| Page Range | 60673-60833 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 60693 - Availability of Final Report on Regulatory Review Under Executive Order 13783 | |
| 82 FR 60714 - Notice of Public Meeting on Developing the Digital Marketplace for Copyrighted Works | |
| 82 FR 60680 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries | |
| 82 FR 60674 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Merrimack River, Newburyport, MA | |
| 82 FR 60719 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; National Blue Ribbon Schools Program | |
| 82 FR 60741 - Notice of Agreement Filed | |
| 82 FR 60761 - Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing Same; Termination of Investigation on the Basis of Settlement | |
| 82 FR 60698 - Notice of Request for Revision of an Approved Information Collection (Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery) | |
| 82 FR 60696 - Notice of Request for Renewal of an Approved Information Collection (Common or Usual Name for Raw Meat and Poultry Products Containing Added Solutions) | |
| 82 FR 60723 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 82 FR 60789 - Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements | |
| 82 FR 60788 - Quarterly Rail Cost Adjustment Factor | |
| 82 FR 60701 - Notice of Public Meeting of the California Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 60702 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Texas Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 60697 - Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food | |
| 82 FR 60675 - Approval of Tennessee's Request To Relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Gasoline Volatility Standard for Shelby County (Memphis) | |
| 82 FR 60724 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 60722 - Request for Nominations to the National and Governmental Advisory Committees to the U.S. Representative to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation | |
| 82 FR 60757 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: 2018 Rental Housing Finance Survey (RHFS) | |
| 82 FR 60758 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Annual Adjustment Factors (AAF) Rent Increase Requirement | |
| 82 FR 60787 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Diamond Mountains: Travel and Nostalgia in Korean Art” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 60787 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 60715 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions | |
| 82 FR 60754 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (NIH) | |
| 82 FR 60693 - Withdrawal of Proposed Rules To Reduce Regulatory and Financial Burden | |
| 82 FR 60764 - Hearings of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure | |
| 82 FR 60703 - Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 82 FR 60702 - Foreign-Trade Zone 154-Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Expansion of Subzone 154C; Westlake Chemical Corporation; Geismar, Louisiana | |
| 82 FR 60703 - Foreign-Trade Zone 116-Port Arthur, Texas; Expansion of Subzone 116A; Motiva Enterprises LLC; Jefferson and Hardin Counties, Texas | |
| 82 FR 60744 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 60741 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 60788 - The Indiana Rail Road Company-Temporary Trackage Rights Exemption-CSX Transportation, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 60755 - Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 60693 - 2016 National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines | |
| 82 FR 60758 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Availability of Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Sand Skink, Orange County, FL | |
| 82 FR 60746 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 60745 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 60721 - Agency Information Collection Extension | |
| 82 FR 60720 - Agency Information Collection Extension | |
| 82 FR 60759 - Notice of Intent To Prepare Two Great-Basin-Wide Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements to Reduce the Threat of Wildfire and Support Rangeland Productivity | |
| 82 FR 60796 - VA New Hampshire Vision 2025 Task Force | |
| 82 FR 60713 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 60797 - VA Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 60719 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Personal Authentication Service (PAS) for FSA ID | |
| 82 FR 60770 - Omaha Public Power District; Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1; Requests for Exemptions Regarding Emergency Planning Requirements | |
| 82 FR 60750 - Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Changes to an Approved Application: Certain Biological Products; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 60770 - Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 60769 - Proposal Review Panel for Ocean Sciences; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 60769 - Alan T. Waterman Award Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 60718 - Meeting of the Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board | |
| 82 FR 60716 - Guantanamo Bay to Punta Salinas, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico Submarine Fiber Optic Cable System (GTMO-PR SFOC); Environmental Assessment (EA)/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) | |
| 82 FR 60773 - In the Matter of All Operating Reactor Licensees | |
| 82 FR 60675 - Safety Zone; Captain of the Port Boston Fireworks Display Zone, Boston Harbor, Boston, MA | |
| 82 FR 60682 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea Bass Fisheries; 2018 and Projected 2019 Scup Specifications and Announcement of Final 2018 Summer Flounder and Black Sea Bass Specifications | |
| 82 FR 60756 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Petition for a CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker, Form I-129CW | |
| 82 FR 60746 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 60796 - Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meetings | |
| 82 FR 60788 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel CHASIN TAIL 2; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 60767 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 82 FR 60764 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 82 FR 60765 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 82 FR 60766 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 82 FR 60690 - Airworthiness Directives; Zodiac Seats France, Cabin Attendant Seats | |
| 82 FR 60747 - Amendment to “Revised Preventive Measures To Reduce the Possible Risk of Transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease by Blood and Blood Products; Guidance for Industry;” Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 60762 - Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same Notice of Institution of Formal Enforcement Proceeding | |
| 82 FR 60763 - Certain L-Tryptophan, L-Tryptophan Products, and Their Methods of Production; Commission Final Determination Finding a Section 337 Violation; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Order; Termination of the Investigation | |
| 82 FR 60778 - Notice of Intention To Cancel Registrations of Certain Transfer Agents | |
| 82 FR 60795 - Notice of Information Collection and Request for Public Comment | |
| 82 FR 60778 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 5.4, Withdrawal of Approval of Underlying Securities | |
| 82 FR 60781 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Wrong Way Risk Margin | |
| 82 FR 60784 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Decommission Extension Fee for Receipt of the NYSE Arca Integrated Feed Market Data Product | |
| 82 FR 60782 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Price List To Adopt a Rebate for the NYSE BondsSM | |
| 82 FR 60752 - Agency Information Collection Request. 30-Day Public Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 60700 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Ohio Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 60776 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 82 FR 60679 - Closed Captioning of Video Programming; Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., Petition for Rulemaking | |
| 82 FR 60723 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 82 FR 60704 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 60713 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 60704 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; North Pacific Observer Program Standard Ex-Vessel Prices | |
| 82 FR 60774 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 60777 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 60775 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 60776 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 60778 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 60777 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 60775 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 60777 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 60775 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 60701 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Kansas Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 60724 - Designated Reserve Ratio for 2018 | |
| 82 FR 60749 - Request for Nominations of Members for the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative/Food and Drug Administration Patient Engagement Collaborative | |
| 82 FR 60767 - Labor Certification Process for the Temporary Employment of Aliens in Agriculture in the United States: Adverse Effect Wage Rate for Range Occupations in 2018 | |
| 82 FR 60687 - Honey Packers and Importers Research, Promotion, Consumer Education and Industry Information Order; Change in Producer Eligibility Requirements and Implementation of Charges for Past Due Assessments | |
| 82 FR 60800 - Missing Participants | |
| 82 FR 60673 - Home Mortgage Disclosure | |
| 82 FR 60753 - Establishment of the Health Information Technology Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 60768 - Meeting of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health Subcommittee on the Site Exposure Matrices (SEM) |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Engineers Corps
Energy Information Administration
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
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.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Final rule.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is repealing its Regulation C, which was issued to implement the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) transferred rulemaking authority for a number of consumer financial protection laws, including HMDA, from the Board to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau). HMDA requires covered financial institutions to collect and report loan data in connection with residential mortgage applications and loans. Although the Board retains authority to issue some consumer financial protection rules, all rulemaking authority under HMDA concerning mortgage loan transactions was transferred to the Bureau. In December 2011, the Bureau published an interim final rule establishing its own Regulation C to implement HMDA, which superseded the Board's Regulation C. In October 2015, the Bureau revised its own Regulation C to expand and revise the data collection and reporting regime required under HMDA, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act. In April 2016, the Bureau published a final rule adopting the December 2011 interim final rule, as revised by the October 2015 final rule. Accordingly, the Board is repealing its Regulation C and the Official Staff Commentary that accompanies the regulation.
The final rule is effective January 22, 2018.
Nikita M. Pastor, Senior Counsel, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, at (202) 452-3667, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW, Washington, DC 20551. For users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202) 263-4869.
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), 12 U.S.C. 2801
Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking authority for a number of consumer financial protection laws from the Board to the Bureau, effective July 21, 2011, with some exceptions. In connection with the transfer of the Board's rulemaking authority for HMDA, the Bureau published an interim final rule to establish its own Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, to implement HMDA (Bureau Interim Final Rule).
Under Section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Board generally retains authority to issue rules for certain motor vehicle dealers that are predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both. For purposes of Section 1029, a “motor vehicle” is defined to include, among other things, motor homes, recreational vehicle trailers (RVs) and recreational boats.
Two commenters responded to the proposed repeal of the Board's Regulation C. These commenters supported the Board's proposal to repeal its Regulation C in order to avoid confusion and simplify compliance. The Board is finalizing the repeal of Regulation C, as proposed.
As discussed in the proposal, entities that are subject to HMDA must collect and report loan data to the appropriate federal agency on its housing-related loan activities (
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the rule under the authority delegated to the Federal Reserve by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The final rule contains no collections of information under the PRA.
Banks, Banking, Federal Reserve System, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the US1 Bridge across the Merrimack River, mile 3.4, at Newburyport, MA. The deviation is necessary to replace the electrical power and control systems which are at the end of their life cycle. This deviation allows the bridge to be closed to navigation.
This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on January 2, 2018 through 11:59 p.m. on April 15, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-1048 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Jeffrey Stieb, First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, Coast Guard; telephone 617-223-8364, email
The owner of the bridge, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation. The existing electrical power and control system malfunctions and is at the end of its expected life. The US1 Bridge across the Merrimac River, mile 3.4, at Newburyport, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 35 feet at mean high water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.605.
This temporary deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed to navigation position from 12:01 a.m. on January 2, 2018 through 11:59 p.m. on April 15, 2018. The deviation will have negligible effect on vessel navigation. The waterway is transited primarily by seasonal recreational vessels of various sizes. During this time period, no requests for an opening were made in 2016 and only one request was made in 2017.
