A does not
3. Based on a review of the incident, GNF-A completed a number of corrective actions and enhancements to preclude recurrence of the violations, including but not limited to the following:
a. GNF-A revised its procedures, including, among others:
i. WI-27-105-05 “Control of Radioactive Material,” to clarify survey requirements for the release of radioactive material; and
ii. WI-27-105-08 “Contamination Measurement and Control,” to provide clear instructions on contamination surveys required.
b. GNF-A provided enhanced training to the Radiation Protection Monitors to include:
i. historical knowledge of facility operations; and
ii. survey practices and the need to select the proper survey instrument for the type of contamination expected.
c. GNF-A revised the Senior Radiological Engineer's and the Radiation Protection Manager's qualification cards to require training on historical knowledge of facility operations.
d. GNF-A augmented its recordkeeping process to ensure radiation protection survey records are properly documented and maintained.
e. Senior management communicated lessons learned from this event to the GNF-A and Hitachi Nuclear Energy—Americas, LLC (GEH-A) organizations.
f. GNF-A conducted a Root Cause Analysis of the transportation incident.
g. GEH-A initiated a Nuclear Safety Culture (NSC) assessment of the Wilmington site. The assessment included a survey, interviews, and data trending to include a review of relevant entries into the corrective action program.
4. Based on GNF-A's review of the incident and NRC's concerns with respect to precluding recurrence of the violations, GNF-A agreed to implement the corrective actions and enhancements delineated in Section V of this CO.
5. Within 3 months of completion of the terms of the CO, GNF-A shall provide the NRC with a letter discussing its basis for concluding that the CO has been satisfied.
6. In consideration of GNF-A's completed corrective actions and enhancements, and GNF-A's commitments delineated herein, the NRC agrees to refrain from proposing a civil penalty or issuing a Notice of Violation for all AVs identified in NRC Inspection Report 70-1113/2017-003 (EA-17-090).
7. The NRC and GNF-A agree that the above elements shall be incorporated into a CO.
8. This agreement is binding upon successors and assigns of GNF-A.
On December 7, 2017, GNF-A consented to issuance of this CO with the commitments, as described in Section V below. GNF-A further agreed that this CO is to be effective upon issuance and that it has waived its right to a hearing.
Because GNF-A has taken corrective actions to address NRC concerns, as set forth in Section III above, and has agreed to take additional corrective actions as set forth in Section V below, the NRC has concluded that its concerns can be resolved through issuance of this CO.
I find that GNF-A's commitments as set forth in Section V are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments, the public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that GNF-A's commitments be confirmed by this CO. Based on the above and GNF-A's consent, this CO is effective upon issuance.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 104b., 161b., 161i., 161o., 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR part 70,
1. Consistent with paragraph III (1) above, within thirty (30) days after the issuance of the CO, GNF-A will make a report to the NRC Operations Center, pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1906(d)(1), stating that the NRC has concluded that GNF-A received a package on September 29, 2016, which had removable radioactive surface contamination on its external surfaces that exceeded the applicable limits set forth in 10 CFR 71.87(i).
2. Within one (1) year after issuance of the CO, GNF-A shall install a vehicle portal monitor with a sensitivity to detect vehicle surface radiation levels specified in 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(2). GNF-A agrees to continue to perform surveys for unrestricted release in accordance with the License Application Section 1.3.2. Procedures shall be developed and implemented to ensure that all non-manifested vehicle shipments from the Controlled Access Area are monitored and to validate, investigate, and to respond to alarms prior to releasing shipments off-site. Once installed, if for any reason the vehicle portal monitor is not available, compensatory measures shall be taken by GNF-A to detect non-manifested vehicle shipments in excess of radiation levels of 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(2).
3. Within sixty (60) days of issuance of the CO, or within 60 days of completion of the NSC assessment referenced in Section III.3.g, whichever is later, GNF-A shall make the results of the assessment available to the NRC for review.
4. Approximately two (2) years (+/−6 months) after issuance of the CO, GNF-A shall conduct a NSC assessment of the GNF-A organization by a third party independent of GNF-A who is experienced with NRC nuclear safety culture and safety conscious work environment policies. GNF-A shall compare the results of this assessment to the results of the assessment performed under Section III.3.g of this CO in an effort to identify trends. Corrective actions arising from the assessment and comparison will be entered into the corrective action program and tracked to completion. GNF-A shall make results of the final assessment and comparison available to the NRC for review.
5. Within nine (9) months of issuance of the CO, GNF-A shall augment, with the assistance of an individual independent of GNF-A who is experienced with NRC nuclear safety culture and safety conscious work environment policies, its existing training for all workers with unescorted access to the GNF-A Controlled Access Area, that reinforces nuclear safety culture traits emphasizing questioning attitude, problem identification, effective corrective actions, and effective self-assessment. Training records shall be retained consistent with applicable GNF-A record retention policies and shall be made available to the NRC upon request. New employees shall complete the training prior to the granting of unescorted access to GNF-A. This training shall be provided on an annual basis, for at least three years after issuance of the CO.
6. Within one (1) year after the issuance of the CO, GNF-A shall conduct a benchmark assessment of the GNF-A Radiation Protection Program (RPP) with at least two external RPP organizations in the Fuel Cycle industry, to identify and implement, as GNF-A deems appropriate, best practices and enhancements to increase the effectiveness of its RP program. The benchmark assessment shall be performed by an individual or entity
7. Within one (1) year after issuance of the CO, GNF-A shall expand its Difference of Professional Opinion process to include all technical safety matters related to GNF-A licensed activities.
8. Within one (1) year of issuance of the CO, existing GNF-A supervisors engaged in licensed facility (SNM-1097) activities, as of the date of issuance of the CO, will complete initial Front Line Supervisor Nuclear Safety Leadership training, which will be informed by INPO 04-003, Guidelines for Effective Nuclear Supervisor Performance. For a period of 3 years after issuance of the CO, new GNF-A frontline supervisors engaged in licensed facility (SNM-1097) activities shall complete this training within 6 months of assuming supervisory responsibilities. GNF-A shall make the training materials available to the NRC for review.
9. Within three (3) months of completion of the terms of the CO, GNF-A shall provide the NRC with a letter discussing its basis for concluding that the CO has been satisfied.
The Regional Administrator, Region II, may relax or rescind, in writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by GNF-A of good cause.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR 2.309, any person adversely affected by this CO, other than GNF-A, may request a hearing within 30 calendar days of the date of issuance of this CO. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
If a person (other than GNF-A) requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this CO and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this CO should be sustained.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be final 30 days from the date of this CO without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from November 18, 2017, to December 4, 2017. The last biweekly notice was published on December 5, 2017.
Comments must be filed by January 18, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by February 20, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0232, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0232, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The `B' Train NSWS and supported equipment will remain fully operable during the 14 day CT [completion time]. The alignment of the `A' Train NSWS will remain consistent with the NSWS normal and ESFAS [engineered safety features actuation system] alignment. Although not fully operable the `A' Train NSWS and its supported equipment will be capable of performing their functions during the 14 day CT.
The `A' NSWS and supported equipment function as accident mitigators. Removing `A' Train SNSWP supply piping from service for a limited period of time does not affect any accident initiator and therefore cannot change the probability of an accident. The proposed changes and the `A' Train NSWS repair evolution have been evaluated to assess their impact on the systems affected and ensure design basis safety functions are preserved.
The risk analysis for the proposed [NSWS] alignment during the 14 day CT shows no delta risk for any ESF [engineered safety feature] actuation event that does not involve an earthquake. The most significant risk contributor is a seismic event with a magnitude great enough to cause the failure of Cowan's Ford dam and subsequent loss of Lake Norman or LLI [low level intake] during the 14 day CT. The estimated Incremental Conditional Core Damage Probability (ICCDP) due to the seismic event is much less than the limits associated with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
In addition, as previously stated, a Seismic Fragility Assessment of the McGuire Low Level Intake Water Pipeline in December of 2011 indicates that the dam and water supply would withstand a SSE [safe shutdown earthquake]. Therefore for the short duration of this proposed alignment the increase in risk is deemed to be negligible.
Risk associated with tornado/high winds was assessed. The months of November through February have been the seasonal low for tornado frequency. This evolution is currently scheduled for the spring February 2018 time frame. The risk contribution from tornado and high wind events is negligible during the proposed NSWS configuration described in this LAR [license amendment request] and therefore, the calculated Core Damage Frequency (CDF) or the Large Early Release [Frequency] (LERF) contribution due to high wind and tornado events is negligible with respect to overall risk. The activities covered by this LAR also include a defense-in-depth action to cease activities and close the personnel access opening in the event of a tornado warning. Weather patterns will be monitored and this activity will be modified if tornado/high wind conditions become imminent.
The overall increase in risk for the 14 day CT is solely due to the seismic event which results in a loss of Lake Norman or LLI. However, this risk is reduced by the defense in depth strategy described in the LAR that provides a contingency for the loss of a `B' Train NSWS pump after the loss of the Lake Norman water supply. This defense in depth contingency effectively offsets the unavailability of the `A' Train NSWS SNSWP supply.
In addition, pre-aligning the `B' Train NSWS to the SNSWP water supply in advance of the proposed activities prevents the introduction of potential equipment failures during an ESFAS demanded transfer. This action also eliminates the time it would take operators to perform the transfer following a seismic event.
The quantified impact of defense in depth measures and compensatory actions on CDF/LERF cannot be precisely determined, yet it is agreed that the implementation of these actions would only serve to improve these risk parameters.
Not included in the overall risk evaluation is the additional margin identified by the Fragility Assessment discussed previously that concluded that the Lake Norman Dam and LLI would survive a SSE.
As stated in NRC Generic Letter 80-30, “Clarification of the Term `Operable' as it Applies to Single Failure Criterion for Safety Systems Required by TS,” there is no requirement to assume a single failure while operating under a Technical Specification (TS) required action. Therefore, there will be no effect on the analysis of any accident or the progression of the accident since the operable [nuclear service water (NSW)] `B' train is capable of serving 100 percent of all the required heat loads. As such, there is no impact on consequence mitigation for any transient or accident.
In light of the above discussion, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment is the one time extension of the required CTs from 72 hours for the ECCS, CSS, NSWS, AFW, CCW and the EDG [emergency diesel generator] systems and from 168 hours for the CRAVS and ABFVES systems to 336 hours. The requested change does not involve the addition or removal of any plant system, structure, or component.
The proposed temporary TS changes do not affect the basic design, operation, or function of any of the systems associated with the TS impacted by the amendment. Implementation of the proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from that previously evaluated.
McGuire intends to isolate, inspect, and repair the `A' Train NSWS supply from the SNSWP. This activity will require that `A' Train NSW be aligned to Lake Norman until the system is ready for post maintenance testing. This action maintains the NSW `A' Train's normal and automatic alignment to Lake Norman but will result in the inability to manually align the `A' Train NSWS to the SNSWP subsequent to a seismic event that results in damage to the supply piping from Lake Norman or the highly improbable loss of Lake Norman.
Although considered inoperable, the `A' Train NSWS and supported systems will be technically capable of performing their intended functions. Throughout the repair project, compensatory measures will be in place to provide additional assurance that the affected systems will continue to be capable of performing their intended safety functions.
No new accident causal mechanisms are created as a result of the requested changes creating the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
In conclusion, this proposed LAR does not impact any plant systems that are accident initiators and does not impact any safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission
Additionally, the proposed amendment does not involve a change in the design or operation of the plant. The activity only extends the amount of time the `A' NSW system is allowed to be inoperable to correct the non-conforming condition on the `A' NSWS supply piping from the SNSWP. As stated previously, the `A' Train NSWS and supported equipment will remain in its Normal and ESFAS alignment during the extended CT and be functionally capable for all postulated events except a seismic event that results in loss of the Lake Norman water supply.
Defense-in-depth measures involving use of the Main Supply Crossover piping to supply suction to affected unit's `A' Train NSWS pump from the `B' train SNSWP suction piping and the ability to implement the FLEX strategy on both units provide additional safety margin for this event. Use of the Main Supply Crossover line is only needed in the unlikely event that one unit's `B' Train NSWS pump fails after loss of `A' Train NSWS due to an earthquake.
The estimated ICCDP during the 14 day CT extension is much less than the limits associated with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The application also included similar requests for Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2. However, these requests are being reviewed separately and are not within the scope of this notice.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change addresses conditions during which the secondary containment SRs are not met. The secondary containment is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated while utilizing the proposed changes are no different than the consequences of an accident while utilizing the existing four-hour Completion Time (
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not alter the protection system design, create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant; and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change addresses conditions during which the secondary containment SRs are not met. Conditions in which the secondary containment vacuum is less than the required vacuum are acceptable provided the conditions do not affect the ability of the SGT [standby gas treatment] System to establish the required secondary containment vacuum under post-accident conditions within the time assumed in the accident analysis. This condition is incorporated in the proposed change by requiring an analysis of actual environmental and secondary containment pressure conditions to confirm the capability of the SGT System is maintained within the assumptions of the accident analysis.
Therefore, the safety function of the secondary containment is not affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No physical changes to the facility will occur as a result of this proposed amendment. The proposed change will not alter the physical design. The current Note in Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.2 could make Low Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) susceptible to potential water hammer in the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system if in the Shutdown Cooling (SDC) Mode of RHR in Mode 3 when swapping from the SDC to LPCI mode of RHR.
The proposed change will remove the TS Note and eliminate the risk for pump cavitation, water hammer through voiding in the suction piping, and potential damage to the RHR system.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not alter the physical design, safety limits, or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the plant. Accordingly, the change does not introduce any new accident initiators, nor does it reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of any plant structure, system, or component to perform their safety function. Deletion of the TS Note is appropriate because current TSs could put the plant at risk for potential pump cavitation and voiding in the suction piping, resulting in water hammer and potential damage to the RHR system.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change conforms to NRC regulatory guidance regarding the content of plant Technical Specifications. The proposed change does not alter the physical design, safety limits, or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the plant.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs [operation with a potential for draining the reactor vessels] with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.4. Draining of Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) water inventory in Mode 4 (cold shutdown) and Mode 5 (refueling) is not an accident previously evaluated and, therefore, replacing the existing TS controls to prevent or mitigate such an event with a new set of controls has no effect on any accident previously evaluated. RPV water inventory control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or the proposed RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions assumed in any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event. The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event.
The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of water injection and additional confirmations that containment and/or filtration would be available if needed.
The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond to a draining event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.4. The proposed change will not alter the design function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no different than if those systems were unable to perform their function under the current TS requirements.
The event of concern under the current requirements and the proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change does not create new failure
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.4. New requirements are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water inventory could drain to the TAF in the reactor vessel should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety and to add safety margin.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Specifically, the requested amendment proposes changes to TS to allow Reactor Coolant System vacuum fill operations in cold shutdown (
Additionally, the requested amendment proposes to depart from plant-specific AP1000 DCD Tier 2 information, as incorporated into the UFSAR, and also involves departure from Tier 1 Design Descriptions and Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria related to inspecting the volume in the containment that allows for floodup to support long-term core cooling for postulated loss-of-coolant accidents.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not adversely affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events.
The proposed changes do not affect the physical design and operation of the CMTs [Core Makeup Tanks], ADS [Automatic Depressurization System] valves, or ESFAS [Engineered Safety Features Actuation System] as described in the UFSAR. Inadvertent operation or failure of the ADS valves are considered as accident initiators or part of an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously evaluated. However, the proposed changes do not adversely affect the probability of inadvertent operation or failure. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
The proposed changes do not affect the ability of the CMTs, ADS valves, or ESFAS to perform their design functions. The designs of the CMTs, ADS valves, and ESFAS continue to meet the same regulatory acceptance criteria, codes, and standards as required by the UFSAR. In addition, the proposed changes maintain the capabilities of the CMTs, ADS valves, and ESFAS to mitigate the consequences of an accident and to meet the applicable regulatory acceptance criteria.
The proposed changes do not affect the prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events (
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created.
The proposed changes do not affect any other SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or nonsafety related equipment. Therefore, this activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that result in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The proposed changes verify and maintain the capabilities of the CMTs, ADS valves, or ESFAS to perform their design functions. Therefore, the proposed changes satisfy the same design functions in accordance with the same codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. These changes do not affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The proposed changes would revise the licensing basis description of an administrative program to manage a limited quantity of unqualified inorganic zinc coatings in Service Level I areas of the containment. The requested amendment also involves related changes to plant-specific Tier 1 Table 2.2.3-4, inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria information, with corresponding changes to the associated COL Appendix C information.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the operation or reliability of any system, structure or component (SSC) required to maintain a normal power operating condition or to mitigate anticipated transients without safety-related systems. The existence or failure of an unqualified coating in a Service Level I area could not initiate an accident previously evaluated. Safe shutdown using nonsafety-related systems is achieved without significant containment steaming, and does not rely on containment heat transfer or containment recirculation. The proposed changes do not affect the operation of equipment whose failure could initiate an accident previously analyzed. The existence or failure of unqualified coatings in Service Level I areas does not affect normal equipment operation. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect the reliability or function of an SSC relied upon to mitigate an accident previously analyzed. A coating nonconformance that could adversely affect the reliability or function of the containment vessel would not be accepted under the quality assurance (QA) program arrangements. The existence of unqualified coatings in Service Level I areas will not adversely affect the heat transfer through the containment vessel. The existence or failure of unqualified coatings in Service Level I areas will not adversely affect passive core cooling system (PXS) performance during containment recirculation because the total allowable amount of unqualified coating is restricted to within analyzed limits. Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of systems or equipment that could initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created. Under the existing quality assurance arrangements (procedures, policies, processes, etc.), nonconformances that adversely affect reliability or function of a safety-related SSC would not be accepted. The proposed changes do not affect the physical design and operation of the containment vessel or the PXS. The existence or failure of an unqualified coating in a Service Level I area as controlled by the quality assurance program nonconformance disposition process for managing unqualified coatings could not create new failure modes, new malfunctions, or change a sequence of events such that a new or different kind of accident is created.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes do not affect existing safety margins. The heat transfer capabilities and structural integrity of the containment vessel are maintained with the proposed changes. The safety injection and containment recirculation functions of the PXS and containment vessel are maintained with the proposed changes. Management of coatings continues to comply with recommended industry standards and with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.54. The existence of unqualified coatings in Service Level I areas will not require revision to any safety analysis or safety margin. Because the quantity of unqualified coatings will be restricted to within analyzed limits, no safety analysis or design basis acceptance criterion is challenged or exceeded due to the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 20, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated November 7, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 1, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 28, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 22, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated August 22, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated October 12, 2017.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendment. The Commission has determined for this amendment that the application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License or Combined License, as applicable, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 26, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recently filed Postal Service notice of intention to change prices not of general applicability to be effective January 1, 2018. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On December 12, 2017, the Postal Service filed notice announcing its intention to change prices not of general applicability for Inbound Parcel Post (at Universal Postal Union (UPU) Rates) effective January 1, 2018.
To accompany its Notice, the Postal Service filed: A redacted copy of the UPU International Bureau (IB) Circular that contains the new prices; a copy of the certification required under 39 CFR 3015.5(c)(2); documentation in support of inflation-linked adjustment for the new prices; and redacted copies of Governors' Decisions 14-04 and 11-6.
The Postal Service also filed unredacted copies of Governors' Decisions 14-04 and 11-6, an unredacted copy of the new prices, and related financial information under seal.
The Postal Service states that it has provided supporting documentation as required by Order Nos. 2102 and 2310.
The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2018-84 for consideration of matters raised by the Notice.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, and 39 CFR part 3015. Comments are due no later than December 21, 2017. The public portions of the filing can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission appoints Katalin K. Clendenin to serve as Public Representative in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2018-84 for consideration of the matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Katalin K. Clendenin is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than December 21, 2017.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
This notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's connectivity fees at Chapter VIII of the Phlx Pricing Schedule to provide a waiver of all connectivity fees to new PSX Participants for a limited time
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's connectivity fees under “Port Fees” at Chapter VIII of the Nasdaq PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule to provide a waiver of all such fees to new PSX Participants for a limited time. Port fees include the choices for connecting to PSX and receipt of data therefrom, together with the fees assessed for that connectivity. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to waive all Port Fees for every Participant that is a “new PSX Participant” through December 31, 2018. The Exchange is defining a “new PSX Participant” as a Participant that was not a Participant before September 1, 2017. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee waiver will make PSX a more attractive venue for prospective Participants. The Exchange notes that its proposal is similar to one that it implemented previously to attract new Participants.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable because it will limit the overall costs incurred by new Participants in connecting to the Exchange, which may as a consequence attract new Participants. Attracting new Participants will benefit all market participants on PSX by ensuring that PSX remains deep and liquid. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly apply the same fee to all similarly situated Participants. In this regard, the Exchange is proposing to apply the fee waiver to new PSX Participants, which the Exchange proposes to define as a
Limiting eligibility for the fee waiver, as described, will ensure that the waiver is tailored to and effective in its purpose of attracting new Participants. Waiving the fees for new Participants will ease the burden of participating on PSX, which may be a significant reason that such market participants have historically declined to become Participants. Thus, to the extent this waiver is successful, the proposed change will broaden participation on PSX, which will benefit all Participants by providing more liquidity.
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 readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the proposed changes generally reduce the fee burdens on Participants in an effort to attract and retain Participants, which benefits all market participants on PSX to the extent the incentives are effective.
The Exchange notes that participation on PSX is completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. Thus, to the extent that the proposed changes to the connectivity fees proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share and Participants 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.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (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 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”)
LCH SA is proposing to adopt an updated wind down plan (the “WDP”) in accordance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii). The text of the proposed rule change has been annexed as Exhibit 5. LCH SA has requested confidential treatment of the material submitted as Exhibit 5.
In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA 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. LCH SA 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 Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) adopted amendments to Rule 17Ad-22
LCH SA is 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). The CCA rules require that covered clearing agencies, among other things: “establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to . . . maintain 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 . . . includes plans for the recovery and orderly wind-down of the covered clearing agency necessitated by credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, losses from general business risk, or any other losses.”
As a central counterparty recognized under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (“EMIR”), LCH SA is also required to have in place relevant recovery and wind down mechanisms required under EMIR.
As a credit institution based in the European Union, LCH SA is also subject to Directive 2014/59/EU, as supplemented, requiring institutions to draw up and maintain recovery plans setting forth options for measures to be taken by the institution to restore its financial position following a significant deterioration of its financial position.
Accordingly, as described in more detailed below, the purpose of the WDP is to ensure an orderly wind down of the CCP under extreme circumstances and to limit market impact as much as possible, should the recovery plan (the “RP”)
The WDP sets out the steps that LCH SA would follow to close its clearing services and shut down the company. The plan demonstrates how LCH SA, as it exists today, can achieve this orderly wind down within six (6) months.
In addition, LCH SA holds capital, funded by equity, equal to the operating expenses for a six (6) month period. The WDP demonstrates that the wind down cost remains inferior to the necessary amount.
The WDP would first determine the triggers for winding down and the relationship between Recovery, Resolution and Wind down. In these extreme circumstances, the CCP would first trigger the recovery plan. The WDP would be triggered by LCH SA if, the recovery tools having been exhausted and having failed, the only solutions left for LCH SA would be to wind down its clearing services and close the company.
The triggers are only briefly presented in the WDP since they are described in detail in the RP. They consider Clearing Member Defaults losses well above the CCPs financial resources; Clearing Member Defaults creating large liquidity shortfalls and Non Clearing Members Defaults impacting capital adequacy or creating liquidity shortfalls. This could be caused by large risks such as operational events, custody and investment risks or large business risks. The WDP would be triggered by LCH SA if, the recovery tools having been exhausted and having failed, the only solution for LCH SA would be to wind down its clearing services and close the company.
The WDP would not consider any other case such as a voluntary wind down not being triggered by one of the above extreme circumstances.
The WDP would then describe the governance for triggering the plan. The decision to wind down would be taken by the Board and ultimately the shareholders' meeting upon advice of the Executive Risk Committee (“ERCo”) and Local Management Committee (“LMC”). The implementation of the WDP would be monitored by the LCH SA LMC or Default Crisis Management Team (“DCMT”), the executive committee in charge of the coordination of defaults.
The regulatory authorities would be consulted before such a decision is taken and the French
LCH SA being a credit institution, it could be subject to a resolution regime decided by the ACPR whilst conducting its recovery plan and before a wind down would be decided by the company. In that case, the decision to wind down as well the process to be followed would be decided by the resolution authority.
The plan would then define a certain number of assumptions. It would firstly assume that the CCP as it stands today would be wound down until its full closure, although it is likely that in the phases preceding the plan, some businesses would have been either closed or scaled down. It also makes other assumptions that allows continuation of business for some time and proper closing such as the fact that LCH SA would keep its banking license and continue to have full access to the central bank or that suppliers, which would continue to be paid, would continue to offer a service.
In line with the RP, the WDP would present a mapping of the functions and particularly distinguishes between the clearing functions, which are all considered as critical, the critical supporting functions and the other non-critical functions.
The plan would then describe the closure of the clearing services. The closure of CDSClear is covered in Article 2.4.3.1 of CDS Clearing Rule book and in the Clause 8 of Appendix 1. It specifies that LCH SA would
The closing of the business would be done through cash settlement and the repayments amounts would be paid by LCH SA and the clearing members on the business following notification.
The WDP would then describe how critical supporting functions would be closed. The treasury function would close once all clearing services have been terminated and all monies paid by LCH SA and/or the clearing members. Once wind down is decided, cash would not be invested anymore but deposited at the central bank or possibly invested in same day repos. Operations, IT production, and Risk teams would be kept until all positions are closed. At that moment, the majority of staff in these areas would not be required any more.
It has to be noted that the WDP would list all contracts with external providers, including venues and IT companies to which LCH SA has outsourced services. They contain wind down provisions, enabling LCH SA to exit these contracts under specific conditions.
Non critical support functions such as Finance, Compliance, Audit etc. would start being scaled down immediately after the decision is taken to wind down. The path at which each department is expected to reduce its workforce is specified in the plan. Consultation with the LCH SA's staff representatives (works council) would start immediately in order to ensure a proper departure of permanent staff in line with French law and regulations and those of the countries in which LCH SA has branches/representative offices. Staff approach for winding down would be described in more detail in the WDP.
The WDP would contain an overall timeline of the full wind down process. This plan shows that LCH SA would be in a position to close the company within six (6) months as required by applicable regulations.
The WDP would also contain an appendix describing into more details the communication processes that would be followed both internal and external. It specifies that the wind down notice would be published on the LCH SA website and the teams within LCH SA and the LSEG group that would be responsible for each type of communications.
Separately from the WDP, but in line with the processes and timeline described in the WDP, LCH SA calculates the costs required for a wind down. It encompasses staff salaries, indemnities for staff departure, cost to be paid to suppliers during notice periods and more generally all foreseeable costs that would be due in case of a wind down event. The final figure is reported in the WDP and shows that overall costs is significantly below the liquid assets held by LCH SA for that purpose and corresponding to six (6) months of operational expenses.