Vessels that can pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies; however, Coast Guard and harbormaster vessels are able to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Newburyport and Salisbury harbormasters support the repair work being conducted in the winter season rather than the recreational boating season. The Massachusetts Department of Transportation has notified local yacht
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce safety zones for First Night Fireworks on December 31, 2017, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks display. Our regulation for Captain of the Port (COTP) Boston fireworks display zones, Boston Harbor, Boston, MA identifies the regulated areas for this fireworks display. During the enforcement period, no vessel may transit these regulated areas without approval from the COTP Boston or a designated representative.
The regulation in 33 CFR 165.119(a)(2) and 33 CFR 165.119(a)(3) will be enforced from 10 p.m. on December 31, 2017, until 12:15 a.m. on January 1, 2018.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Mark Cutter, Sector Boston Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 617-223-4000, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones in 33 CFR 165.119(a)(2) and 33 CFR 165.119(a)(3) from 10:00 p.m. on Sunday, December 31, 2017 until 12:15 a.m. on Monday, January 1, 2018, for the First Night Fireworks in Boston Inner Harbor. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks display. Our regulation for COTP Boston Fireworks display zone, Boston Harbor, Boston, MA, 33 CFR 165.119(a)(2), specifies the location of the regulated area as all U.S. navigable waters of Boston inner Harbor within a 700-foot radius of the fireworks barge in the approximate position 42°21′41.2″ N 071°02′36.5″ W (NAD 1983), located off of Long Wharf, Boston, MA. Regulation 33 CFR 165.119(a)(3), specifies the location of the regulated area as all U.S. navigable waters of Boston inner Harbor within a 700-foot radius of the fireworks barge in the approximate position 42°21′23.2″ N 071°02′26″ W (NAD1983), located off of Fan Pier, Boston, MA. As specified in 33 CFR 165.119(e), during the enforcement period, no vessel except for fireworks barges and accompanying vessels may transit these regulated areas without approval from the COTP Boston or a COTP designated representative.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.119 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a request from the state of Tennessee for EPA to relax the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year (summertime ozone season) in Shelby County, Tennessee (the Memphis Area). Specifically, EPA is approving amendments to the regulations to allow the gasoline RVP standard for Shelby County to rise from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi. EPA has determined that this change to the federal RVP regulation is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on January 22, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0461. All documents in the docket are listed on the
David Dickinson, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9256; email address:
The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:
Entities potentially affected by this rule are fuel producers and distributors who do business in Shelby County.
The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which EPA is aware that potentially could be affected by this rule. Other types of entities not listed on the table could also be affected by this rule. To determine whether your organization could be affected by this rule, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 80.27. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, see the
The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by Sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the CAA, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).
This final rule approves a request from the state of Tennessee to change the summertime gasoline RVP standard for Shelby County (the Memphis Area) from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by amending EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). Tennessee did not request relaxation of the federal RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi when it submitted the CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) that was approved on June 23, 2016 (81 FR 40816). In a subsequent rulemaking, based on Tennessee's April 12, 2017 request, EPA approved a CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration that relaxing the federal RVP gasoline requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold from June 1 to September 15 of each year would not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in Shelby County. For more information on EPA's approval of Tennessee's CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration for Shelby County, please refer to the July 7, 2017 rulemaking (82 FR 31462).
The preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows: Section III, provides the history of the federal gasoline volatility regulation; Section IV, describes the policy regarding relaxation of volatility standards in ozone nonattainment areas that are redesignated as attainment areas; Section V, provides information specific to Tennessee's request for Shelby County; and Section VI, presents the final action in response to Tennessee's request.
On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline nationwide was becoming increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function, thereby aggravating asthma and other respiratory conditions, increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.
The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under CAA section 211(c), EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868) that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the regulatory control periods that were established on a state-by-state basis in the final rule. The regulatory control periods addressed the portion of the year when peak ozone concentrations were expected. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of gasoline during the high ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum gasoline RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the state, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section 211(h) to address fuel volatility. CAA section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season. CAA section 211(h) also prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with CAA section 211(h). The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, effective January 13, 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi high ozone season limitation for certain areas. As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published in 1991, EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to their respective volatility programs. EPA's policy for approving such changes is described below in Section IV. of this preamble.
The state of Tennessee initiated this change by requesting that EPA relax the 7.8 psi gasoline RVP standard to 9.0 psi for Shelby County. Accordingly, the state of Tennessee provided a technical demonstration showing that relaxing the federal gasoline RVP requirements from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi would not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in Shelby County or with any other applicable CAA requirement.
As stated in the rulemaking for EPA's amended Phase II volatility standards (56 FR 64706, December 12, 1991), any change in the volatility standard for a nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an attainment area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that revises the applicable standard for that area. Thus, for former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas where EPA mandated a Phase II volatility standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the federal 7.8 psi RVP gasoline requirement remains in effect, even after such an area is redesignated to attainment, until a separate rulemaking is completed that relaxes the federal RVP gasoline standard in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
As explained in the December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64706) rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable gasoline RVP standard is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an
On April 12, 2017, the state of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), submitted a CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration which illustrated that removal of the federal RVP requirement of 7.8 psi for gasoline during the summertime ozone season for Shelby County would not interfere with maintenance of any NAAQS, including the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, TDEC provided a technical demonstration showing that relaxing the federal gasoline RVP requirement would not interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. As noted above, Tennessee did not request relaxation of the federal RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi when it submitted a CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that was approved on June 23, 2016 (81 FR 40816). However, the approved maintenance plan included the use of gasoline with an RVP standard of 9.0 psi. Therefore, a revised maintenance plan with an RVP standard of 9.0 psi is not needed. Nevertheless, TDEC has appropriately requested (by its April 21, 2017 letter) that EPA approve its non-interference demonstration and requested that Shelby County no longer be subject to the federal RVP standard of 7.8 psi for gasoline during the summertime ozone season.
On May 11, 2017, EPA proposed to approve the CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration. The proposal provided an opportunity for the public to comment on the action.
EPA's proposal to amend the applicable gasoline RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi (82 FR 39098, August 17, 2017) was subject to public notice and comment. EPA received no comment on its proposal. In this action, EPA is approving Tennessee's request to relax the summertime ozone season gasoline RVP standard for Shelby County from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. Specifically, EPA is amending the applicable gasoline RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi provided at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). This action to approve Tennessee's request to relax the summertime ozone season RVP standard for Shelby County from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi is based on EPA's July 7, 2017 approval of Tennessee's non-interference demonstration.
EPA is taking final action to approve Tennessee's request for the Agency to relax the RVP standard applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year in Shelby County from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi as provided at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). This approval is based on Tennessee's request and EPA's final determination in its July 7, 2017 final rule (82 FR 31462) that Tennessee, as required by CAA section 110(l), made an adequate demonstration to show that removal of this federal requirement would not interfere with the ozone NAAQS in the Shelby County and is consistent with CAA requirements. This action amends the applicable gasoline RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi provided at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) for Shelby County.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. This final rule provides meaningful burden reduction because it relaxes the federal RVP standard for gasoline in Shelby County, Tennessee and as a result, fuel suppliers will no longer be required to provide 7.8 psi lower RVP gasoline anywhere in Tennessee during the summer months (June 1st through September 15th). Relaxing the volatility requirements will also be beneficial because this action can improve the fungibility of gasoline sold in the State of Tennessee by allowing the gasoline sold in Memphis to be identical to the fuel sold throughout Tennessee.
This action does not impose any information collection burden under the PRA, because it does not contain any information collection activities.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in Tennessee, and gasoline distributers and retail stations in Tennessee. This action relaxes the federal RVP standard for gasoline sold in Shelby County, Tennessee during the summertime ozone season (June 1 to September 15 of each year) to allow the RVP for gasoline sold in this county to rise from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities beyond those, if any, already required by or resulting from the CAA section 211(h) RVP program. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This final rule does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule will affect only those refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in Shelby County and gasoline distributers and retail stations in the Area. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. The EPA has no reason to believe that this action will disproportionately affect children since Tennessee has provided evidence that a relaxation of the gasoline RVP will not interfere with its attainment of the ozone NAAQS for Shelby County, or any other applicable CAA requirement. By separate action, the EPA has approved Tennessee's non-interference demonstration regarding its maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and that Tennessee's relaxation of the gasoline RVP standard in Shelby County to 9.0 RVP will not interfere with any other NAAQS or CAA requirement.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the applicable ozone NAAQS which establish the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This rule relaxes the applicable volatility standard of gasoline during the summer. The EPA has concluded that the relaxation will not cause a measurable increase in ozone concentrations that would result in a violation of any ozone NAAQS including the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations are not an anticipated result. The results of this evaluation are contained in EPA's proposed and final rules for Tennessee's non-interference demonstration. A copy of Tennessee's April 12, 2017 letter requesting that the EPA relax the gasoline RVP standard, including the technical analysis demonstrating that the less stringent gasoline RVP would not interfere with continued maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Shelby County, or with any other applicable CAA requirement, has been placed in the public docket for this action.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by 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.
The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545, and 7601(a).
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with rules adopted in the Commission's document
The stay on 47 CFR 79.1(g)(3) is lifted effective December 22, 2017. Title 47 CFR 79.1(g)(1) through (9) and (i)(1) through (2), and the removal of 47 CFR 79.1(j)(4), published at 81 FR 57473, August 23, 2016, are effective December 22, 2017.
Eliot Greenwald, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-2235, or email:
This document announces that, on December 4, 2017, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on December 4, 2017, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 79.1(g)(1) through (9) and (i)(1) through (2), and the removal of 47 CFR 79.1(j)(4), published at 81 FR 57473, August 23, 2016. Title 47 CFR 79.1(i)(3), (j)(1), (k)(1)(iv), and (m) will become effective at a later time and the Commission will publish another document in the
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0761.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
(a) Revised the procedures for receiving, serving, and addressing television closed captioning complaints in accordance with a burden-shifting compliance model; and
(b) Established a compliance ladder for the Commission's television closed captioning quality requirements.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason General category bluefin tuna quota transfer.
NMFS is transferring 14.3 metric tons (mt) of Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) quota from the 24.3-mt General category December 2018 subquota to the January 2018 subquota period (from January 1 through March 31, 2018, or until the available subquota for this period is reached, whichever comes first). This action is based on consideration of the regulatory determination criteria regarding inseason adjustments and applies to Atlantic tunas General category (commercial) permitted vessels and Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels with a commercial sale endorsement when fishing commercially for BFT.
Effective January 1, 2018, through March 31, 2018.
Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
The base quota for the General category is 466.7 mt. See § 635.27(a). Each of the General category time periods (January, June through August, September, October through November, and December) is allocated a “subquota” or portion of the annual General category quota. Although it is called the “January” subquota, the regulations allow the General category fishery under this quota to continue until the subquota is reached or March 31, whichever comes first. The subquotas for each time period are as follows: 24.7 mt for January; 233.3 mt for June through August; 123.7 mt for September; 60.7 mt for October through November; and 24.3 mt for December. Any unused General category quota rolls forward within the fishing year, which coincides with the calendar year, from one time period to the next, and is available for use in subsequent time periods.
Although the 2017 ICCAT recommendation regarding western BFT management would result in an increase to the baseline U.S. BFT quota (
Under § 635.27(a)(9), NMFS has the authority to transfer quota among fishing categories or subcategories, after considering regulatory determination criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(8). NMFS has considered all of the relevant determination criteria and their applicability to this inseason quota. These considerations include, but are not limited to, the following:
Regarding the usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular category for biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock (§ 635.27(a)(8)(i)), biological samples collected from BFT landed by General category fishermen and provided by tuna dealers provide NMFS with valuable parts and data for ongoing scientific studies of BFT age and growth, migration, and reproductive status.
NMFS also considered the catches of the General category quota to date (including in December 2017 and during the winter fishery in the last several years), and the likelihood of closure of that segment of the fishery if no adjustment is made (§ 635.27(a)(8)(ii)). Without a quota transfer from December 2018 to January 2018 for the General category at this time, the quota available for the January period would be 24.7 mt (5.3 percent of the General category quota), and participants would have to stop BFT fishing activities once that amount is met, while commercial-sized BFT may remain available in the areas where General category permitted vessels operate. Transferring 14.3 mt of the 24.3-mt quota available for December 2018 (with 24.3 mt representing 5.2 percent of the General category quota) would result in 39 mt (8.4 percent of the General category quota) being available for the January subquota period. This quota transfer would provide additional opportunities to harvest the U.S. BFT quota without exceeding it, while preserving the opportunity for General category fishermen to participate in the winter BFT fishery at both the beginning and end of the calendar year.
Regarding the projected ability of the vessels fishing under the particular
NMFS also considered the estimated amounts by which quotas for other gear categories of the fishery might be exceeded (§ 635.27(a)(8)(iv)) and the ability to account for all 2018 landings and dead discards. In the last several years, total U.S. BFT landings have been below the available U.S. quota such that the United States has carried forward the maximum amount of underharvest allowed by ICCAT from one year to the next. In 2016 and 2017, the General category exceeded its adjusted quota (discussed below) but sufficient quota was available to cover the exceedance without affecting the other categories. NMFS will need to account for 2018 landings and dead discards within the adjusted U.S. quota, consistent with ICCAT recommendations, and anticipates having sufficient quota to do that.
This transfer would be consistent with the current quotas, which were established and analyzed in the 2015 BFT quota final rule (80 FR 52198, August 28, 2015), and with objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments. (§ 635.27(a)(8)(v) and (vi)). Another principal consideration is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the full annual U.S. BFT quota without exceeding it based on the goals of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and Amendment 7, including to achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis and to optimize the ability of all permit categories to harvest their full BFT quota allocations (related to § 635.27(a)(8)(x)).
NMFS also anticipates that some underharvest of the 2017 adjusted U.S. BFT quota will be carried forward to 2018 and placed in the Reserve category, in accordance with the regulations. This, in addition to the fact that any unused General category quota will roll forward to the next subperiod within the calendar year, as well as the anticipated increase in the U.S. quota and subquotas for 2018 as a result of ICCAT recommendations and NMFS' plan to actively manage the subquotas to avoid any exceedances, makes it likely that General category quota will remain available through the end of 2018 for December fishery participants, even with the quota transfer. NMFS also may choose to transfer unused quota from the Reserve or other categories, inseason, based on consideration of the determination criteria, as NMFS did for late 2017 (
In 2017, NMFS closed the General category fishery several times to prevent further overharvest of the adjusted General category quota, specifically August 16 for the June through August subquota period (82 FR 39047, August 17, 2017); September 17 for the September subquota period (82 FR 43711, September 19, 2017); October 4 for the October through November subquota period (82 FR 46934, October 10, 2017); and December 6 for the December subquota period (82 FR 57885, December 8, 2017). General category landings were relatively high in the summer and fall of 2017, due to a combination of fish availability, favorable fishing conditions, and higher daily retention limits in June through early August (
Based on the considerations above, NMFS is transferring 14.3 mt of the 24.3-mt General category quota allocated for the December 2018 period to the January 2018 period, resulting in a subquota of 39 mt for the January 2018 period and a subquota of 10 mt for the December 2018 period. NMFS will close the General category fishery when the adjusted January period subquota of 39 mt has been reached, or it will close automatically on March 31, 2018, whichever comes first, and it will remain closed until the General category fishery reopens on June 1, 2018.
NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely. Dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustment, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer reporting requirement, General and HMS Charter/Headboat category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing
Under § 635.23(a)(4), NMFS may increase or decrease the daily retention limit of large medium and giant bluefin tuna over a range of zero to a maximum of five per vessel based on consideration of the relevant criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(8). However, at this time, NMFS is maintaining the default daily retention limit of one large medium or giant BFT per vessel per day/trip (§ 635.23(a)(2)) for the January 2018 General category fishery. Regardless of the duration of a fishing trip, no more than a single day's retention limit may be possessed, retained, or landed. For example (and specific to the limit that will apply beginning January 1, 2018), whether a vessel fishing under the General category limit takes a two-day trip or makes two trips in one day, the daily limit of one fish may not be
Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional action (
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:
The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment to implement the quota transfer for the January 2018 subquota period at this time is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as NMFS could not have proposed this action earlier, as it needed to consider and respond to updated data and information from the 2017 General category fishery, including the recently-available December 2017 data, in deciding to transfer a portion of the December 2018 quota to the January 2018 subquota. If NMFS was to offer a public comment period now, after having appropriately considered that data, it could preclude fishermen from harvesting BFT that are legally available consistent with all of the regulatory criteria, and/or could result in selection of a retention limit inappropriately high for the amount of quota available for the period. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For these reasons, there also is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
This action is being taken under § 635.27(a)(9), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues revised scup specifications for the 2018 fishing year and projected specifications for 2019. Additionally, this action implements a summer flounder accountability measure for 2018. These actions are necessary to comply with regulations implementing the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, and to ensure compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This rule is intended to revise the 2018 scup catch limits based on updated scientific information to afford more opportunity to obtain optimum yield, update the summer flounder catch limits to account for previous overages, finalize the 2018 black sea bass specifications, and inform the public of projected scup specifications for the 2019 fishing year.
Effective December 22, 2017, through December 31, 2018.
Copies of the specifications document, including the Environmental Assessment (EA), are available on request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901.
Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9244.
Scup, summer flounder, and black sea bass are jointly managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission as part of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This action implements revised scup specifications for the 2018 fishing year and announces projected 2019 scup specifications. This rule also revises the 2018 summer flounder commercial annual catch limit (ACL) and subsequent state commercial quotas to account for an ACL overage in 2016, consistent with the FMP and regulations. The previously projected 2018 black sea bass specifications (82 FR 24078; May 25 2017) are announced as final in this action.
Background on how the Council derived the 2018 and 2019 scup specifications was outlined in the proposed rule (82 FR 51594; November 7, 2017) and is not repeated here. We are implementing the 2018 final and 2019 projected scup specifications as proposed.
The 2018 and 2019 annual catch targets (ACTs) implemented by this final rule are based on the 2019 acceptable biological catch (ABC) and setting the ACLs for 2019 equal to the ACTs. The resulting 2018 commercial quota is 38 percent higher than what is currently in place for 2018. Similarly, the resulting 2018 recreational harvest limit is 41 percent higher. This rule makes no changes to the commercial scup management measures (
The 2018 scup commercial quota is divided into three commercial fishery quota periods, as outlined in Table 2.
The current quota period possession limits are not changed by this action, and are outlined in Table 3. The Winter I possession limit will drop to 1,000 lb (454 kg) upon attainment of 80 percent of that period's allocation. If the Winter I quota is not fully harvested, the remaining quota is transferred to Winter II. The Winter II possession limit may be adjusted (in association with a transfer of unused Winter I quota to the Winter II period) via notice in the
Each year, NMFS publishes a notice to inform the public and the states of any commercial summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass overages that are deducted from a fishing year's allocations for the start of the fishing year. These overages are determined based on a review of catch and landings information for the previous full year of fishing information as well as any preliminary information in the current fishing year. In this case, the previous full year of fishing information for fishing year 2016 became available in late November 2017. This final rule is announcing a 2018 accountability measure for the summer flounder commercial fishery, as required by the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan and in compliance with the regulations at § 648.103.