The first version of the WDP was adopted in 2014 and is reviewed on an annual basis. It is approved by the LCH SA Risk Committee, LMC and the Board.
The WDP, which was approved by the Board on November 22nd 2017, has been annexed as Exhibit 5. LCH SA has requested confidential treatment of the plan as Exhibit 5, however the main characteristics are described above and a self comprehensive disclosure, as required by SEC Rule 17AD-22(e)(23), has been published on the LCH website in April 2017.
LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Specifically, in accordance with the requirement in Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii), LCH SA has established a WDP which describes the scenarios and events that may threaten its ability to continue to provide critical
LCH SA has an obligation to guarantee the continuous performance of critical service towards the market and, as such, will not request to enact a wind down without an important triggering event that would cause a failed recovery or a resolution situation. Scenarios have been categorised into the following for the purposes of assessing the effectiveness of the recovery tools and to identify the actions required for the WDP:
• Member default losses resulting in uncovered credit losses or liquidity shortfalls;
• Non-default losses that threaten LCH SA's solvency, arising from general business risks, custody and investment risks, any other large operational risks caused by caused by a human or system failure and
• Uncovered liquidity shortfall associated to these risks.
LCH SA has adopted a Recovery Plan (“RP”) with an updated version submitted separately to the SEC.
The plan describes the governance for triggering the wind down and the approval steps required. The triggering of the plan will have to be decided by LCH SA and LCH Group Boards as well as by a shareholders' meeting. It will have to be approved by ACPR unless LCH SA has already closed down all its clearing activities.
It is to be noted that the plan could be also triggered by the resolution authorities as part of the resolution toolkit if LCH SA has been put into resolution.
From a legal point of view, the WDP would be supported by the Article 2.4.3.1 of the CDS Clearing Rule Book, clause 8 and 8.7 of Appendix 1 of the CDS Clearing Rule Book. It is also supported by similar clauses in the Fixed Income and Cash and Derivatives RuleBook for these business lines. All agreements concluded by LCH SA, particularly with its suppliers and trading venue include wind down clauses.
From an operational point of view, the WDP is supported by detailed procedures where required. They have however not been attached to the plan as they are not specific to wind down. They are tested during default fire drills, to verify their applicability and ensure regular training of staff.
From a financial point of view, the WDP is supported by highly liquid assets equivalent to 6 months' worth of Operational expenses. The plan would show that the cost of closure is inferior to that amount.
The plan would take into account the fact that a closure of the CCP could be very disruptive for the market, therefore, in a non member default situation and
Moreover, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i) requires a covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to determine the amount of liquid net assets funded by equity based upon its general business risk profile and the length of time required to achieve a recovery or orderly wind-down, as appropriate, of its critical operations and services if such action is taken.
LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with this requirement as the plan demonstrates how LCH can achieve an orderly wind down within six (6) months. LCH holds capital, funded by equity, equal to the operating expenses for the six month period required to wind down. The capital is invested in cash or highly liquid securities which could be easily mobilised, even in extreme circumstances. LCH bases its calculation on the latest audited expenses.
The cost to wind down is inferior to this amount. It would take into account the salaries to be paid to staff until they leave the company and include termination costs. Similarly, it takes into account the costs that would have to be paid to external service providers until the service is no longer required. Each contract contains wind down clauses which limit the exit costs that SA would have to pay. Where they exist, they are included in the overall wind down costs. Legal costs that LCH would face in such extreme circumstances cannot be evaluated and have not been included. However, the current overall cost of winding down is very significantly under the 6 months equivalent of Operational Expenses and therefore could accommodate unforeseen costs.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii) requires a clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for holding liquid net assets funded by equity equal to the greater of either six months of its current operating expenses or the amount determined by the board of directors to be sufficient to ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and services of the covered clearing agency, as contemplated by the plans established under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
LCH SA believes that its proposed WDP meet this requirement given the demonstration that LCH SA can achieve an orderly wind down within six (6) months and at a cost lower than the six (6) months of Operational expenses that it holds in cash or highly liquid securities.
Reviews of the WDP take place annually and where appropriate are aligned to existing annual market exercise regimes (
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed rule change would establish and maintain LCH SA's WDP in accordance with and for the purposes of the CCA rules. The Plan would not affect clearing member's access to services offered by LCH SA or impose any direct burden on clearing members.
In the extreme case in which LCH SA would have to wind down, and the business line is not suffering clearing losses, the same amount of time would be given to all the Clearing Members to close their positions at LCH SA. In addition, the plan determines that the clearing services would be closed globally, all members being treated identically.
Accordingly, the proposed rule change would not unfairly inhibit market participant's access to LCH SA's services or disadvantage or favor any particular user in relationship to another user.
Therefore, LCH SA does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written comments received by LCH SA.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2017-013 and should
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 12, 2017, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-OCC-2017-009 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
This proposed rule change by OCC will formalize OCC's Counterparty Credit Risk Management Policy (“CCRM Policy”). The proposed rule change does not require any changes to the text of OCC's By-Laws or Rules.
OCC stated that, as a central counterparty (“CCP”) providing clearance, settlement, and risk management services, it is exposed to and must manage a range of risks, including credit risk. According to OCC, the purpose of the CCRM Policy is to outline OCC's overall approach to identify, measure, monitor, and manage its exposures to direct and indirect participants, Liquidity Providers,
The CCRM Policy outlines the key components of OCC's framework for identifying, measuring, monitoring, and managing OCC's exposures to its Counterparties. This framework includes: (1) The identification of credit risk, (2) Counterparty access and participation standards, (3) the measurement of Counterparty exposures, (4) the monitoring and managing of Counterparty exposures, and (5) voluntary termination of Counterparty relationships. Each of these components is described in more detail below.
The CCRM Policy identifies various ways in which credit risk originates from the failure of a Counterparty to perform. With respect to a Clearing Member, the CCRM Policy details a number of different ways in which OCC may be exposed to credit risk. This includes the potential failure of a Clearing Member to pay for purchased options, to meet expiration-related settlement obligations, or to make certain mark-to-market variation payments or initial margin deposits. It also includes the potential insufficiency of a defaulting Clearing Member's margin and Clearing Fund deposits in a liquidation scenario. Other sources of credit risk identified in the CCRM Policy include the inability of OCC to access collateral (
Under the CCRM Policy, OCC's management of Counterparty credit risks begins with an initial evaluation process intended to ascertain that Counterparties meet certain minimum financial and operational standards and are considered as having a low probability of defaulting on their obligations prior to engaging or effecting any new transactions or expansion of business with OCC. To accomplish this objective, OCC evaluates each Counterparty against established minimum standards of creditworthiness, overall financial condition, and operational capabilities. Pursuant to the Policy, the standards used to evaluate Counterparties shall be objective, risk-based, and publicly-disclosed to permit fair and open access. These standards shall be developed independently for Clearing Members, Commercial and Central Banks, investment counterparties, Liquidity Providers and FMUs, accounting for differences in their regulatory reporting and overall business operations.
OCC's minimum participation standards for Clearing Member are
OCC's minimum standards for asset custodians, settlement banks, letter of credit issuers, and investment counterparties are found in OCC Rule 604 and relevant OCC procedures. The Credit Risk Management Department shall coordinate with various departments (such as Collateral Services or Treasury) to evaluate each bank against the minimum standards of creditworthiness and for its overall financial condition and operational capabilities as provided in OCC Rule 604 and related OCC procedures. Such evaluation shall also consider the Counterparty's aggregation of exposure on an individual and related-entities level, as applicable, as well as whether OCC would be able to structure its custodial relationships in a manner that allows prompt access to its own and its Clearing Members' assets. The latter shall include holding assets at supervised and regulated institutions that adhere to generally accepted accounting practices, maintain safekeeping procedures, and have internal controls that fully protect these assets. Under the Policy, Credit Risk Management and either the Collateral Services or Treasury Department, as applicable, shall document the results of its evaluation in a memorandum, including the bank's ability to meet relevant participation standards, and report those results to OCC's Executive Chairman, Chief Operating Officer or Chief Administrative Officer, each of which shall have the authority to approve new and expanded relationships with asset custodians, settlement banks, letter of credit issuers, investment counterparties, and Liquidity Providers.
Under the Policy, OCC maintains internal procedures outlining the minimum standards for Commercial Banks
Under the Policy, OCC maintains internal procedures outlining minimum standards for FMUs. OCC's Business Operations and Credit Risk Management Departments shall evaluate each FMU for its overall financial condition and operational capabilities as provided in the procedure. Pursuant to the CCRM Policy, before entering into a link with any FMU, the Legal Department shall assist the aforementioned business units to identify legal risks relating to rights and interests, collateral arrangements, settlement finality and netting arrangements, and financial and custody risks. The Business Operations, Credit Risk Management, and Legal Departments shall document the results of its evaluation in a memorandum, including the FMU's ability to meet relevant standards. All new and expanded FMU relationships shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Committee and subsequently recommended for approval to the Board of Directors.
The CCRM Policy describes various ways in which OCC measures the credit risk posed by different Counterparties. With respect to Clearing Members, the CCRM Policy provides that OCC measures its credit exposures to Clearing Members under normal market conditions through the calculation of margin requirements and under extreme but plausible conditions through stress testing and the calculation of Clearing Fund requirements, in accordance with applicable OCC policies. Margin, Clearing Fund, and stress test results may be used by OCC's Financial Risk Management Department (“FRM”) to evaluate OCC's counterparty credit risk framework and inform Clearing Member surveillance processes.
With respect to Commercial Banks, Central Banks,
FMUs provide a range of services to OCC, including the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) as collateral custodian and provider of book-entry recordkeeping of securities transfers, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME”) and ICE Clear U.S. as cross-margin clearing organizations, and the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) as a provider of securities settlement. Under the CCRM Policy, DTC credit exposures shall be measured by the collateral balances held and the value of securities lending/borrowing transactions facilitated. CME and ICE Clear U.S. credit exposures shall be measured by the projected margin impact in the event of suspension of a cross-margin program and, therefore, the absence of risk reducing positions cleared away from OCC. NSCC exposure shall be measured by the value of securities and cash to be settled in connection with the delivery obligations settled through NSCC.
The CCRM Policy also describes the manner in which OCC monitors and manages credit risk from its Counterparties. Under the Policy, OCC's monitoring and management of such risks is comprised of “Watch Level Reporting” processes in conjunction with other tools including margin adjustments, internal credit ratings, risk examinations, and monitoring of tiered participation arrangements and dormant Counterparties.
Under the Policy, Counterparties are monitored by OCC's FRM, Business Operations, and Treasury Departments for ongoing compliance with the minimum participation standards described above to identify any trends that might signal the deterioration of a Counterparty's ability to timely meet its obligations. When these trends are identified, Credit Risk Management shall report on a Counterparty through OCC's Watch Level Reporting processes, which are described in further detail below. As a Counterparty approaches, or no longer meets minimum standards, FRM's monitoring heightens and, in the case of Commercial Banks and Clearing Members, increasingly rigorous protective measures may be imposed to limit or eliminate OCC's credit exposure.
Pursuant to the Policy, the Watch Level Reporting process shall be administered by OCC's Management Committee, which maintains approval authority of Watch Level parameter changes. The Watch Level Reporting process provides each of the Executive Chairman, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Administrative Officer with authority to take action to protect OCC given the facts and circumstances of the exposure presented by a Clearing Member or Commercial Bank. Under the Policy, Credit Risk Management shall provide monthly internal reporting to FRM summarizing the circumstances relating to (i) a violation; (ii) additional risks observed and any corrective measure taken by any Clearing Member, Commercial Bank, or FMU at or above Watch Level II (described below); and (iii) monthly reporting to OCC's Credit and Liquidity Risk Working Group, Management Committee, and the Risk Committee of any Clearing Member or Commercial Bank at or above Watch Level III (described below).
Pursuant to the CCRM Policy, the Clearing Member Watch Level Reporting process and Bank Watch Level Reporting process shall support initial and on-going participation standards by allowing OCC's Credit Risk Management Department, with the support of other FRM business units, Business Operations and Treasury, to detect business-related concerns and/or financial or operational deterioration of a Counterparty to protect OCC and its Clearing Members against the potential default of a Clearing Member or Commercial Bank. Pursuant to the CCRM Policy, the Clearing Member Watch Level Reporting process and Bank Watch Level Reporting process shall be organized into a four-tiered surveillance structure.
•
•
•
•
In addition, under the Policy, if a Clearing Member is reporting that its aggregate uncollateralized stress test exposure under normal market conditions, minus the sum of base expected shortfall and stress test charges as computed under OCC's margin methodology, exceeds 75% of the Clearing Member's excess net capital, then the Clearing Member shall be identified and reported on Watch Level II. When this exposure exceeds 100% of net capital, a Clearing Member shall be identified and reported on Watch Level III and shall be subject to a margin call for the amount of exposure exceeding net capital. A margin call shall be the standard form of protective measures for position risk monitoring and shall not require officer approval or further prompt escalation. However, Clearing Members may be reported to the Executive Chairman, Chief Operating
The FMU Watch Level Reporting process allows Credit Risk Management, with the support of other FRM business units and Business Operations, to detect business-related concerns and/or financial or operational deterioration of a FMU. Pursuant to the CCRM Policy, the FMU Watch Level Reporting process is organized into a two-tiered surveillance structure.
•
•
In addition to the Watch Level Reporting processes discussed above, the CCRM Policy discusses other tools and processes used by OCC to monitor and manage credit risks arising from its Counterparties. For example, in cases where ongoing monitoring of Clearing Members identifies circumstances impacting margin levels due to changing portfolio characteristics, market conditions, elevated Clearing Fund stress test results, upcoming holidays where trading is allowed but OCC is unable to call for additional margin deposits, and certain other situations, OCC shall have the authority to call for additional margin deposits or otherwise adjust margin requirements as further detailed in OCC's margin and Clearing Fund-related policies.
Under the Policy, OCC's Credit Risk Management department also maintains Internal Credit Ratings (“ICRs”) which shall be incorporated into the Watch Level Reporting process and shall be designed to identify quarterly creditworthiness scores of Clearing Members and Commercial Banks. ICR reporting shall summarize the underlying cause of the ICR score, recent scoring trend, and exposure introduced by a Clearing Member or Commercial Bank.
In addition, the CCRM Policy provides that Credit Risk Management shall perform examinations of the risk management frameworks, policies, procedures, and practices of each Clearing Member no less than once in a three calendar year period, focusing on the risks posed to OCC. For certain exams, Credit Risk Management may coordinate with external parties to realize operational efficiencies for both the Clearing Member and OCC.
The CCRM Policy also provides that OCC's Counterparty monitoring includes managing the material risks that arise from indirect participants through tiered participation arrangements. In particular, Credit Risk Management, supported by other FRM business units and Business Operations, shall monitor the material risks that arise from indirect participants through tiered participation arrangements. Credit Risk Management (or other FRM business units, as appropriate) shall identify these tiered participation arrangements through standard monitoring processes when they present elevated risk to the Clearing Member or OCC. Furthermore, Clearing Member risk examinations shall seek to understand how direct participants identify, measure, and manage the risks posed to OCC from indirect participants.
Additionally, under the CCRM Policy, OCC shall monitor Clearing Members, Commercial Banks, and investment counterparties during prolonged periods of inactivity, and Clearing Members shall be allowed to voluntarily enter a dormant state to reduce credit risk originating from unexpected trading activity. A dormant Clearing Member shall continuously adhere to all operational and financial standards and may reactivate its membership after submitting to an operational and financial review. OCC shall maintain sole discretion to terminate inactive Commercial Banks and investment counterparties to reduce credit risk.
Finally, the CCRM Policy addresses the voluntary off-boarding of Counterparties. Under the Policy, voluntary off-boarding shall be performed in a manner designed to wind down all credit exposures in an orderly fashion before a relationship is terminated.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission finds OCC's proposed changes to be consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
Rules 17Ad-22(e)(3) and (e)(4)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(18)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(19)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(20)
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
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”)
LCH SA is proposing to adopt an updated recovery plan (the “RP”) in accordance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii). The text of the proposed rule change has been annexed as Exhibit 5. LCH SA has requested confidential treatment of the material submitted as Exhibit 5.
In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA 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. LCH SA 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 Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) adopted amendments to Rule 17Ad-22
LCH SA is 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). The CCA rules require that covered clearing agencies, among other things, “establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to . . . maintain 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 . . . includes plans for the recovery and orderly wind-down of the covered clearing agency necessitated by credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, losses from general business risk, or any other losses”.
Specific guidance has been given on Recovery for CCP by CPMI IOSCO. Within the CPMI IOSCO principles for financial market infrastructures (PFMI) it is outlined that all systemically important FMIs should have a comprehensive and effective recovery plan. For this purpose it has issued the report “recovery of financial market infrastructures” containing guidance on recovery plans, content of a recovery plan in October 2014 and a guidance relating resilience and recovery in 2017.
Furthermore, regulations are under preparation on a European level outlining the Recovery and Resolution measures for CCPs.
As described in more detail below, the purpose of the RP is to maintain the continuity of critical services in times of extreme stress and to facilitate the recovery of LCH SA agency. Among other things, the RP seeks to: (i) Identify if and to what level LCH SA's service are critical for the market and what internal or external services/systems are critical for the continuity of LCH SA's activity; (ii) outline the scenario under which recovery of the LCH SA might be necessary; (iii) define the early warning indicators and triggers for initiating the recovery measures under the RP, including the market conditions or events that could trigger it; (iv) define the governance framework to trigger these recovery measures; (v) identify the available recovery tools to manage crisis situations and to restore business as usual; and (vi) Perform a quantitative and qualitative assessment if the recover tools meet the CPMI IOSCO criteria for recovery instruments.
The RP also includes a detailed summary of the overall business and regulatory framework that LCH SA operates in, including identification of applicable regulations, company structure, detail regarding the LCH SA business lines and geographical spread, and information regarding the interaction between LCH SA and its parent entity (the “Parent”).
The RP also contains an FMI analysis which analyses LCH SA relationship with other financial market infrastructure (
The RP covers all scenarios which may potentially prevent LCH SA from providing its critical services:
With respect to the critical services that might impact the continuity of LCH SA's operations, the proposed RP provides that an assessment has been done in accordance with guidance by the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) on identification of critical functions and shared services. LCH SA has assessed that the clearing services LCH SA provides to participants with respect to the markets identified in the RP are deemed critical for purposes of the RP. Overall the services provided in respect of all markets are critical because: (1) The volume of the activity on certain markets may be very significant, (2) most of the business on the relevant market is cleared through LCH SA or (3) the suspension of the clearing service could impact materially the functioning of the market; the level of global market share with respect to certain products is high; and LCH SA's service are used by significant clearing firms. Moreover, a
The RP also identifies those shared operations which LCH SA depends on to perform critical services to members, including those critical departments and services and systems within its corporate group and those provided by others. The RP identifies the main operating units within LCH SA that play a critical role in providing services as well as those enterprise systems that are critical for LCH SA's ongoing operations. Such systems are categorized as (i) Tier 1 Enterprise Critical (which is the most important category and where a failure may have direct impact on the continued functioning of LCH SA); (ii) Tier 2 Business Critical (which is a category of systems where business may not be able to proceed as usual in the event of a failure); and (iii) Tier 3 Business Support (which are non-critical systems). In addition, the RP identifies those services provided by its affiliates (including its Parent) and third-party service providers that are essential to LCH SA's operations as well as the agreements governing such relationships.
The RP describes that LCH SA maintains comprehensive exit management plans should its Parent initiate its own recovery and wind-down plan, cease to operate, or notify LCH SA of its termination of services. The RP also describes the business continuity procedures and exit management plans that LCH SA would initiate upon the failure of a critical third-party service provider.
The RP categorizes potential stress scenarios in two ways as a result of either: (i) Clearing member defaults and (ii) non-clearing member events. Clearing member defaults are identified as those losses that threaten LCH SA's ability to operate as a going concern through either uncovered credit losses or liquidity shortfalls created as a result of a default by one or more members. Non-clearing member defaults are defined as losses impacting capital adequacy arising from risks, including, without limitation, general business risks, operational events, custody and investment risks, or risks on the interoperability link.
The RP then identifies, prior to implementing any of the recovery strategies described therein, the day-to-day risk measures in place to assure provision of the critical services performed where these are insufficient the recovery plan will be triggered.
With respect to clearing member defaults, the LCH SA risk framework provides mitigations for uncovered credit losses due to a member default. LCH SA follows high standards to assess financial resources against member portfolios, including initial margin model covering the potential loss from any member default to a 99.7% confidence level over the applicable holding period, margin add-ons to deal with specific member portfolios risks such as concentration, liquidity risk and sovereign risk, and default fund sizing to cover simultaneous default of the 2 members having the largest stress testing losses beyond the 99.7% confidence level. Stress tests are applied by LCH SA in order to assess whether financial resources are calibrated to handle systemic risks. In addition, a reverse stress resting procedure is used to ascertain adequacy of financial resources held against member positions. The stress testing framework is reviewed on an annual basis.
Further, reverse stress testing exercise is conducted at least quarterly for each default fund and is subject to review by LCH Executive Risk Committee. Risk monitoring mechanisms have been established in order to anticipate and identify any credit or market risks with respect to a clearing member, including daily monitoring of credit watch lists by LCH SA's credit risk department.
The RP covers the default of one or multiple Clearing Member(s) on one or several of its markets, where LCH SA has to re-establish the matched book and may have allocate any uncovered credit losses to its own capital or to surviving clearing members.
With respect to liquidity shortfalls as a result of the clearing member default, the existing liquidity risk management framework seeks to manage liquidity risk by requiring certain minimum liquidity coverage ratio and using reserve stress testing to identify plausible scenarios where the liquidity coverage ratio falls below 100%, as well as considering the liquidity impact as a result of the default of its liquidity line provider.
LCH SA would leverage on the reserve stress testing scenarios and the liquidity line provider's default to define the liquidity recovery scenarios.
In addition, the RP provides that LCH SA uses a set of early warning indicators and management actions to mitigate liquidity risk prior to implementing RP. To the extent a clearing member default has occurred, LCH SA would perform increased risk monitoring, including preparation of liquidity risk reports that would be produced several times a day.
The RP covers the potential and actual liquidity shortfalls as result of a clearing member or allied clearing house default.
For operational risks, the RP provides that on a quarterly basis, control assessments, incident and audit recommendations are reviewed and adjusted as appropriate. On a yearly basis, a risk and control self-assessment is performed whereby all risks are reassessed. The operational risk department performs second line challenge on all these activities. In addition, all “major” or “high” incidents are processed through a detailed incident review to identify actions to further improve the control environment.
LCH SA also performs a business impact analysis where it identifies all critical systems and departments and has in place a global business continuity strategy which outlines the strategy to maintain critical services in case of a disaster. The RP further identifies events, including cyber-attacks, failure of a critical service provider, failure of data providers and exchanges, failure of LCH SA's Parent, and reputational events as potential operational risks that could threaten its continued functioning.
The RP covers both a loss resulting from an operational risk event or any other event which impacts the critical services provided by LCH SA (
Business risk is managed by the relevant individual business lines and requires frequent monitoring of results against budget and financial plans, with a second line challenge performed by the risk and finance departments to verify if sufficient capital buffers are available for applicable business risks. In addition, LCH SA conducts a yearly review of business risk scenarios to define potential loss scenarios under foreseeable conditions and the LCH SA finance department monitors key metrics, including revenues and quarterly financial information. Investment risk and second line monitoring is also conducted with respect to interest rate risk, aggregate credit risk exposure, daily mark-to-market limits, and internal credit scores for investment counterparties.
The RP also considers that LCH SA is connected to a broad range of financial market infrastructures, including central securities depositories, settlement platforms and interoperating central counterparties and identifies the types of operational or financial failures that
Finally, the RP identifies a series of scenarios which, taken together, could also impact the continued functioning of critical services.
The RP includes a detailed list of events which if they were to occur would trigger the implementation of a specific action identified in the RP.
The RP provides that a clearing member default will be identified through credit risk monitoring and review of external information indicating a default. Each LCH SA business line then applies its own default management process under which a default management group identifies and manages the phases of the default management process and the application of the default waterfall. The possible triggers for the RP include: (i) A clearing member default, in which case the default procedures will be initiated to reestablish the matched book; (ii) several default events may lead to more than one replenishment of Skin in the Game (iii) mutualized default fund contributions per specific default have been consumed, in which case unfunded resources will be used to keep LCH SA appropriately funded.
Each LCH SA business lines maintain its own default management process and waterfall, but, in general, the RP describes the tools used in the event of a clearing member default. The default management process is used to re-establish the matched book of LCH SA and return back to business as usual and therefore considered as a recovery tool. The relevant governance for the management of a default is followed as described in the paragraph 5.
When covering the relevant credit losses related to a default event. First, LCH SA looks to the defaulting clearing member's margin. These amounts are already held by LCH SA and are available to manage the default of a clearing member and, as such, are not considered to be a trigger of the RP. Second, LCH SA looks to the defaulting clearing member's default fund contribution, which may be allocated to the defaulting clearing member's shortfalls. Again, this action is within the control of LCH SA and does not impact the capital adequacy of LCH SA, so is also not considered a trigger for the RP. Third, in line with requirements under EMIR, LCH SA is required to hold capital equivalent to 25 percent of LCH SA's minimum net capital requirement against which default losses can be applied against liquid available capital. In addition, excess capital is held to replenish such amount within the relevant EMIR deadline. Where multiple defaults occur over a longer time period and lead to multiple replenishments of Skin in the Game, this may lead to start up of the recovery plan and application of capital conservation measures. Fourth, should losses arising from a clearing member default be consumed by the defaulter's margin and default fund contribution and subsequently LCH SA's contribution from capital, LCH SA may look to non-defaulting member default fund contributions. Those amounts are pre-funded by members and held and controlled by LCH SA for the purposes of managing a default and, thus, the utilization of those amounts is not considered an application of the RP. However, LCH SA has the right to trigger an assessment of the defaults as to reestablish the fund to its original size, and such an assessment is considered to be a recovery measure under the RP. Finally, when it is no longer possible for LCH SA to make assessments and all pre-funded default fund contributions have been used, recovery measures under the RP, as described below, will be implemented.
With respect to liquidity shortfall triggers, LCH SA runs a daily liquidity assessment and monitors key liquidity drivers. In the event that these fall below a specific level, the RP will be triggered. In addition, the occurrence of a clearing member default or the failure of a third-party providing settlement and payment services to clearing member may also result in increased monitoring, and in the event that LCH SA does not have sufficient liquid resources to meet liquidity needs, the RP would be triggered.