This final rule implements an accountability measure to address a 2016 commercial ACL overage in the summer flounder fishery. Although the 2016 commercial summer flounder quota was not fully harvested, our estimates indicate that the commercial summer flounder 2016 ACL (9.42 million lb; 4,275 mt) was exceeded by 191,218 lb (86.7 mt). This overage was due entirely to the fact that 2016 discard estimates were much higher than originally projected, accounting for 19.3 percent of the total commercial catch in 2016. Ultimately, this results in a 2016 ACL overage of 2 percent. As a result, the regulations require an automatic pound-for-pound payback from the 2018 summer flounder ACL (7.70 million lb; 3,491 mt), which results in a 2.5-percent decrease in the ACL compared to what was previously projected for the year (Table 5). Once the 2018 estimated discards (1.07 million lb; 485 mt) are subtracted from the adjusted ACL, the resulting 2018 commercial quota is reduced by 2.9 percent from the previously projected level. This final 2018 summer flounder commercial quota is 13.7 percent higher than the quota in place for 2017 (5.66 million lb; 2,567 mt).
Table 6 summarizes the commercial summer flounder quotas for each state, incorporating the revised 2018 commercial ACL. This rule announces commercial state quota overage reductions necessary for fishing year 2018. Table 6 includes percent shares as outlined in § 648.102 (c)(1)(i), the resultant 2018 commercial quotas, quota overages (as needed), and the final adjusted 2018 commercial quotas. The 2017 quota overage is determined by comparing landings for January through October 2017, plus any 2016 landings overage that was not previously addressed in establishing the 2017 summer flounder specifications, for each state. For Delaware, this includes continued repayment of overharvest from previous years.
Table 6 shows the amount of overharvest from previous years for Delaware is greater than the amount of commercial quota allocated to Delaware for 2018. As a result, there is no quota available for 2018 in Delaware. The regulations at § 648.4(b) provide that Federal permit holders, as a condition of their permit, must not land summer flounder in any state that the NMFS Greater Atlantic Region Administrator has determined no longer has commercial quota available for harvest. Therefore, landings of summer flounder in Delaware by vessels holding commercial Federal summer flounder permits are prohibited for the 2018 calendar year, unless additional quota becomes available through a quota transfer and is announced in the
Although the 2016 commercial quota was not fully harvested, the commercial black sea bass 2016 ACL (3.15 million lb; 1,428 mt) was exceeded by approximately 630,000 lb (286 mt). This overage was due entirely to the fact that 2016 discard estimates were much higher than originally projected, accounting for 40.3 percent of the total commercial catch in 2016. This results in a 2016 ACL overage of 20 percent. However, similar to last year's reconsideration of the 2017 commercial ACL accountability measure given the 2016 benchmark assessment, we will not implement an accountability measure for this overage. The assessment provided updated information on the condition of the stock indicating that the 2016 specifications, including estimated discards, could have been much higher if the assessment had been available when those catch limits were implemented. Because an accountability measure likely would not have been triggered if catch limits had been consistent with our understanding of the stock's status, implementing an accountability measure is unnecessary. Biomass remains well above the biomass target and the stock is not subject to overfishing. The final black sea bass specifications for 2018, unchanged from when first announced as projected, are outlined in Table 7. These specifications are consistent with the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee's ABC recommendation and are sufficient to ensure the stock is not subject to overfishing or likely to be reduced below the biomass target.
On November 7, 2017, NMFS published the proposed scup specifications for public notice and comment. NMFS received three comments on the proposed rule. Two commenters were in opposition to the increase in the scup catch limits. One offered no reason for opposition, while the other noted concern over market instability and a drop in the price of scup should the market be flooded. This second commenter supported maintaining status quo measures for 2018. This increase in scup catch limit is intended to meet the objective of achieving optimum yield while also accounting for management uncertainty. As outlined in the EA of this action, scup landings have been well below the commercial quota since 2011. It is not anticipated that the commercial quota increase will result in a large increase in landings. The third commenter offered support for the catch limit increases, noting the benefits for both the commercial and recreational fisheries. No changes to the proposed scup specifications were made as a result of these comments.
The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, determined that these specifications are necessary for the conservation and management of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries and that they are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of effectiveness period for this rule, to ensure that the final specifications are in place on January 1, 2018. This action establishes the final specifications (
This rule is being issued at the earliest possible date. Preparation of the proposed rule was dependent on the submission of the EA in support of the specifications that is developed by the Council. A complete document was received by NMFS in early December 2017. Documentation in support of the Council's recommended specifications is required for NMFS to provide the public with information from the environmental and economic analyses, as required in rulemaking, and to evaluate the consistency of the Council's recommendation with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The proposed rule published on November 7, 2017, with a 15-day comment period ending November 22, 2017. Publication of the summer flounder quotas at the start of the fishing year that begins January 1 of each fishing year is required by the order of Judge Robert Doumar in
Furthermore, the revised 2018 scup catch limits increase fishing opportunities, so their timely implementation also relieves the restriction of potentially constrained fishing opportunity. This action will increase the coastwide 2018 scup quota by 31 percent and increases the 2018 scup recreational harvest limit by 41 percent, providing federally permitted vessels additional harvest opportunity.
If this final rule were delayed for 30 days, the scup fishery would forego some amount of landings and revenues during the delay period, as this rule relieves, in part, a quota-related restriction. In addition, NMFS would violate a standing court order regarding summer flounder quotas. For all of these reasons, a 30-day delay in effectiveness would be contrary to the public interest.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification, and the initial certification remains unchanged. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposal invites comments on revising the eligibility requirements for producer representatives on the Honey Packers and Importers Board (Board) and prescribing late payment and interest charges on past due assessments under the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) regulation regarding a national research and promotion program for honey and honey products. The Board administers the regulations with oversight by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This proposal would reduce the minimum production requirement for producers to serve on the Board from 150,000 to 50,000 pounds annually and thereby allow more producers to be eligible to serve on the Board. This proposal would also prescribe late payment and interest charges on past due assessments to help facilitate program administration. Both of these actions were unanimously recommended by the Board.
Comments must be received by January 22, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments may be submitted on the internet at:
Sue Coleman, Marketing Specialist, Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (503) 633-4330; facsimile: (202) 205-2800; or electronic mail:
This proposal affecting 7 CFR part 1212 is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.
This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section 524 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7423) provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.
Under section 519 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7418), a person subject to an order may file a written petition with USDA stating that an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, is not established in accordance with the law, and request a modification of an order or an exemption from an order. Any petition filed challenging an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, shall be filed within two years after the effective date of an order, provision, or obligation subject to challenge in the petition. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, USDA will issue a ruling on the petition. The 1996 Act provides that the district court of the United States for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall have the jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition, if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of USDA's final ruling.
This proposal invites comments on revising the eligibility requirements for producer representatives on the Board and prescribing late payment and interest charges on past due assessments under the Honey Packers and Importers Research, Promotion, Consumer Education and Industry Information Order. The part is administered by the Board with oversight by USDA. Under the part, assessments are collected from first handlers and importers and used for research and promotion projects designed to maintain and expand the market for honey and honey products in the United States and abroad. This proposal would reduce the minimum production requirement for producers to serve on the Board from 150,000 to
Section 1212.46 of the part provides authority for the Board to recommend amendments to the part. Section 1212.40 of the part provides that the Board have ten members—three first handlers, two importers, one importer-handler, three producers, and one marketing cooperative representative. Currently, eligible producers must produce a minimum of 150,000 pounds of honey in the United States annually based on the best three-year average of the most recent five calendar years.
The Board has had difficulty over the past few years in identifying honey producers who meet the current eligibility requirement for production volume. U.S. honey production has decreased and fewer producers can meet the part's eligibility requirement. USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service estimates U.S. honey production from producers with 5 or more colonies at 164 million pounds in 2008
Thus, the Board formed a subcommittee in October 2015 to review this issue. Over the following six months, the Board conducted outreach with beekeeping associations to gather input about the need and the level to reduce the annual production volume requirement for producers to serve on the Board. The recommendation from the associations to the subcommittee was that the minimum production requirement for producers be set at 50,000 pounds to increase the pool of eligible producers.
The Board met in April 2016 and unanimously recommended that the part's minimum production requirement for producers be reduced from 150,000 to 50,000 pounds. This should allow more producers to be eligible to serve on the Board. Section 1212.40 of the part is proposed to be revised accordingly.
Section 1212.52 of the part specifies that the Board will cover its expenses by levying an assessment on first handlers and importers. First handlers must pay their assessments to the Board on a monthly basis no later than the fifteenth day of the month following the month in which the honey or honey products were marketed. Importers must pay assessments to the Board on honey and honey products imported into the United States through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs). If Customs does not collect an assessment from an importer, the importer must pay the assessment directly to the Board.
The honey program also provides for two exemptions. Pursuant to section 1212.53, first handlers and importers who handle or import less than 250,000 pounds of honey or honey products annually, and first handlers and importers of organic honey and honey products are exempt from the payment of assessments.
Section 1212.52(g) of the part specifies that the Board shall impose a late payment charge on any first handler or importer who fails to pay their assessments to the Board on time. First handlers or importers subject to a late payment charge must also pay interest on the unpaid assessments for which they are liable. The late payment and interest charges must be prescribed in regulations issued by USDA.
Assessment funds are used by the Board for activities designed to benefit all industry members. Thus, it is important that all assessed entities pay their assessments in a timely manner. Entities who fail to pay their assessments on time would be able to reap the benefits of Board programs at the expense of others. In addition, they would be able to utilize funds for their own use that should otherwise be paid to the Board to finance Board programs.