With respect to non-clearing member default events, the RP identifies those events with more particularity and identifies the specific triggers for the RP with respect to such events. For investment losses, which are defined as losses related to the default of an investment counterparty or losses incurred as a result of extreme market conditions, the RP is triggered if losses are greater than the maximum regulatory capital allocated to this activity. For operational risk events, the RP is triggered upon any operational losses that consume the regulatory capital LCH SA holds against the relevant risks; failure of a third party which impacts the provision of LCH SA's services; and reputational events impacting LCH SA's reputation with clearing members and partners. With respect to business risks, the RP is triggered upon a loss that consumes the regulatory capital LCH SA holds against the relevant risks. The RP may also be triggered upon the failure of other financial market infrastructures.
The RP identifies the various recovery tools that may be applied by LCH SA upon the triggering of the RP, using again the same distinction between clearing member default events and non-clearing member events.
For clearing member default scenarios, the existing stages of the LCH SA default management process have been used as the framework for identifying and confirming the appropriate tools to use in the event of a clearing member default. The RP describes that the default management process in detail and summarizes the actions to be taken at each phase, including, as mentioned above, (i) reestablishing the matched book, (ii) default fund assessments, (iii) service continuity charges, and (iv) voluntary payments. To the extent that the default fund and assessments cannot manage the losses accumulated from the clearing member default and any service continuity or voluntary service continuity contributions received are not sufficient to cover the relevant losses, the service closure phase of the default management process is triggered and all outstanding contracts will be closed out as of the clearing day following such determination and all relevant losses are allocated to the clearing members. If the RP is triggered as a result of a liquidity shortfall, the RP provides that LCH SA may use its central bank credit line to deposited securities received on behalf of defaulting clearing member(s).
Other potential tools to manage liquidity stress situation are limits with respect to illiquid collateral or, if necessary apply increased haircuts on certain types of collateral to incentivize the use of more liquid collateral as well or apply specific liquidity margins.
The measures should assure that LCH SA has sufficient liquid resources at all times. As a last resort, under its rulebook, LCH SA could defer funding for the settlement platform for a limited period of time.
As to non-clearing member events, the tool that is used under the RP will depend on the nature of the event, but for most investment, business, and operational risks, LCH SA has its capital surplus that it can allocate losses against. Further, LCH SA can put in place several measures for capital conservation and LCH SA also maintains insurance coverage for specific operational risk events. As a last resort, LCH SA may also initiate a
If an event resulted in a major disruption of its activities, LCH SA would initiate its business continuity strategy, which establishes an enterprise wide RP and response proportionate to the event which aims to minimize the impact of a major disruption on LCH SA's critical business and resources. For any disruption or loss of key third-party service provider, LCH SA would be able to exercise several contractual rights and maintains exit plans which are intended to safeguard the continuity of services. LCH SA also maintains c back up procedures and protocols that would be initiated if there is an impact on critical services of FMIs, for example its ability to collect margin within T2 under an emergency platform. Finally, LCH SA maintains a crisis communication plan which outlines the procedure for communicating with clearing members and partners in the event of a disruption.
With respect to each recovery tool identified, the RP also seeks to assess that each tool possesses the following characteristics: Comprehensive; effective, including as to reliability, timeliness; transparent, provides appropriate incentives, and results in a minimum negative impact. To confirm that each recovery tool does, in fact, have these characteristics, the RP considers as to each: The barriers or constraints within the tool itself; the steps and time to implement (if not already available as a tool); the likely effectiveness of the tool; any risk of execution; the potential impacts on participants and markets generally; the sequencing of the use of the tools where multiple tools may be required; and the legal basis of the tool. The RP also includes a qualitative and quantitative assessment to provide an indication of the likelihood and severity of a potential recovery situation and whether the tools included in the RP are adequate.
The creation of the RP and its approval is subject to a number of layers of governance approval. At a high level, the LCH SA Management Committee is responsible for the preparation of the RP and implementation of the monitoring and the recovery tools set forth in the RP. Before submission to the LCH SA Risk Committee, the RP is reviewed and validated by the Executive Risk Committee of LCH Group. The LCH SA Risk committee, which includes independent directors, then reviews, challenges (if needed), and recommends the RP for approval by the LCH SA board. Final approval of the RP rests with the LCH SA Board.
At a more granular level, the RP identifies the groups and individuals within LCH SA that are responsible for the various aspects of the RP.
A clearing member default will be managed in accordance with the relevant procedures. The Default Management Group (“DMG”) is responsible for the management of the default while all critical decisions are escalated and submitted to the LCH SA Default Crisis Management Team (“DCMT”). All decision which may lead to the triggering of recovery measures are subject to discussion in the DCMT and approval of the LCH SA CEO.
With respect to non-clearing member events, the management of those events will depend on the nature of the event. For example, investment losses and liquidity shortfalls are managed from a first line of defense, which attempts to control risks within the risk appetite parameters set by the Board, and then are escalated as appropriate. Operational risks are managed in accordance with the operational risk policy approved by the Board and reporting and second line challenges are performed by the operational risk department. Business risk is managed by individual business lines and requires frequent monitoring of results against budget and financial plans, with a second line challenge performed by the risk and finance departments to verify if sufficient capital buffers are available for the applicable business risks.
Upon the occurrence of a clearing member default, the recovery measures that will apply are clearly set forth in LCH SA's rulebook and LCH SA's CEO has the authority to trigger the different stages in the waterfall process, but will consult with DCMT and regulators prior to taking any action. In addition, the RP provides that the LCH SA will also activate an emergency board meeting for approval (if reasonably possible). Upon receipt of information relevant to a scenario causing non-default losses, the LCH SA management committee will consider whether a recommendation to formally invoke the RP should be made to the LCH SA Board. Upon receipt of a recommendation for action, the LCH SA Board will consider the information presented to determine if the RP should be formally invoked.
The RP requires that LCH SA conduct testing and review of member default rules and associated procedures through the running of periodic “fire drills” which simulate member default scenarios. According to the RP, the fire drills are intended to simulate all aspects of a member default, including the auctioning of the defaulting members portfolio to non-defaulting members (where appropriate) and involves the participation of members and relevant functions within the LCH SA organization. Further, because one of the main scenarios contemplated under the RP is a clearing member default, the testing of this element (
LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the regulations thereunder, including the standards under Rule 17Ad-22.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
The RP would also be consistent with the specific relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22, including under 17Ad-22(e)(2) and (3).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written comments received by LCH SA.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2017-012 and should be submitted on or before
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 21, 2017.
Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
On October 27, 2017, the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
This proposed rule change would formalize and update OCC's Collateral Risk Management Policy (“CRM Policy”). The CRM Policy describes the categories of risk that are considered by OCC in determining which asset classes should be acceptable forms of collateral as margin assets and Clearing Fund contributions. OCC's assessment of an asset class generally includes an evaluation of credit risk, liquidity risk, and market risk.
The CRM Policy describes OCC's approach to valuing collateral and setting and applying haircuts. OCC's pricing information, as described in the CRM Policy, feeds into OCC's processes for establishing haircuts, daily mark-to-market valuation of collateral, and intraday valuation of collateral. Given the importance of pricing data to inform these processes, OCC maintains redundant information feeds from multiple sources to help ensure accuracy and quality.
The CRM Policy also summarizes OCC's two approaches for valuing collateral: Collateral in Margins (“CiM”) and haircuts.
Additionally, the CRM Policy provides that OCC's Credit and Liquidity Working Group must review the policy's performance and adequacy on at least an annual basis, including with respect to collateral eligibility, concentration limits, collateral haircuts and monitoring processes.
The Commission received one comment letter in response to the proposed rule change.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to do, among other things, the following: (1) Promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions; (2) assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible; and (3) in general protect investors and the public interest.
The CRM Policy describes OCC's process for limiting the collateral that it accepts to assets with low credit, liquidity, and market risk. The acceptance of only low-risk collateral increases the likelihood that such collateral can be liquidated in a timely manner, thereby enhancing OCC's ability to continue to perform its critical services for the financial markets while also managing a default. The CRM Policy also describes how OCC haircuts such collateral, and requires review of such haircuts at least annually. Ensuring that collateral haircuts are appropriately set and reviewed on a regular basis increases the likelihood that OCC will collect and hold collateral that can be liquidated at a value at or above the value attributed to it. This approach thereby increases the likelihood that OCC will be able to continue to meet its settlement obligations and manage the default of a clearing member by liquidating the defaulting clearing member's collateral in a timely and effective manner.
The timely liquidation of collateral at or above the expected value would, therefore, support OCC's ability to continue to meet settlement obligations on time, promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. In addition, being able to successfully liquidate collateral in a timely and effective manner would reduce the likelihood of OCC having to draw on mutualized resources, including Clearing Fund contributions. As such, the Commission believes that the proposal would help assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of OCC, or for which OCC is responsible. As a result, the Commission also finds that the proposed rule change, in general, protects investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5) requires that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to limit the assets it accepts as collateral to those with low credit, liquidity, and market risks; set and enforce appropriately conservative haircuts and concentration limits if the covered clearing agency requires collateral to manage its or its participants' credit exposure; and, require a review of the sufficiency of its collateral haircuts and concentration limits to be performed not less than annually.
As discussed above, the proposed CRM Policy would address each component of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Rule 15c2-7
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15c2-7 places disclosure requirements on broker-dealers who have correspondent relationships, or agreements identified in the rule, with other broker-dealers. Whenever any such broker-dealer enters a quotation for a security through an inter-dealer quotation system, Rule 15c2-7 requires the broker-dealer to disclose these relationships and agreements in the manner required by the rule. The inter-dealer quotation system must also be able to make these disclosures public in association with the quotation the broker-dealer is making.
When Rule 15c2-7 was adopted in 1964, the information it requires was necessary for execution of the Commission's mandate under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prevent fraudulent, manipulative and deceptive acts by broker-dealers. In the absence of the information collection required under Rule 15c2-7, investors and broker-dealers would have been unable to accurately determine the market depth of, and demand for, securities in an inter-dealer quotation system.
There are approximately 3,939 broker-dealers registered with the Commission. Any of these broker-dealers could be potential respondents for Rule 15c2-7, so the Commission is using that number as the number of respondents. Rule 15c2-7 applies only to quotations entered into an inter-dealer quotation system, such as the OTC Bulletin Board (“OTCBB”) or OTC Link (formerly “Pink Sheets”), operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. (“OTC Link”). According to representatives of both OTC Link and the OTCBB, neither entity has recently received, or anticipates receiving any Rule 15c2-7 notices. However, because such notices could be made, the Commission estimates that one filing is made annually pursuant to Rule 15c2-7.
Based on prior industry reports, the Commission estimates that the average time required to enter a disclosure pursuant to the rule is .75 minutes, or 45 seconds. The Commission sees no reason to change this estimate. We estimate that impacted respondents spend a total of .0125 hours per year to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-7 (1 notice (×) 45 seconds/notice).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
On October 23, 2017, ICE Clear Europe Limited (“ICE Clear Europe”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
ICE Clear Europe proposed to adopt a Procyclicality Framework that is intended to set forth, generally, (1) the aspects of ICE Clear Europe's risk policies that may exhibit procyclicality; (2) the manner in which ICE Clear Europe will assess procyclicality (using both qualitative and a quantitative metrics); and (3) how ICE Clear Europe will take procyclicality into account with respect to its consideration of and response to emerging risks. ICE Clear Europe proposed to define “procyclicality” as the extent to which changes in market conditions can have an effect on a clearing member's ability to manage its liquidity to meet ICE Clear Europe's changing margin requirements.
ICE Clear Europe represented that although it has in place certain measures intended to mitigate procyclicality, as required by the European Market Infrastructure Regulation,
Furthermore, ICE Clear Europe proposed to incorporate into the Procyclicality Framework the measures by which it would assess the level of procyclicality. Specifically, ICE Clear Europe proposed to assess procyclicality by monitoring the 95th percentile expected shortfall of the 5-day
In the event procyclicality is identified using this measure, ICE Clear Europe proposed an escalation process that provides for review and response obligations.
To further assess procyclicality, ICE Clear Europe also proposed to incorporate several qualitative factors into the Procyclicality Framework. These proposed qualitative factors include the periodicity of margin updates, the activities of other central counterparties in relevant markets, the expectations of market participants and related potential for moral hazard stemming from an expectation of gradual margin changes, and the ability of ICE Clear Europe to override, in extreme circumstances, standard measures designed to mitigate procyclicality.
With respect to future risk model design, ICE Clear Europe proposed to incorporate into the Procyclicality Framework a requirement that its model design process take into account any procyclicality characteristics that a model may exhibit, and that the model design process also take into account the impact of any steps designed to mitigate procyclicality.
Finally, ICE Clear Europe proposed to include in the Procyclicality Framework consideration of the procyclicality of new products and procyclicality arising from material changes in existing products. ICE Clear Europe has represented that much of its Procyclicality Framework will be available on its website.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a propose rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, which would implement a new Procyclicality Framework, is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the relevant provisions of Rule 17Ad-22 thereunder. By establishing a Procyclicality Framework that (1) identifies risk management policies and procedures exhibiting procyclicality, (2) establishes a measure for assessing procyclicality in such risk management policies and procedures, and (3) provides for a process requiring review and defined responses in the event that certain procyclicality thresholds are exceeded, the Commission believes that ICE Clear Europe will have an increased ability to identify, assess and respond to procyclicality that arises in connection with the clearing services it provides. Consequently, the Commission believes that the Procyclicality Framework will enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to mitigate the risks associated with procyclicality, thereby facilitating ICE Clear Europe's collection of the appropriate level of resources to manage its risks in a variety of market conditions, including stressed market conditions. This expected outcome, in turn, will permit ICE Clear Europe to provide prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of the products for which it offers clearing services, and more adequately protect its Clearing Members in the event of a default, which will enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to safeguard the securities and funds which are in its custody or control. For these reasons, the Commission also believes that implementing the Procyclicality Framework is in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change implementing a new Procyclicality Framework is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A.