Thus, the Board recommended that rates of late payment and interest charges for past due assessments be prescribed in the part's regulations. A late payment charge would be imposed upon first handlers and importers who fail to pay their assessments to the Board within 30 calendar days of the date when assessments are due. This one-time late payment charge would be 10 percent of the assessments due before interest charges have accrued.
Additionally, interest at a rate of
This action is expected to help facilitate program administration by providing an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner, with the intent of creating a fair and equitable process among all assessed entities. Accordingly, a new Subpart C would be added to the part's regulations regarding past due assessments, and a new section 1212.520 would be added to Subpart C.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS is required to examine the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on such entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms (first handlers and importers) as those having annual receipts of no more than $7.5 million.
The Board reported that there are about 752 importers and 41 first handlers of honey and honey products covered under the program during the 2016 fiscal period. Seventeen out of the 41 first handlers (41 percent) and 25 out of the 752 importers (3 percent) accounted for 90 percent of the assessments in their respective categories. Total assessments for 2016 were $6.74 million, of which $1.75 million (26 percent) came from first handlers and $4.99 million (74 percent) was paid by importers. This data can be used to compute an estimate of average annual revenue from honey sales from each of these categories, which in turn helps to estimate the number of large and small first handlers and importers. As mentioned above, 17 first handlers account for 90 percent of the domestic assessments. Multiplying first handler assessments in 2016 of $1,750,155 by 0.9 and then dividing by 17 yields an average annual assessment of $92,655 for the first handlers in this category. Dividing this figure ($92,655) by the assessment rate of 1.5 cents per pound ($0.015) yields an average quantity per first handler of 6.177 million pounds.
An equivalent computation can be made for the 25 importers who paid 90 percent of the $4,991,926 in assessments in 2016. Of the 25 importers, the average assessment per importer was $179,709. Dividing the average assessment per importer by the assessment rate of $0.015 per pound yields an average quantity per importer estimate of 11.981 million pounds.
For honey imports, the equivalent of the season average price for domestic honey is referred to as a “unit value.” The unit value of $1.24 per pound is computed by dividing annual imported honey value of $417.31 million by average quantity of 335.69 million pounds (import data from the Foreign Agricultural Service). Multiplying the $1.24 unit value by the average quantity of 11.981 million pounds yields average annual honey revenue per importer figure of $14.856 million, almost two times the SBA threshold figure of $7.5 million for a large firm. Therefore the majority of the 25 importers that pay 90 percent of the assessments are large firms, according to the SBA definition.
Comparable computations can be made to determine the average 2016 honey revenue for the 24 first handlers and 727 importers that paid 10 percent of the assessments in the first handler and importer categories. The first handler and importer average annual honey revenue figures are approximately $1,011,000 and $57,000, respectively, indicating that the vast majority are small businesses (in terms of honey sales), under the SBA large business threshold of $7.5 million in annual sales.
Based on the foregoing, the majority of first handlers and importers may be classified as small entities.
This proposed rule invites comments on relaxing the part's eligibility requirements for producer representatives on the Board as specified in section 1212.40 of the part. The part currently requires that producer representatives produce a minimum of 150,000 pounds of honey (based on the best three year average of the most recent five calendar years) in the United States annually. U.S. honey production has been decreasing and fewer producers can meet this eligibility requirement. Thus, the Board unanimously recommended reducing the minimum production requirement from 150,000 to 50,000 pounds annually. This would allow for a greater pool of producer nominees to be eligible to serve on the Board. Authority for this action is provided in section 1212.46(d) of the part.
This proposal would also prescribe charges for past due assessments under the part. A new section 1212.520 would be added to the part specifying a one-time late payment charge of 10 percent of the assessments due and interest at a rate of
Regarding the economic impact of the proposed rule on affected entities, relaxing the eligibility requirements for producer representatives on the Board is administrative in nature and would have no economic impact on entities covered under the program. This change would help increase the number of producers who would be eligible to serve on the Board. Eligible producers, first handlers and importers interested in serving on the Board would have to complete a background questionnaire. Those requirements are addressed later in this proposal in the section titled
Prescribing charges for past due assessments would impose no additional costs on first handlers and importers who pay their assessments on time. It merely provides an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner. For all entities who are delinquent in paying assessments, both large and small, the charges would be applied uniformly. As for the impact on the industry as a whole, this action would help facilitate program administration by providing an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner, with the intent of creating a fair and equitable process for all assessed entities.
Additionally, as previously mentioned, the part also provides for two exemptions. First handlers and importers who handle or import less than 250,000 pounds of honey or honey products annually, and first handlers and importers of organic honey and honey products are exempt from the payment of assessments.
Regarding alternatives, one option to the proposed action regarding producer eligibility would be to maintain the status quo and not reduce the production threshold for producers to be eligible to serve on the Board. However, the Board has been having difficulty identifying producer nominees who produce over 150,000 pounds of honey annually. After outreach to beekeeping associations, the Board concluded that reducing the minimum production requirement for producers from 150,000 to 50,000 pounds annually would be appropriate to increase the pool of eligible producers.
Likewise, an alternative to the proposed action to prescribe late payment and interest charges for past due assessments would be to maintain the status quo and not prescribe these charges. However, the Board determined that implementing such charges would help facilitate program administration by encouraging entities to pay their assessments in a timely manner. The Board reviewed rates of late payment and interest charges prescribed in other research and promotion programs and concluded that the late payment charge and the interest charge contained in this proposal would be appropriate.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection requirements that are imposed by the part have been previously approved by OMB under OMB control number 0581-0093. Additionally, Board nominees (including producers) must submit a Background Information form (AD-755) to ensure they are qualified to serve on the Board. The time to complete that form is estimated at 30 minutes per response. The background form is approved under OMB control no. 0505-0001. This proposed rule would not result in a change to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved and would impose no additional reporting requirements and recordkeeping burden on honey producers, first handlers or importers.
As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are
Regarding outreach efforts, as previously mentioned, this action was discussed at a subcommittee in October 2015. The Board conducted outreach over the following six months to beekeeping associations to gather input about the need to reduce the annual production volume requirement for eligible producers on the Board. The Board met in April 2016 and unanimously recommended reducing the production volume requirement from 150,000 to 50,000 pounds annually. The Board also recommended prescribing late payment charges and interest on past due assessments in the part's regulations. All of the Board's meetings are open to the public and interested persons are invited to participate and express their views.
AMS has performed this initial RFA regarding the impact of this proposed action on small entities and invites comments concerning potential effects of this action.
USDA has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with and would effectuate the purposes of the 1996 Act.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed appropriate because this action would relax the minimum production requirement for producers to serve on the Board, thereby allowing more producers to be eligible to serve on the Board. This action would also prescribe late payment and interest charges for past due assessments which would facilitate the collection of assessments under the program. All written comments received in response to this proposed rule by the date specified will be considered prior to finalizing this action.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer information, Honey Packer and Importer promotion, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1212 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 7411-7425; 7 U.S.C. 7401.
The Honey Packers and Importers Board is established to administer the terms and provisions of this part. The Board shall have ten members, composed of three first handler representatives, two importer representatives, one importer-handler representative, three producer representatives, and one marketing cooperative representative. The importer-handler representative must import at least 75 percent of the honey or honey products they market in the United States and handle at least 250,000 pounds annually. In addition, the producer representatives must produce a minimum of 50,000 pounds of honey in the United States annually based on the best three-year average of the most recent five calendar years, as certified by producers. The Secretary will appoint members to the Board from nominees submitted in accordance with § 1212.42. The Secretary shall also appoint an alternate for each member.
(1) A late payment charge will be imposed on any first handler or importer who fails to make timely remittance to the Board of the total assessments for which they are liable. The late payment will be imposed on any assessments not received within 30 calendar days of the date when assessments are due. This one-time late payment charge will be 10 percent of the assessments due before interest charges have accrued.
(2) In addition to the late payment charge,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Zodiac Seats France, 536 Series Cabin Attendant Seats. This proposed AD was prompted by cracks found in a highly concentrated stress area of the seat pan hinges. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections and replacement of the seat pan. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this NPRM by February 5, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Zodiac Seats France, Rue Robert Marechal Senior B.P. 69, 36100 Issoudun, France; phone: +33 (0) 9 70 83 08 30; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Dorie Resnik, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7693; fax: 781-238-7199; 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
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2017-0001, dated January 6, 2017 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Cases of cracks were found on Zodiac Seats France cabin attendant seats 536 series installed on some ATR 42 and ATR 72 aeroplanes. The detected damage was located in the area of the seat pan hinges. Investigations identified that fatigue had caused these cracks in a highly concentrated stress area. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the seat, possibly resulting in injury to the seat occupant. To address this potential unsafe condition, Zodiac Seats France issued Service Bulletin (SB) 536-25-003 to provide inspection and replacement instructions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0164, requiring repetitive visual inspections of the affected cabin attendant seats and, depending on findings, replacement of the seat pan. Since that AD was issued, Zodiac Seats France developed a reinforced seat pan, and revised SB 536-25-003 accordingly. After installation of a reinforced seat pan, the seat P/N amendment status is updated. For the reason described above, this AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0164, which is superseded, prohibits installation of unreinforced seat pans on seats already modified, and introduces the reinforced seat pan installation as optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Zodiac Aerospace has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. 536-25-003, Revision 3, dated June 2, 2017. The SB describes procedures for inspection, modification, or replacement of the seat pan, of certain model seats known to be installed on ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes. 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 EASA, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has 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 provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require inspection, and modification of certain model seats.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 55 seat assemblies installed on, but not limited to, ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all 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
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by February 5, 2018.
None.
(1) This AD applies to all Zodiac Seats France, Cabin Attendant Seat 536 Series, part numbers (P/N) 53600, all dash numbers, all serial numbers, with seat pan P/N F0433453, installed.