Additionally, by implementing the Procyclicality Framework, which includes a process for review and response to assessments of procyclicality based on quantitative and qualitative metrics and the relation of those metrics to predefined thresholds, and by publishing portions of the Procyclicality Framework on its website, the Commission believes that ICE Clear Europe is establishing policies and procedures that are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2).
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 Rule 7600 to allow split-price transactions on the Trading Floor. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 7600(i). Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to adopt rules for split-price transactions on the Trading Floor. The proposal is based on the rules of another options exchange with an open outcry trading floor.
Proposed Rule 7600(i) establishes priority principles for split-price transactions occurring in open outcry on the Trading Floor. Generally, if an order or offer (bid) for any number of contracts of a series is represented to the trading crowd, a Floor Participant that buys (sells) one or more contracts of that order or offer (bid) at one price will have priority over all other orders and quotes, except Public Customer Orders resting in the BOX Book, to buy (sell) up to the same number of contracts of those remaining from the same order or offer (bid) at the next lower (higher) price.
In order to execute a split-price transaction, a Floor Broker will submit a Qualified Open Outcry (“QOO”) Order to the system in the same manner as done today on the Trading Floor, with the exception that the QOO Order will be entered at a sub-minimum trading increment.
The manner in which a Floor Broker brings an order to the Trading Floor is the same for a split-price QOO Order as it is for all other QOO Orders. Specifically, a Floor Broker may bring a single-sided order (
For example, assume the market for a series is $0.25-$0.35 (with a minimum trading increment of $0.05), and a Floor Broker receives an order from a customer who would like to buy 50 contracts at a price or prices no higher than $0.35. The Floor Broker will announce the single-sided order (
If an order or offer (bid) of 100 or more contracts of a series is represented to the trading crowd, a Floor Participant that buys (sells) 50 or more of the contracts of that order or offer (bid) at one price will have priority over all other orders and quotes to buy (sell) up to the same number of contracts of those remaining from the same order or offer (bid) at the next lower (higher) price.
For example, assume the market for a series is $0.25-$0.35, and a Floor Broker receives an order from a customer who would like to buy 100 contracts at a price or prices no higher than $0.35. Assume a Floor Market Maker is willing to sell 50 contracts at $0.30 provided that he can also sell the remaining 50 contracts at $0.35. Under the proposed Rule, that Floor Market Maker could offer $0.30 for 50 contracts then, by virtue of the proposed split-price priority, he will have priority for the balance of the order (up to 50 contracts) over all other Participants, including any resting Public Customer Orders on the BOX Book. The Floor Broker will enter a QOO Order with a price of $0.325. The system will then split the QOO Order. The first transaction will be for 50 contracts at $0.30. The second transaction will be for 50 contracts at $0.35, the next best price for the Floor Broker's customer. The Floor Market Maker will have priority over all other Participants to sell the 50 contracts at $0.35, including any resting Public Customer Orders on the BOX Book. Two trades will be reported to the tape; a purchase of 50 contracts at $0.30 and a purchase of 50 at $0.35. The Floor Broker's customer will receive a net purchase price of $0.325 for 100 contracts, which is the price that the Floor Broker entered when submitting the QOO Order.
In order for a Floor Participant to avail himself to split-price priority, there are certain requirements. First, the priority is available for open outcry transactions only (
The Exchange further proposes that if the width of the quote for a series is the minimum increment for that series (
For example, assume the market for a series with a minimum increment of $0.05 is $1.00-$1.05 (with the $1.00 bid and $1.05 offer each representing a Public Customer Order for 25 contracts), and a Floor Broker receives an order from a customer who would like to buy 100 contracts at a price or prices no higher than $1.05. Assume a Floor Market Maker is willing to sell 50 contracts at $1.00 and 50 contracts at $1.05. The Floor Broker will enter a QOO Order at a price of $1.025. The system will then attempt to split the QOO Order. The first transaction would be for 50 contracts at $1.00. However, there is Public Customer interest resting at $1.00 on the BOX Book, which will have priority to trade at $1.00. Therefore, the system will reject the QOO Order entered at $1.025.
The proposed rule change provides that “either side of the market” must trade for split-price priority to become available. The proposal provides that a Floor Participant is eligible to receive split-price priority, which could include the Floor Participant representing the order or offer (quote). Thus, the proposal allows for the Floor Participant on either side of a transaction to be eligible for split-price priority. Assume the market for a series with a minimum increment of $0.05 is $1.00-$1.05 (with the $1.00 bid representing a Public Customer order for 25 contracts), and a Floor Broker receives an order from a customer who would like to buy 100 contracts at a price or prices no higher than $1.05. After receiving no interest from the trading crowd to sell 100 contracts at $1.00, the Floor Broker represents to the trading crowd that he would like to buy 50 contracts at $1.00 and 50 contracts at $1.05 for a net execution price of $1.025. Assume a Floor Market Maker is willing to sell 50 contracts at $1.00 and 50 contracts at $1.05. The Floor Broker will enter a QOO Order at a price of $1.025. The system will then split the QOO Order. The first transaction will be for 50 contracts at $1.05 (at which price there is no resting Public Customer offer). The second transaction will be for 50 contracts at $1.00, the next best price for the Floor Broker. In this situation, the Floor Broker's customer (
The Floor Broker may utilize the book sweep size, as provided in Rule 7600(h), when entering a split-price QOO Order. For example, assume the market for a series is $0.30-$0.35 (with a minimum trading increment of $0.05 and the $0.35 offer is a Public Customer Order for 10 contracts). A Floor Broker intends to execute a split-price QOO Order for a customer looking to buy 80 contracts (
To address potential concerns regarding Section 11(a) of the Act,
The Exchange will provide at least two weeks' notice to Participants via Circular prior to the launch of split-price priority. The Exchange anticipates launching in the first quarter of 2018.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the existing split-price priority on another options exchange.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal should lead to more aggressive quoting by Floor Participants, which in turn could lead to better executions. A Floor Participant might be willing to trade at a better price for a portion of an order if he were assured of trading with the balance of the order at the next pricing increment. As a result, Floor Brokers representing orders in the trading crowd might receive better-priced executions. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will encourage Participants on BOX's Trading Floor to bid or offer better prices, thus creating more opportunities for price improvement, which ultimately enhances competition.
Lastly, as discussed above, the Exchange notes that the proposed change is substantially similar to the split-price priority rules at another options exchange with open outcry trading floor.
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. As discussed above, the proposed change aligns the rules of the Exchange with those of another options exchange
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchanges seeks to amend the Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website (
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.
Pursuant to Footnote 38 of the Fees Schedule, if a Lead Market-Maker (“LMM”) in SPX options during extended trading hours (“ETH”) (1) provides continuous electronic quotes in at least the lesser of 99% of the non-adjusted series or 100% of the non-adjusted series minus one call-put pair in an ETH allocated class (excluding intra-day add-on series on the day during which such series are added for trading) and (2) enters opening quotes within five minutes of the initiation of an opening rotation in any series that is not open due to the lack of a quote (see Rule 6.2B(d)(i)(A) or (ii)(A)), provided that the LMM will not be required to enter opening quotes in more than the same percentage of series set forth in clause (1) for at least 90% of the trading days during ETH in a month, the LMM will receive a rebate for that month and will receive a pro-rata share of a compensation pool equal to $15,000 times the number of LMMs in that class (or pro-rated amount if an appointment begins after the first trading day of the month or ends prior to the last trading day of the month).
The Exchange proposes
The Exchange believes time-weighted averages are a good way to assess the overall quality of the market. The Exchange also believes having separate requirements per moneyness category will encourage tighter quote widths and larger sizes in each moneyness category.
The Exchange will determine an SPX LMM's monthly time-weighted average widths and sizes by capturing each of the LMM's quote submission's width, bid size, ask size, and receipt time during the month. Also, the percentage of series quoted will be weighted for the time the series is available for quoting during a month. For example, if a series is only listed for three days during a month, the performance in that series is only weighted for those three days. Additionally, the Exchange will exclude 5% of the total quote time for all SPX series during the month in which the LMM was disseminating its widest quotes and smallest bid/ask sizes. This will allow the LMM to widen its quotes and decrease its bid/ask sizes consistent with its risk model in response to market events during ETH while retaining the opportunity to meet the quoting standard for the month.
The below example demonstrates the manner in which the Exchange determines the time-weighted average quote widths.
• Assume Series A and B are the only OTM series in SPX during a month.
• If an LMM submits the below 6 quotes in Series A and B during the entire month, the resultant time-weighted average quote width in Series A for the month is as follows:
The time-weighted average quote width in OTM series for the month is 0.67; thus, the LMM in this example has met the OTM time-weighted average quote width to be eligible for the monthly payment, because its time-weighted average quote width is less than 0.75 for the month.
The Exchange determines the time-weighted average bid size and ask size in a similar manner. For example:
• Assume Series A and B are the only OTM series in SPX during a month.
• If an LMM submits the below 6 quotes in Series A and B during the entire month, the resultant time-weighted average quote width in Series A for the month is as follows:
The time-weighted average quote bid size in OTM series for the month is 15.4; thus, the LMM in this example has met the OTM time-weighted average quote bid size to be eligible for the monthly payment because its time-weighted average quote bid size is greater than 15 contracts for the month. The LMM would also need to satisfy the OTM average quote ask size, as well as the time-weighted average width, bid size, and ask size criteria in the ATM and ITM categories, determined in the same manner as described in the above example, to receive the monthly payment.
Whether a series is OTM, ATM, or ITM will depend on how far away the series' strike price is from the S&P 500 Index's previous day's closing value, measured as a percentage. The OTM, ATM and ITM moneyness percentages will vary by time to expiration based on the table below. Expirations 1-6 are the nearest term expirations and expirations 37-last are the farthest term expirations.
For example, if the S&P 500 Index closes at 2200, all call options with a near-term expiration (
LMMs are not obligated to satisfy the heightened quoting standards described in the Fees Schedule or in Rule 8.15 during ETH. LMMs are eligible to receive a rebate if they satisfy the heightened standards described in the Fees Schedule, which the Exchange believes will encourage LMMs to provide liquidity during ETH. Additionally, the Exchange notes that LMMs may have to undertake other expenses to be able to quote at the heightened standard during ETH, such as purchase additional bandwidth.
The Exchange also seeks to amend Footnote 38 of the Fees Schedule to clarify that the rebate described in Footnote 38 is the pro-rata share of the compensation pool. Footnote 38 provides, in relevant part that “. . . the LMM will receive a rebate for that month and will receive a pro-rata share of a compensation pool equal . . .” which could suggest there is a rebate
Lastly, the LMM rebate program is currently described in Rule 6.1A(e)(iii)(C) and the Fees Schedule. The Exchange believes consolidating information related to the LMM rebate program in the Fees Schedule, and deleting the language in that rule that is redundant of language in the Fees Schedule, will prevent potential confusion that arises from having the rebate program described in multiple places. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to remove subparagraph (e)(iii)(C) and move the following language from subparagraph (e)(iii)(C) to Footnote 38 of the Fees Schedule:
Notwithstanding Rule 1.1(ccc), for purposes of Footnote 38, an LMM is deemed to have provided “continuous electronic quotes” if the LMM provides electronic two-sided quotes for 90% of the time during ETH in a given month. If a technical failure or limitation of a system of the Exchange prevents the LMM from maintaining, or prevents the LMM from communicating to the Exchange, timely and accurate electronic quotes in a class, the duration of such failure shall not be considered in determining whether the LMM has satisfied the 90% quoting standard with respect to that option class. The Exchange may consider other exceptions to this quoting standard based on demonstrated legal or regulatory requirements or other mitigating circumstances.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to offer LMMs in SPX during ETH a rebate if they meet a certain heightened quoting standard (described above) to encourage LMMs in SPX to provide increased liquidity. More specifically, the Exchange believes the amount of the amended rebate ($30,000) is reasonable because it takes into consideration certain additional costs an LMM may incur and the Exchange believes the proposed amount is such that it will incentivize LMMs to meet the ETH quoting standards for SPX that are further heightened by this proposal. Additionally, if a LMM does not satisfy the heightened quoting
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the amended rebate for ETH is intended to encourage market participants to bring liquidity in SPX during ETH (which benefits all market participants), while still covering Exchange costs (including those associated with the upgrading and maintenance of Exchange systems). Furthermore, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because SPX is a proprietary product that will only be traded on Cboe Options. To the extent that the proposed changes make Cboe Options a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become Cboe Options market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
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 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.
On October 13, 2017, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-OCC-2017-007 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
OCC filed the proposed rule change to modify the tools available to OCC to provide a mechanism for addressing the risks of liquidity shortfalls, specifically, in the extraordinary situation where OCC faces a liquidity need to meet its same-day settlement obligations resulting from the failure of a bank or securities or commodities clearing organization (“Settlement Entity”) to achieve daily settlement. As stated in the Notice, OCC's By-Laws currently grant OCC the authority to borrow against its Clearing Fund where a Settlement Entity fails to make timely settlement with OCC due to bankruptcy, insolvency, resolution, suspension of operations, or a similar event of such Settlement Entity.