(2) These appliances are installed on, but not limited to, ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2500, Cabin Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by cracks found in a highly concentrated stress area of the seat pan hinges. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of affected seats.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Before exceeding 2,500 flight cycles (FC), or within 100 FC after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, inspect the seat pan structure in both deployed and stowed positions using paragraph 2.A., Accomplishment Instructions, of Zodiac Seats France Service Bulletin (SB) No. 536-25-003, Revision 3, dated June 2, 2017.
(2) If cracks are found, before next flight:
(i) Replace seat pan with reinforced seat pan, P/N F0511530, using paragraph 2.B., Accomplishment Instructions, of Zodiac Seats France SB No. 536-25-003, Revision 3, dated June 2, 2017.
(ii) Re-mark the seat using paragraph 2.C., Accomplishment Instructions, of Zodiac Seats France SB No. 536-25-003, Revision 3, dated June 2, 2017.
(3) If no cracks are found, do the following:
(i) Re-mark the seat using paragraph 2.C., Accomplishment Instructions, of Zodiac Seats France SB No. 536-25-003, Revision 3, dated June 2, 2017.
(ii) Reinspect the seat pan within every 100 FC since last inspection, or replace seat pan with reinforced seat pan, P/N F0511530, using paragraph 2.B., Accomplishment Instructions, of Zodiac Seats France SB No. 536-25-003, Revision 3, dated June 2, 2017.
(4) Until compliance with this AD is accomplished, stow and secure an affected attendant seat in the retracted position to prevent occupancy, in accordance with the provisions and limitations of the applicable Master Minimum Equipment List item.
Installation of a reinforced seat pan, P/N F0511530, using paragraph 2.B., Accomplishment Instructions, of Zodiac Seats France SB No. 536-25-003, Revision 3, dated June 2, 2017, is terminating action to this AD.
You may take credit for inspections and modifications performed in accordance with Zodiac Seats France SB No. 536-25-003, first issued May 24, 2016, or Zodiac Seats France SB No. 536-25-003, Revision 1, dated August 29, 2016 or Zodiac Seats France SB No. 536-25-003, Revision 2, dated September 16, 2016, if you performed these actions before the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, FAA, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO 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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Dorie Resnik, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7693; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2017-0001, dated January 6, 2017, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
(3) Zodiac Seats France SB No. 536-25-003, Revision 3, dated June 2, 2017, can be obtained from Zodiac Seats France, using the contact information in paragraph (j)(4) of this proposed AD.
(4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Zodiac Seats France, Rue Robert Marechal Senior B.P. 69, 36100 Issoudun, France; phone: +33 (0) 9 70 83 08 30; email:
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.
Notification of availability of final report on regulatory review.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) announces the availability of its report issued under Section 2 of Executive Order 13783, “
December 22, 2017.
The report is available on DOT's website at
Finch Fulton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-8186. Email:
DOT announces the availability of its report issued under Section 2 of Executive Order 13783, “
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Withdrawal of proposed rules.
As part of the efforts of HUD's Regulatory Reform Task Force, this document informs the public that HUD has determined not to pursue five proposed rules published in the
The proposed rules listed in the
Ariel Pereira, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10282, Washington DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-5138 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” signed January 27, 2017 (82 FR 9339), requires that for every new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for removal, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. Additionally, as required by Executive Order 13777, entitled “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” signed February 24, 2017 (82 FR 12285), HUD established a Regulatory Task Force that is identifying agency regulations that should be repealed, replaced, or modified. Accordingly, as part of this review, the Regulatory Task Force has determined to withdraw these five proposed rules.
HUD withdraws the following five proposed rules from its Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions:
1. Floodplain Management Protection of Wetlands; Minimum Property Standards for Flood Hazard Exposure; Building to the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (81 FR 74967, October 28, 2016);
2. Demolition or Disposition of Public Housing Projects and Conversion of Public Housing to Tenant-Based Assistance (79 FR 62249, October 16, 2014);
3. Streamlining Requirements Applicable to Formation of Consortia of Public Housing Agencies (79 FR 40019, July 11, 2014);
4. Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Rural Housing Stability Program (78 FR 18725, March 27, 2013); and
5. Public Housing: Physical Needs Assessments (76 FR 43219, July 20, 2011).
HUD's Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions is available on
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
This notice announces proposed changes to the 2016 PREP Guidelines and solicits public comment to the proposed changes. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is publishing this notice on behalf of the Preparedness for Response Exercise Program Compliance, Coordination, and Consistency Committee (PREP 4C). The PREP 4C includes representatives from the USCG under the Department of Homeland
Comments and related material must reach the USCG by January 22, 2018.
To view the proposed revisions to the 2016 PREP Guidelines, go to
We encourage the public to participate in revising the 2016 PREP Guidelines by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
To submit your comment online, go to
The Preparedness for Response Exercise Program Compliance, Coordination, and Consistency Committee (PREP 4C) published the 2016 PREP Guidelines on April 11, 2016 (81 FR 21362). We are publishing this notice to seek public comments pertaining to proposed revisions to the 2016 PREP Guidelines. These proposed revisions constitute the first change to the 2016 PREP Guidelines that will hereinafter be referred to and published as the “2016.1 PREP Guidelines.” We will consider only those comments directly pertaining to the proposed revisions. These revisions are detailed in a new “Record of Changes” that has been incorporated into the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines. The 2016.1 PREP Guidelines are available for review in docket USCG-2017-0894, as described in the
The Coast Guard is preparing a regulatory analysis of the potential deregulatory savings that may result from the revisions proposed in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines. We will publish a
A “Record of Changes” has been added to the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines. This log is a comprehensive listing of the specific revisions proposed by PREP 4C. Revisions in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines affect the USCG, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exercises only. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) sections are unaffected by the revisions proposed in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines.
One of the significant revisions is to the Remote Assessment and Consultation (RAC) drill frequency. The existing frequency will be decreased from one drill per vessel per year, to one drill per Plan Holder per triennial cycle. Additional revisions include allowing RAC drills to be combined with Qualified Individual (QI) drills, and adding language that states QI and Salvage and Marine Fire Fighter providers must be contacted as specified in the approved Vessel Response Plan.
Language was added to BSEE Section 6.2 for Incident Management Team (IMT) Exercises for Offshore Facilities. The “Participating Elements” part of that section now includes information clarifying that the incident commander, as well as the command and general staffs, at a minimum, should be exercised during an IMT functional exercise. The “Participating Elements” part now also requires that source control positions participate when source control objectives are being exercised, and encourages operators to request BSEE participation for the role of a Source Control Support Coordinator when appropriate.
“Objectives” also has new language that clarifies expectations regarding the involvement of IMT members in the exercise design process. The BSEE acknowledges that there is sometimes a need to involve key members of the IMT
Language was removed from Section 2.3.7.2.3, which addresses “Unannounced Exercises for Non-Transportation-Related Facilities Regulated by the EPA.” Section 2.3.7.2.3 had indicated that alternative response times may be approved by the EPA Regional Administrator; however, there is no supporting regulatory language in 40 CFR part 112 that specifically provides for this allowance. This change removes the language regarding alternate response times being approved by the Regional Administrator, and aligns the PREP Guidelines with the existing regulatory language in 40 CFR part 112.
This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to renew an approved information collection regarding labeling requirements for raw meat and poultry products that do not meet the standard of identity regulations and to which solutions have been added. There are no changes to the existing information collection.
Submit comments on or before February 20, 2018.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this information collection. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.
FSIS is requesting renewal of an approved information collection regarding labeling requirements for raw meat and poultry products that do not meet standard of identity regulations and to which solutions have been added. There are no changes to the existing information collection. The approval for this information collection will expire on May 31, 2018.
FSIS requires establishments that manufacture products containing added solutions to provide an accurate description of the raw meat or poultry component, the percentage of added solution incorporated into the raw meat or poultry product, and the individual ingredients or multi-ingredient components in the solution listed in the descending order of predominance by weight on the product label. FSIS also requires that the print for all words in the common or usual name appear in a single font size, color, and style of print and that the name appear on a single-color contrasting background.
FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment:
Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Done at Washington, DC, on December 19, 2017.
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are sponsoring a public meeting on February 22, 2018. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions to be discussed at the 12th Session of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food (CCCF) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in the Netherlands, March 12-16, 2018. The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety and the FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties with the opportunity to obtain background information on the 12th Session of the CCCF and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 22, 2018, 1:00-4:00 p.m.
The public meeting will take place at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 5001 Campus Drive, Room 1A-001, College Park, MD 20740.
Documents related to the 12th Session of the CCCF will be accessible via the internet at the following address:
Dr. Lauren Posnick Robin, U.S. Delegate to the 12th Session of the CCCF and the FDA invite U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
If you wish to participate in the public meeting for the 12th Session of the CCCF by conference call. Please use the call-in-number and the participant code below.
Call-in-Number: 1-888-844-9904.
Participant Code: 5126092.
Attendees may register to attend the public meeting by emailing
The Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in the food trade.
The CCCF is responsible for:
(a) Establishing or endorsing permitted maximum levels, and where necessary revising existing guideline levels for contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed;
(b) Preparing priority lists of contaminants and naturally occurring
(c) Considering and elaborating methods of analysis and sampling for the determination of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed;
(d) Considering and elaborating standards or codes of practice for related subjects; and
(e) Considering other matters assigned to it by Codex in relation to contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed.
The Committee is hosted by the Netherlands.
The following items on the Agenda for the 12th Session of the CCCF will be discussed during the public meeting:
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat before the Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see
At the February 22, 2018 public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described, discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or emailed to Dr. Lauren Posnick Robin (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to request a renewal of the approved information collection
Submit comments on or before February 20, 2018.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this information collection. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202)720-5627.