Article VIII, Section 5(e) of OCC's By-Laws provides OCC with the authority to borrow against the Clearing Fund in two circumstances. First, the By-Laws provide OCC the authority to borrow where OCC “deems it necessary or advisable to borrow or otherwise obtain funds from third parties in order to meet obligations arising out of the default or suspension of a Clearing Member or any action taken by the Corporation in connection therewith pursuant to Chapter XI of the Rules or otherwise.” Second, the By-Laws provide OCC the authority to borrow against the Clearing Fund where OCC “sustains a loss reimbursable out of the Clearing Fund pursuant to [Article VIII, Section 5(b) of OCC's By-Laws] but [OCC] elects to borrow or otherwise obtain funds from third parties in lieu of immediately charging such loss to the Clearing Fund.” In order for a loss to be reimbursable out of the Clearing Fund under Article VIII, Section 5(b) of OCC's By-Laws, the loss must arise from a situation in which any Settlement Entity has failed “to perform any obligation to [OCC] when due because of its bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership, suspension of operations, or because of any similar event.”
Under either of the circumstances above, OCC is authorized to borrow against the Clearing Fund for a period not to exceed 30 days, and during this time, the borrowing would not affect the amount or timing of any charges otherwise required to be made against the Clearing Fund pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5 of the By-Laws. However, if any part of the borrowing remains outstanding after 30 days, then at the close of business on the 30th day (or the first Business Day thereafter) the amount must be considered an actual loss to the Clearing Fund, and OCC must immediately allocate such loss among its Clearing Members in accordance with Article VIII, Section 5.
The proposed rule change seeks to expand OCC's authority to borrow against its Clearing Fund to instances where a Settlement Entity suffers an event relatively less extreme than bankruptcy, insolvency, or a similar event, but is still temporarily unable to timely make daily settlement with OCC. Such an event might include a scenario where the ordinary operations of a settlement bank are disrupted in a manner that temporarily prohibits the bank from timely effecting settlement payments in accordance with OCC's daily settlement cycle. OCC believes that such authority would only be used in extraordinary circumstances, and any funds obtained from any such transaction could only be used for the stated purpose of satisfying a need for liquidity for same-day settlement.
Pursuant to the proposed change, any ability to borrow under this expanded authority would not exceed thirty (30) days. During this period, the funds obtained would not be deemed to be charges against the Clearing Fund and would not affect the amount or timing of any charges otherwise required to be made against the clearing fund under Article VIII of OCC's By-Laws.
To implement the proposed change, OCC proposed to amend Sections 1(a), 5(b) and 5(e) of Article VIII of its By-Laws to give effect to the expanded borrowing authority. First, Article VIII, Section 5(e) of the By-Laws would be amended to permit OCC to borrow against the Clearing Fund if it reasonably believes such borrowing is necessary to meet its liquidity needs for same-day settlement as a result of the failure of any Settlement Entity to achieve daily settlement. Second, Article VIII, Section 1(a) of the By-Laws would be amended to include conforming changes stating that the purpose of the Clearing Fund includes borrowing against the Clearing Fund as permitted under Article VIII, Section 5(e).
Next, Article VIII, Section 5(b) of the By-Laws would be amended to include conforming changes that would declare that any borrowing remaining outstanding for less than 30 days may be considered, in OCC's discretion, an actual loss to the Clearing Fund to be charged proportionately against all Clearing Members' computed contributions. Further, any borrowing remaining outstanding on the 30th day shall be considered an actual loss to the Clearing Fund and the amount of any such loss shall be charged proportionately against all Clearing Members' computed contributions to the Clearing Fund as fixed at the time.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission finds that the proposed change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is designed to expand OCC's existing borrowing authority in a scenario where a Settlement Entity is temporarily unable to achieve daily settlement, but is not facing bankruptcy, insolvency, resolution, suspension of operations, or similar event. Therefore, the proposed rule change is designed to provide OCC with an alternative tool with which to address what OCC describes as an “extraordinary circumstance” that would enable OCC to borrow against the Clearing Fund in order to avoid disrupting its ordinary settlement cycle. The Commission believes that the authority to take such action is designed to avoid imposing a disruption on Clearing Members and reduce the need to extend the settlement window, which could allow OCC to settle transactions in a more timely fashion. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and is therefore consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
The Commission further believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(viii), which requires that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, effectively measure, monitor, and manage liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by the covered clearing agency, including measuring, monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum, addressing foreseeable liquidity shortfalls that would not be covered by its liquid resources and seek to avoid unwinding, revoking, or delaying the same-day settlement of payment obligations.
The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is designed to improve OCC's ability to address a temporary liquidity need resulting from the failure of a Settlement Entity to achieve timely settlement. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is designed to provide OCC with additional tools to address a foreseeable, temporary liquidity shortfall to prevent the unwinding, revoking, or delaying of same-day settlement should that scenario materialize, and is therefore consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(viii) under the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Rule 18f-3.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 18f-3 (17 CFR 270.18f-3) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The requirement that the fund prepare and directors approve a written rule 18f-3 plan is intended to ensure that the fund compiles information relevant to
Based on an analysis of fund filings, the Commission estimates that there are approximately 7,743 multiple class funds offered by 1,045 registrants. The Commission estimates that each of the 1,045 registrants will make an average of 0.5 responses annually to prepare and approve a written 18f-3 plan.
Estimates of the average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. The collection of information under rule 18f-3 is mandatory. The information provided under rule 18f-3 will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
On October 12, 2017, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-OCC-2017-010 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
This proposed rule change by OCC will formalize OCC's Default Management Policy (“DM Policy”). The proposed rule change does not require any changes to the text of OCC's By-Laws or Rules.
As described by OCC, the DM Policy would apply in the event of a default by a Clearing Member, settlement bank, or a financial market utility (“FMU”) with which OCC has a relationship.
The DM Policy describes the authority of OCC's Board of Directors (“Board”) or a Designated Officer
In the event of a Clearing Member suspension, the DM Policy provides that
The DM Policy describes OCC's existing authority under OCC Rule 505 to extend the time for OCC's settlement obligations (
To address situations in which a Clearing Member's settlement bank fails or experiences an operational outage that prevents the Clearing Member from meeting its settlement obligations to OCC, the DM Policy provides that OCC requires each Clearing Member to maintain procedures detailing how it would meet its settlement obligations in such an event. The DM Policy further provides that a Designated Officer would determine whether to enact alternate settlement procedures in the event that a Clearing Member's settlement bank is unable to perform.
The DM Policy sets forth the sequence or “waterfall” of financial resources that OCC may use to meet its obligations in the event of a Clearing Member suspension to provide certainty regarding the order in which these resources would be applied. Specifically, the DM Policy describes that OCC is able to use the following financial resources: (i) Margin deposits of the suspended Clearing Member; (ii) deposits in lieu of margin of the suspended Clearing Member;
In the case of a suspended Clearing Member, the DM Policy outlines the means by which OCC may close out positions and liquidate collateral of the suspended Clearing Member pursuant to OCC's Rules, including certain provisions under Chapter XI of the Rules. Based upon recommendations from OCC's risk staff, the EVP-FRM may take any one, or any combination, of the following actions pursuant to the terms of OCC's By-Laws and Rules: (i) Net the suspended Clearing Member's positions by offset; (ii) effect close out open short positions, long positions, and collateral through market transactions; (iii) transfer the positions and related collateral to a non-suspended Clearing Member; (iv) effect hedging transactions to reduce the risk to OCC of open positions; (v) conduct a private auction of the positions and collateral of the suspended Clearing Member; (vi) exercise unsegregated and segregated long options; (vii) set cash settlement values or perform buy-in or sell-out processes; and (viii) defer close-out, as may be authorized by certain officers of OCC.
In addition, the DM Policy specifies that OCC risk staff will develop a Close-out Action Plan (“CAP”) and present it to the EVP-FRM for approval. The DM Policy provides that upon approval of the CAP by the EVP-FRM, FRM, and other designated business officers/departments will be responsible for its execution. The DM Policy also provides that OCC's legal department would advise OCC's Management Committee on OCC's authority to execute the proposed CAP and describe the responsibilities for the execution, monitoring, and reporting of the CAP and escalation of issues to OCC's Management Committee. The CAP process is designed to ensure that OCC has an appropriate process in place to analyze its exposures, take into consideration current and expected market conditions, and evaluate the tools and resources available to deal with those exposures under the circumstances so that OCC can appropriately manage any default in a manner that would protect Clearing Members, investors, the public interest, and the markets that OCC serves.
The DM Policy provides that OCC would generally liquidate all positions and collateral of a suspended Clearing Member, and the proceeds would be attributed to the account type from which they originated. It also specifies that as a registered clearing agency with the Commission and a registered derivatives clearing organization with the CFTC, OCC is required to comply with regulatory requirements to safeguard customer assets.
In the event of a default, OCC would immediately demand any pledged collateral of the suspended Clearing Member from custodian(s) to ensure those resources are available for default management purposes. For example, the DM Policy provides that, among other things, cash and proceeds from any liquidated collateral or demand of payment on a letter of credit would be placed in the appropriate liquidating settlement account, pursuant to OCC Rule 1104. The DM Policy further provides that all pledged valued margin collateral will be moved by OCC's Collateral Services Department into an OCC account and may be transferred to an auction recipient, delivered to a liquidating agent, or delivered to a liquidating settlement account. In the case of deposits in lieu of margin, however, the DM Policy states that OCC would only demand such collateral to meet obligations arising from the assignment of a related contract.
After the close-out of the positions and collateral of the suspended Clearing Member is completed, the DM Policy describes that the Executive Chairman, CAO, or COO would determine whether, consistent with Article VIII, Section 5(a) of OCC's By-Laws, an assessment must be made against the Clearing Fund in connection with the liquidation. In the event of a shortfall whereby the close-out of the suspended Clearing Member does not result in enough resources to cover its obligations, the DM Policy states that each Clearing Member, consistent with
The DM Policy provides that, on at least an annual basis, OCC's default management working group will provide OCC's Management Committee with recommended areas for testing, including close-out procedures, and that the Management Committee is responsible for reviewing and ultimately approving the overall test plan.
In addition, the DM Policy outlines the execution of the testing plan and the review of the results of the testing plan, including the production of annual reports to OCC's Management Committee and Risk Committee of OCC's Board regarding the results of OCC's default tests to provide appropriate oversight over the default testing process.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission finds OCC's proposed changes to be consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ix)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13)
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Inventur—Art in Germany, 1943-55,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Harvard Art Museums, Cambridge, Massachusetts, from on or about February 9, 2018, until on or about June 3, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.
Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
The Department of State will conduct an open meeting at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 10, 2018, in room 6K15-15 of the Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building at St. Elizabeth's, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20593. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the Fifth session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Construction to be held at the IMO headquarters, London, United Kingdom, January 22-26, 2018.
The agenda items to be considered include:
Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Upon request to the meeting coordinator, members of the public may also participate via teleconference. To facilitate the building security process, and to request reasonable accommodation, those who plan to attend should contact the meeting coordinator, LT Jonathan Duffett, by email at
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice.
This notice announces the FHWA website, “FAST Act Section 1421—Programmatic Approaches to Project Delivery,” where information and guidance on improving project delivery is consolidated to encourage implementation of approaches, techniques, and best practices to facilitate the productive, effective, and timely expenditure of title 23, United States Code, funds. Consistent implementation of the information and guidance provided on the website will serve to assist Federal-aid recipients in effectively using Federal funds by avoiding unnecessary, costly project delays and minimizing project cost overruns.
The date of this notice is December 19, 2017.
Mr. Gerald Yakowenko, FHWA Office of Program Administration, 202-366-1562, or via email at
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the
On August 30, 2016, at 81 FR 59717, FHWA published a notice and request for comments to identify any readily available information resources on programmatic approaches to improve project delivery through avoidance of unnecessary delays, and minimizing of cost overruns in compliance with the Section 1421 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. To comply with Section 1421, “Productive and Timely Expenditure of Funds,” FHWA developed a test website where sample information resources on programmatic agreements, approaches, techniques, and best practices were consolidated for ease of access, and to encourage and ensure consistent implementation.
All comments received in response to the initial notice and request for comments have been considered in adopting this final notice. Comments were received from one representative of the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA). The following discussion identifies and summarizes the comments submitted by the commenter in response to the August 30, 2016, notice, as well as FHWA's response to those comments.
The FHWA established the test FHWA website, “FAST Act Section 1421—Programmatic Approaches to Project Delivery,” for notice and public comment on August 30, 2016. After considering all the comments, FHWA has incorporated appropriate revisions into the final FAST Act Section 1421 website. As such, the final FHWA FAST Act Section 1421 website can be found at:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of regulatory guidance; request for comments.
FMCSA is proposing to revise the regulatory guidance concerning driving a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) for personal use while off-duty, referred to as “personal conveyance.” This provision is available to all CMV drivers required to record their hours of service (HOS) who are permitted by their employer to use the vehicle for personal use. The Agency requests public comments on the guidance and its economic impact.
Comments are due by January 18, 2018.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2017-0108 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
For information concerning this notice contact Ms. LaTonya Mimms, Transportation Specialist, Enforcement Division, FMCSA. Ms. Mimms may be reached at 202-366-0991 and by email at
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2017-0108), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Currently, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) require drivers to document their HOS on records of duty status (RODS), identifying one of four duty status options: On-duty (non-driving), driving, sleeper berth, and off-duty (49 CFR 395.8). As a result, when personal conveyance in a CMV is authorized by the motor carrier, drivers are required to document such use as off-duty on their RODS, irrespective of the method used to record the driver's HOS (
The minimum performance and design standards for ELDs in the Agency's final rule on “Implementation of Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting Documents” (ELD rule) include the automatic recording of data related to the off-duty movement of the CMV. As part of the ELD rule, ELD manufacturers are required to include a special driving category for personal conveyance. This may be used at the motor carrier's discretion, based on their operations. In addition, motor carriers may grant drivers authority to operate a CMV under personal conveyance without preconfiguring the ELD with the personal conveyance special driving category.
The existing guidance on personal conveyance (49 CFR 395.8, Question 26) was issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), FMCSA's predecessor agency, in a memorandum dated November 18, 1996, and later published in a compilation of guidance (62 FR 16370, 16426, April 4, 1997). The guidance reiterated the basic principle that a driver in off-duty status must be relieved from work and all responsibility for performing work. It highlighted the use of the CMV as a personal conveyance in traveling to and from the place of employment (
In issuing today's proposed revision to the guidance, the Agency focuses on the reason the driver is operating a CMV while off duty, without regard to whether the CMV is or is not laden. The previous guidance, which required the CMV to be unladen, was written for combination vehicles, where the driver could readily detach the trailer and use the unladen tractor for personal conveyance. This interpretation had the inadvertent effect of not allowing drivers of single-unit work trucks that carry loads, as well as tools of trade and related materials, on the power unit to document this off-duty time on the RODS. In the absence of a trailer, these loads, tools, and other equipment cannot reasonably be offloaded, left unattended, and reloaded after the power unit has been used for personal conveyance. This proposed revisision to the guidance eliminates the requirement that the CMV be unladen and thus the disparate impact created by the previous guidance.
FMCSA's regulatory guidance for the FMCSRs is currently available on the Agency's website at
FMCSA proposes to replace the above interpretation with the following revised Question 26 and seeks comments on this guidance. FMCSA also seeks public comments and information on other appropriate uses of a CMV while off-duty for personal conveyance, as well as the economic impacts of the proposal. FMCSA proposes to update the guidance for § 395.8 Driver's Record of Duty Status to read as follows:
(a) Examples of appropriate uses of a CMV while off-duty for personal conveyance include, but are not limited to:
1. Time spent traveling from a driver's en route lodging (such as a motel or truck stop) to restaurants and entertainment facilities and back to the lodging.
2. Commuting from the last location where on-duty activity occurred to the driver's permanent residence and back to that last on-duty location. This would include commuting between the driver's terminal and his or her residence, between trailer-drop lots and the driver's residence, and between work sites and his or her residence.
(b) Examples of uses of a CMV that would not qualify as personal conveyance include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The movement of a CMV to enhance the operational readiness of a motor carrier. For example, moving the CMV closer to its next loading or unloading point or other motor carrier-scheduled destination, regardless of other factors.
2. After delivering a towed unit, and the towing unit no longer meets the definition of a CMV, the driver returns to the point of origin under the direction of the motor carrier in order to pick up another towed unit.
3. Continuation of a CMV trip in interstate commerce, even after the vehicle is unloaded. In this scenario, on-duty time does not end until the driver reaches a location designated or authorized by the carrier for parking or storage of the CMV, such as a permanent residence, authorized lodging, or home terminal.
4. Bobtailing or operating with an empty trailer to retrieve another load.
5. Repositioning a CMV and or trailer at the direction of the motor carrier.
The CMV may be used for personal conveyance even if it is laden, since the load is not being transported for the commercial benefit of the carrier at that time.
In accordance with section 5203(a)(2)(A) and (a)(3) of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, Public Law 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1535 (Dec. 4, 2015), the proposed regulatory guidance would be posted on FMCSA's website,
Refer to the
1. Which carriers or drivers would take advantage of the additional flexibilities proposed in this guidance?
2. Are there particular segments of the industry that would take advantage of this change more than others?
3. Are there some carriers or segments of the industry that would prohibit their drivers from driving laden vehicles for personal conveyance?
4. For what reasons would a carrier prohibit drivers from driving a laden vehicle for personal conveyance?
5. What benefits would the new flexibilities provide to carriers and drivers?
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability and request for comments.
This document provides the public with notice that Canadian National Railway (CN) submitted to FRA its Positive Train Control Safety Plan (PTCSP) Version 1.6, dated October 30, 2017, on FRA's Secure Information Repository site on November 9, 2017. CN asks FRA to approve its PTCSP and issue a Positive Train Control System Certification for CN's Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS).
FRA will consider comments received by January 18, 2018 before taking final action on the PTCSP. FRA may consider comments received after that date if practicable.
All comments concerning this proceeding should identify Docket Number FRA-2010-0057, and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Dr. Mark Hartong, Senior Scientific Technical Advisor, at (202) 493-1332, or
In its PTCSP, CN asserts that the I-ETMS system is designed as a vital overlay PTC system as defined in 49 CFR 236.1015(e)(2). The PTCSP describes CN's I-ETMS implementation and the associated I-ETMS safety processes, safety analyses, and test, validation, and verification processes used during the development of I-ETMS. The PTCSP also contains CN's operational and support requirements and procedures.
CN's PTCSP and the accompanying request for approval and system certification are available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to comment on the PTCSP by submitting written comments or data. During its review of the PTCSP, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted. However, FRA may elect not to respond to any particular comment and, under 49 CFR 236.1009(d)(3), FRA maintains the authority to approve or disapprove the PTCSP at its sole discretion. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing regarding CN's PTCSP because the circumstances do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, the party should notify FRA in writing before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for his or her request.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Maritime Administration.
Notice and request for comments
Pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Secretary of Transportation, the Maritime Administrator is authorized to issue waivers allowing documented vessels with only registry endorsements or foreign flag vessels to be used in domestic operations that treat aquaculture fish or protect aquaculture fish from disease, parasitic infestation, or other threats to their health when suitable vessels of the United States are not available that could perform those services. A request for such a waiver has been received by the Maritime Administration (MARAD). This notice is being published to solicit comments intended to assist MARAD in determining whether suitable vessels of the United States are available that could perform the required services. If no suitable U.S.-flag vessels are available, the Maritime Administrator may issue a waiver necessary to comply with USCG Aquaculture Support regulations. A brief description of the proposed aquaculture support service is listed in the Supplementary Information section below.
Submit comments on or before January 18, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2017-0200 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
If you have questions on viewing the Docket, call Docket Operations, telephone: (800) 647-5527.
As a result of the enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, codified at 46 U.S.C. 12102, the Secretary of Transportation has the discretionary authority to issue waivers allowing documented vessels with registry endorsements or foreign flag vessels to be used in operations that treat aquaculture fish for or protect aquaculture fish from disease, parasitic infestation, or other threats to their health when suitable vessels of the United States are not available that could perform those services. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Maritime Administrator. Pursuant to this authority, MARAD is providing notice of the service requirements proposed by Cooke Aquaculture (Cooke) in order to make a U.S.-flag vessel availability determination. Specifics can be found in Cooke's application letter posted in the docket.
To comply with USCG Aquaculture Support regulations at 46 CFR part 106, Cooke is seeking a MARAD Aquaculture Waiver to operate the vessels RONJA CARRIER, COLBY PERCE, and SADIE JANE as follows:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), MARAD solicits comments from the public to inform its process to determine the availability of suitable vessels. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Comments must be received on or before January 18, 2018.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments are invited on the following:
i. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility;
ii. The accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;
iii. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and
iv. Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Ms. Debbie Sweet, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone (202) 366-7179; Fax: (202) 366-2106; email address:
Consistent with its statutory purpose to reduce traffic crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic crashes, NHTSA is amending its recommendations for recordkeeping and disclosure of information related to automated vehicle technologies by vehicle manufacturers and other entities as described in the Voluntary Guidance section of
The Voluntary Guidance is meant to help entities evaluate and achieve safety goals while assisting states and the public in understanding how safety is being considered by manufacturers and other entities developing and testing ADSs. By encouraging documentation, recordkeeping, and disclosures, NHTSA hopes to encourage safe system design while speeding the safe deployment of these potentially life-saving technologies and reducing crashes that occur on the nation's roadways.
As stipulated in the September 15, 2017
In summary, NHTSA believes there will be 60 respondents annually during the three years covered by this information collection request. The modification from the previous estimate considers the addition of new entrants as well as the fact that many entities have already begun testing automated vehicles and thus are already included in the figure. The adjustments of burden hours from the previously approved collection are a result of the following changes to the Voluntary Guidance: reducing the number of priority safety design elements for consideration from 15 to 12, removing data sharing from the data element in the Voluntary Guidance, and limiting the scope to SAE system levels 3-5 rather than levels 2-5. NHTSA estimates the total burden associated with conforming to the documentation and disclosure recommendations contained in the Voluntary Guidance would be 1,435 hours per manufacturer or entity per year. The estimated cost for following this Voluntary Guidance is $100 per hour. Therefore, the total annual cost is estimated to be $8,610,000 (1,435 hours × 60 respondents × $100/hour).
NHTSA published a notice announcing the proposed collection of information pursuant to 44 U.S.C 3501
The final of the four comments cited support for the implementation of
NHTSA and the Department focused the Voluntary Guidance on SAE Automation Levels 3 through 5 in order to focus on systems in which the system takes over full control of the vehicle, including monitoring of the environment. However, parts of the Voluntary Guidance could be applied to any level of automation, and NHTSA recommends companies use them for safe testing and development.
With respect to the changes in the safety elements, NHTSA reviewed the safety elements from the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy in conjunction with public comments and focused elements on those that affect motor vehicle safety, have consensus around acceptable considerations, and have feasible metrics for evaluation. As privacy is not directly relevant to motor vehicle safety and, generally, is under the protection of the Federal Trade Commission, this safety element was removed from the Voluntary Guidance. Ethical considerations, while essential to automated driving technology development, there is currently no consensus around acceptable ethical decision-making, and there are no metrics against which to evaluate. NHTSA plans to work with stakeholders to further research this area. Data sharing was removed from a safety element, as the agency has chosen to focus on data recording needed for crash reconstruction. NHTSA is working with industry to voluntarily collaborate on data sharing and appropriate new safety metric development. As such, NHTSA believes that removal of these safety elements and components does not diminish the usefulness of data that would be voluntarily disclosed through the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment. And though these safety elements are currently not in the Voluntary Guidance, NHTSA continues to emphasize the importance of all these aspects of ADSs throughout design, testing, and deployment of ADSs.
It is important to note that the
The 60-day
The actual number of burden hours estimated per entity each year has not changed since the September 15, 2017
Considering the increase in number of respondents and the same number of estimated burden hours per respondent, the total number of burden hours increased from 71,750 hours to 86,100 hours, and the total estimated annual cost from $7,175,000 to $8,610,000. This is the only change in burden hours since the previous 60-day notice.
44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, 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. Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning Fiscal Service Form 1133—Claim Against the United States for the Proceeds of a Government Check.
Written comments should be received on or before February 20, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for additional information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622-2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410 (not toll free numbers).
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's website (
On December 13, 2017, OFAC's Director determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked pursuant to the relevant sanctions authorities listed below:
1. LUKWANG, Okot (a.k.a. LUKWONG, Okot; a.k.a. LOKWANG, Okot; a.k.a. LUKWENG, Okot), Songo, Kafia Kingi; Central African Republic; DOB 1975; alt. DOB 1974; alt. DOB 1976; alt. DOB 1981; alt. DOB 1982; alt. DOB 1980; POB Palabek, Uganda; alt. POB Padibe Lamwu District, Uganda; nationality Uganda; (individual) [CAR].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(E) of Executive Order 13667 of May 12, 2014, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic” (E.O. 13667) for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the Lord's Resistance Army, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13667.
2. HATARI, Musa (a.k.a. ATARI, Musah; a.k.a. ATAR, Mussa; a.k.a. TAHIR, Musa; a.k.a. TARAH, Musah; a.k.a. TARAK, Musah; a.k.a. TARK, Musa; a.k.a. MUSA, Atari), Songo, Kafia Kingi; DOB 1965; alt. DOB 1964; alt. DOB 1966; nationality Sudan; (individual) [CAR].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(D) of E.O. 13667 for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, the Lord's Resistance Army, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13667.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collection requirements related to continuation coverage requirements application to group health plans.
Written comments should be received on or before February 20, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue
Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The estimated time per respondent varies from 30 seconds to 330 hours, depending on individual circumstances, with an estimated average of 14 minutes.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning information returns of U.S. persons with respect to foreign disregarded entities, and transactions between foreign disregarded entity of a foreign tax owner and the filer on other related entities.
Written comments should be received on or before February 20, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury, 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 this continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The public is invited to submit comments on the collection(s) listed below.
Written comments must be received on or before February 20, 2018.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Treasury PRA Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 8142, Washington, DC 20220, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Leonard by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), 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 January 18, 2018.
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, Floor 5, Area 368, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
VBA uses VA Form 21P-0784 to gather income information that is necessary to determine eligibility for Pension benefits. Entitlement to pension cannot be determined without complete information about a claimant's family income and net worth. Claimants residing in the Philippines have different types of income than claimants residing in the United States, and this form better captures those types of income than other VA Pension forms.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), 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 January 18, 2018.
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, Floor 5, Area 368, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
38 U.S.C. 1521(h) and 1541(g) provide the authority for the exclusion of children's income based on unavailability or hardship. VA Form 21P-0571, Application for Exclusion of Children's Income, is being transferred from Compensation Service to Pension and Fiduciary Service, due to changes in business lines.
VA Form 21P-0571 is used for the sole purpose of collecting the information needed to determine whether children's income is available to the beneficiary, and if it would cause hardship to consider their income.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary:
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), 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 January 18, 2018.
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, Floor 5, Area 368, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
VBA uses VA Form 21P-8416b to gather information that is necessary to determine eligibility for income-based benefits and the rate payable. When a claimant is awarded compensation by another entity or government agency based on personal injury or death, the compensation is usually countable income for VA purposes (38 CFR 3.262(i)). However, medical, legal or other expenses incident to the injury or death, or incident to the collection or recovery of the compensation, may be deducted from the amount of the award or settlement (38 CFR 3.271(g) and 3.272(g)).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
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 |