FSIS is requesting a revision of the approved information collection regarding qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback on service delivery by the Food Safety and Inspection Service. There are no changes to the existing information collection; however, the Agency has reduced the burden estimate by 8,000 hours for upcoming qualitative surveys and food safety education research. The approval for this information collection will expire on May 31, 2018.
The proposed information collection activity provides a means for the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Agency's commitment to improving service delivery.
By “qualitative feedback,” we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but not a statistical survey that yields quantitative results that can be generalized to the population studied. Qualitative feedback provides insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations; provides an early warning of issues with the Agency's customer service; and focuses attention on matters with respect to which communication, training, or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. This collection will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow the feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
The solicitation of qualitative feedback will target topics such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
FSIS will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
The collection is voluntary;
The collection is low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and is low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
The collection is non-controversial and does not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
The collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have had experience with the program, or who may have experience with the program in the near future;
Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained; as a general matter, this information collection will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not involve questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters that are commonly considered private;
Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of FSIS (if released, FSIS will indicate the qualitative nature of the information);
Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing policy decisions; and
Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collection will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence SW, 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202)720-5627.
Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Done at Washington, DC, on December 19, 2017.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Ohio Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. EST for the purpose of discussing preparations for a study of Civil Rights and Educational Funding in Ohio.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 17, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. EST.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the toll-free call-in number listed above. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the California Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 12:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) Tuesday, January 16, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to discuss potential study topics.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 16, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. PT.
Ana Victoria Fortes at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-737-3705, conference ID number: 8519801. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Kansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday, January 09, 2018 at 12 p.m. Central time. The Committee will continue discussion and preparations to hold a public hearing as part of their current study on civil rights and school funding in the state.
The meeting will take place on Tuesday, January 09, 2018 at 12 p.m. Central time.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to these discussions. These meetings are available to the public through the above call in numbers. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Texas Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:00 p.m. (Central Time), Friday, January 12, 2018, and 12:00 p.m. (Central Time) Wednesday, January 31, 2018. The purpose of the meetings is for the Committee to discuss potential speakers to invite to voting rights briefing.
The meetings will be held on Friday, January 12, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. Central Time and Wednesday, January 31, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. Central Time
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meetings are available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-670-2253, conference ID number: 3106023. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meetings. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meetings. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meetings. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meetings will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meetings at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission, grantee of FTZ 154, requesting an expansion of Subzone 154C on behalf of Westlake Chemical Corporation. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on December 18, 2017.
Subzone 154C was approved on August 11, 2016 (S-75-2016, 81 FR 84789, August 17, 2016) subject to FTZ 154's 2,000-acre activation limit. The subzone currently consists of one site (185 acres) located at 36045 Highway 30 in Geismar and includes four pipelines totaling 4.9 miles in length.
The applicant is requesting authority to expand the subzone to include an additional site:
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is January 31, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to February 15, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Foreign-Trade Zone of Southeast Texas, Inc., grantee of FTZ 116, requesting an expansion of Subzone 116A on behalf of Motiva Enterprises LLC. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on December 18, 2017.
Subzone 116A was approved on December 21, 1993 (Board Order 668, 59 FR 61, January 3, 1994). The subzone currently consists of seven sites located in Jefferson and Hardin Counties:
The applicant is requesting authority to expand the subzone to include an additional site:
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is January 31, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to February 15, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable December 22, 2017.
Rachel Greenberg, Office V, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0652.
On July 3, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on corrosion-resistant steel products from India covering the period January 4, 2016, through June 30, 2017.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The Department initiated this review on September 13, 2017, and the petitioners partially withdrew their request on December 12, 2017, which is within the 90-day period, and is thus timely. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), because the petitioners' partial withdrawal of their request for review is timely and because no other party requested a review of these companies, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to the following companies: Atlantis International Services Company Ltd; Uttam Galva Steels Limited; Uttam Galva Steels (BVI) Limited; Uttam Galva Steels, Netherlands, B.V.; and Uttam Value Steels Limited. The petitioners did not withdraw the request for review of JSW Coated Products Limited or JSW Steel Ltd. As such, this review will continue
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess anti-dumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 4, 2016, through June 30, 2017, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 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 violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(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).
The objectives of the National Sea Grant College Program, as stated in the Sea Grant legislation (33 U.S.C. 1121-1131) are to increase the understanding, assessments, development, utilization, and conservation of the Nation's ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. It accomplishes these objectives by conducting research, education, and outreach programs.
Grant monies are available for funding activities that help obtain the objectives of the Sea Grant Program. Both single and multi-project grants are awarded, with the latter representing about 80 percent of the total grant program. In addition to other standard grant application requirements, three forms are required with the grants. These are the Sea Grant Control Form 90-2, used to identify the organizations and personnel who would be involved in the grant and briefly summarize the proposed activities under the grant; the Project Record Form 90-1, which collects summary data on projects; and the Sea Grant Budget Form 90-4, which provides information similar to, but more detailed than on, forms SF-424A or SF-424C.
The National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1126) provides for the designation of a public or private institution of higher education, institute, laboratory, or State or local agency as a Sea Grant college or Sea Grant institute. Applications are required for designation of Sea Grant Colleges and Sea Grant Institutes.
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.
Notification of standard ex-vessel prices.
NMFS publishes standard ex-vessel prices for groundfish and halibut for the calculation of the observer fee under the North Pacific Observer Program (Observer Program). This notice is intended to provide information to vessel owners, processors, registered buyers, and other participants about the standard ex-vessel prices that will be used to
The standard prices are valid on January 1, 2018.
For general questions about the observer fee and standard ex-vessel prices, contact Alicia M. Miller at (907)586-7471. For questions about the fee billing process, contact Carl Greene at (907)586-7003. Additional information about the Observer Program is available on NMFS Alaska Region's website at
Regulations at 50 CFR 679 subpart E, governing the Observer Program, require the deployment of NMFS-certified observers (observers) to collect information necessary for the conservation and management of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) groundfish and halibut fisheries. Fishery managers use information collected by observers to monitor quotas, manage groundfish and prohibited species catch, and document and reduce fishery interactions with protected resources. Scientists use observer-collected information for stock assessments and marine ecosystem research.
The Observer Program includes two observer coverage categories—the partial coverage category and the full coverage category. All groundfish and halibut vessels and processors subject to observer coverage are included in one of these two categories. Defined at 50 CFR 679.51, the partial coverage category includes vessels and processors that are not required to have an observer at all times and the full coverage category includes vessels and processors required to have all of their fishing and processing activity observed. Vessels and processors in the full coverage category arrange and pay for observer services from a permitted observer provider. Observer coverage for the partial coverage category is funded through a system of fees based on the ex-vessel value of groundfish and halibut. Throughout this notice, the term “processor” refers to shoreside processors, stationary floating processors, and small catcher/processors in the partial coverage category. On August 8, 2017, NMFS published a final rule to integrate electronic monitoring (EM) into the Observer Program (82 FR 36991). Beginning in 2019, NMFS will use a portion of the fees collected under section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to deploy EM systems on vessels in the EM selection pool of the partial coverage category.
Pursuant to section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is authorized to assess a fee on all landings accruing against a Federal total allowable catch (TAC) for groundfish or a commercial halibut quota made by vessels that are subject to Federal regulations and not included in the full coverage category. A fee is only assessed on landings of groundfish from vessels designated on a Federal Fisheries Permit or from vessels landing individual fishing quota (IFQ) or community development quota (CDQ) halibut or IFQ sablefish. Within the subset of vessels subject to the observer fee, only landings accruing against an IFQ allocation or a Federal TAC for groundfish are included in the fee assessment. A table with additional information about which landings are and are not subject to the observer fee is at § 679.55(c) and is on page 2 of an informational bulletin titled “Observer Fee Collection” on the NMFS Alaska Region website at
A fee equal to 1.25 percent of the ex-vessel value is assessed on the landings of groundfish and halibut subject to the fee. Ex-vessel value is determined by multiplying the standard price for groundfish by the round weight equivalent for each species, gear, and port combination, and the standard price for halibut by the headed and gutted weight equivalent. NMFS reviews each landing report and determines whether the reported landing is subject to the observer fee and, if so, which groundfish species in the landing are subject to the observer fee. All IFQ or CDQ halibut in a landing subject to the observer fee will be included in the observer fee calculation. For any landed groundfish or halibut subject to the observer fee, NMFS will apply the appropriate standard ex-vessel prices for the species, gear type, and port, and calculate the observer fee associated with the landing.
Processors and registered buyers access the landing-specific, observer fee information through NMFS Web Application (
Under the fee system, catcher vessel owners split the fee with the registered buyers or owners of shoreside or stationary floating processors. While the owners of catcher vessels and processors in the partial coverage category are each responsible for paying their portion of the fee, the owners of shoreside or stationary floating processors and registered buyers are responsible for collecting the fees from catcher vessels, and remitting the full fee to NMFS. Owners of small catcher/processors in the partial coverage category are responsible for remitting the full fee to NMFS.
NMFS sends invoices to processors and registered buyers by January 15 of each calendar year. The total fee amount is determined by the sum of the fees reported for each landing at that processor or registered buyer in the prior calendar year. Processors and registered buyers must pay the fees to NMFS using NMFS Web Application by February 15 each year. Processors and registered buyers have access to this system through a User ID and password issued by NMFS. Instructions for electronic payment will be provided on the NMFS Alaska Region website at
This notice provides the standard ex-vessel prices for groundfish and halibut species subject to the observer fee in 2018. Data sources for ex-vessel prices are
• For groundfish other than sablefish IFQ and sablefish accruing against the fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserve, the State of Alaska's Commercial Fishery Entry Commission's (CFEC) gross revenue data, which are based on the Commercial Operator Annual Report (COAR) and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) fish tickets; and
• For halibut IFQ, halibut CDQ, sablefish IFQ, and sablefish accruing against the fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserve, the IFQ Buyer Report that is
The standard prices in this notice were calculated using the following procedures for protecting confidentiality of data submitted to or collected by NMFS. NMFS does not publish any price information that would permit the identification of an individual or business. For NMFS to publish a standard price for a particular species-gear-port combination, the price data used to calculate the standard price must represent landings from at least four different vessels to at least three different processors in a port or port group. Price data that is confidential because fewer than four vessels or three processors contributed data to a particular species-gear-port combination has been aggregated to protect confidential data.
Table 1 shows the groundfish species standard ex-vessel prices for 2018. These prices are based on the CFEC gross revenue data, which are based on landings data from ADF&G fish tickets and information from the COAR. The COAR contains statewide buying and production information, and is considered the most complete routinely collected information to determine the ex-vessel value of groundfish harvested from waters off Alaska.
The standard ex-vessel prices for groundfish were calculated by adding ex-vessel value from the CFEC gross revenue files for 2014, 2015, and 2016 by species, port, and gear category, and adding the volume (round weight equivalent) from the CFEC gross revenue files for 2014, 2015, and 2016 by species, port, and gear category, and then dividing total ex-vessel value over the three-year period in each category by total volume over the 3-year period in each category. This calculation results in an average ex-vessel price per pound by species, port, and gear category for the 3-year period. Three gear categories were used for the standard ex-vessel prices: (1) Non-trawl gear, including hook-and-line, pot, jig, troll, and others (Non-Trawl); (2) non-pelagic trawl gear (NPT); and (3) pelagic trawl gear (PTR).
CFEC ex-vessel value and volume data are available in the fall of the year following the year the fishing occurred. Thus, it is not possible to base ex-vessel fee liabilities on standard prices that are less than two years old. For the 2018 standard ex-vessel prices, the most recent ex-vessel value and volume data available is from 2016.
If a particular groundfish species is not listed in Table 1, the standard ex-vessel price for a species group, if it exists in the management area, will be used. If price data for a particular species remained confidential once aggregated to the ALL level, data is aggregated by species group (Flathead Sole; GOA Deep-water Flatfish; GOA Shallow-water Flatfish; GOA Skate, Other; and Other Rockfish). Standard prices for the groundfish species groups are shown in Table 2.
If a port-level price does not meet the confidentiality requirements, the data are aggregated by port group. Port-group data for Southeast Alaska (SEAK) and the Eastern GOA excluding Southeast Alaska (EGOAxSE) also are presented separately when price data are available. Port-group data is then aggregated by regulatory area in the GOA (Eastern GOA, Central GOA, and Western GOA) and by subarea in the BSAI (BS subarea and AI subarea). If confidentiality requirements are still not met by aggregating prices across ports at these levels, the prices are aggregated at the level of BSAI or GOA, then statewide (AK) and ports outside of Alaska (OTAK), and finally all ports, including those outside of Alaska (ALL).
Standard prices are presented separately for non-pelagic trawl and pelagic trawl when non-confidential data is available. NMFS also calculated prices for a “Pelagic Trawl/Non-pelagic Trawl Combined” (PTR/NPT) category that can be used when combining trawl price data for landings of a species in a particular port or port group will not violate confidentiality requirements. Creating this standard price category allows NMFS to assess a fee on 2018 landings of some of the species with pelagic trawl gear based on a combined trawl gear price for the port or port group.
If no standard ex-vessel price is listed for a species or species group and gear category combination in Table 1, Table 2, or Table 3, no fee will be assessed on that landing. Volume and value data for that species will be added to the standard ex-vessel prices in future years, if that data becomes available and display of a standard ex-vessel price meets confidentiality requirements.
Table 3 shows the observer fee standard ex-vessel prices for halibut and sablefish. These standard prices are calculated as a single annual average price, by species and port or port group. Volume and ex-vessel value data collected on the 2017 IFQ Buyer Report for landings made from October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017, were used to calculate the standard ex-vessel prices for the 2018 observer fee for halibut IFQ, halibut CDQ, sablefish IFQ, and sablefish landings that accrue against the fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserve.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Crab Plan Team (CPT) will meet in January, in Anchorage, AK.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 9, 2018 through Thursday, January 11, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Hotel in the Aspen/Spruce Room, 500 W 3rd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501.
Diana Stram, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The CPT will review and make recommendations on:
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
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).
NOAA, USGS and partner mapping agencies are working to improve the technology systems, data, and services that provide information about 3D data and related applications within the United States. By learning more about business uses and associated benefits that would be realized from improved 3D data, the agencies will be able to prioritize and direct investments that will best serve user needs. This questionnaire is part of an effort to develop and refine future program alternatives that would provide enhanced 3D data to meet many Federal, State, and other national business needs.
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
United States Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce; National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Department of Commerce's internet Policy Task Force (Task Force) will hold a conference at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) facility in Alexandria, Virginia, on January 25, 2018, to discuss current initiatives and technologies used to develop a more robust and collaborative digital marketplace for copyrighted works. This follows up on three earlier public meetings held by the Task Force: On December 12, 2013, which included panels focusing on access to rights information and online licensing transactions; on April 1, 2015, which focused on how the Government can assist in facilitating the development and use of standard identifiers for all types of works of authorship; and on December 9, 2016, which was designed to facilitate constructive, cross-industry dialogue among stakeholders about ways to promote a more robust and collaborative online marketplace for copyrighted works.
The public meeting will be held on January 25, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. Registration will begin at 8:30 a.m.
The public meeting will be held at the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the Madison Auditorium, which is located at 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. All major entrances to the building are accessible to people with disabilities. In addition, the meeting will be webcast for public viewing, including at the following USPTO Regional Offices: The Midwest Regional Office, 300 River Place Drive, Suite 2900, Detroit, Michigan 48207; the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 1961 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado 80294; and the Silicon Valley Regional Office, 26 S. Fourth Street, San Jose, California 95113.
For further information regarding the meeting, contact Hollis Robinson or Susan Allen, Office of Policy and International Affairs, USPTO, Madison Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; telephone (571) 272-9300; email
The Department of Commerce established the internet Policy Task Force (Task Force) in 2010 to identify leading public policy and operational issues impacting the U.S. private sector's ability to realize the potential for economic growth and job creation through the internet. The Task Force's July 2013 report,
The Green Paper devoted a chapter to “ensuring an efficient online marketplace.” It looked at some of the then-current examples of legal licensing options and noted some impediments to licensing for online distribution. These included: The complexity of licensing in the online environment, in particular in the music licensing space; challenges with mapping old contracts to new uses; and licensing across borders.
In October 2013, the USPTO and NTIA published a request for public comments relating to three areas of work flowing out of the Green Paper, including whether and how the Government can facilitate the further development of a robust online licensing environment.
At a subsequent public meeting in December 2013, two panels addressed issues related to this topic: Access to rights information and online licensing transactions. An archive of the webcast and transcript of the public meeting is available at
In April 2015, the Task Force held another public meeting to discuss: The potential for the enhanced use and interoperability of standard identifiers across different sectors and geographical borders; whether the United States should develop or participate in an online licensing platform such as the U.K.'s Copyright Hub; and what the role of the Government should be in furthering any of these efforts. A transcript and videos of the public meeting are available at
In December 2016, the Task Force convened stakeholders in another public meeting to discuss current initiatives and technologies used to develop a more robust and collaborative digital marketplace for copyrighted works. The meeting focused on initiatives in this space that relate to standards development, interoperability across digital registries, and cross-industry collaboration, to understand the current state of affairs, identify challenges, and discuss paths forward. It also provided an opportunity to explore potential approaches to the future adoption and integration of relevant emerging technologies into the online marketplace, such as blockchain technology and open-source platforms. The goal was to provide a platform for discussion and to determine in what ways government can be of assistance. The meeting included panel sessions in the morning, an exhibition hall to
Finally, the internet Policy Task Force notes that the United States Copyright Office, in terms of its administration of the Copyright Act via registration and recordation as well as through its law and policy work, is involved in several initiatives that may inform this January event. The Copyright Office is actively engaged in a number of public processes, such as: Modernizing its information technology to improve registration and recordation;
In the previous public comments and meetings, the Task Force heard from stakeholders that the government can play a useful role by facilitating dialogues between and among industry sectors and by convening stakeholder groups to make recommendations on specific issues. Based on this feedback, the Task Force is organizing this meeting to build on the work of the December 2016 meeting and facilitate constructive, cross-industry dialogue among stakeholders about ways to promote a more robust and collaborative online marketplace for copyrighted works. We will discuss the potential for interoperability across digital registries and standards work in this field, and consider how the relevant emerging technologies (
Topics to be covered will include: (1) Initiatives to advance the digital content marketplace, with a focus on standards, interoperability, and digital registries and database initiatives to track ownership and usage rights; (2) innovative technologies designed to improve the ways consumers access and use different types of digital content (
On January 25, 2018, the Task Force will hold a public meeting to hear stakeholder input and to consider future work in this area. The event will seek participation and comments from interested stakeholders, including creators, right holders, and online services that produce and distribute copyright protected digital content, as well as technologists, cultural heritage institutions, public interest groups, and academics.
The meeting will be webcast. The agenda and webcast information will be available no later than the week prior to the meeting on the internet Policy Task Force website, at
The meeting will be open to members of the public to attend, space permitting, on a first-come, first-served basis. Online registration for the meeting, which is not mandatory, is available at
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the
The following products and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
U.S. Defense Information Systems Agency, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) is announcing that it has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) relating to DISA's evaluation of the Proposed Action and Alternatives to installing Submarine Fiber Optic Cable (SFOC) for communication purposes between the DISN Facilities at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO) and Ft. Buchanan, Puerto Rico in order to supply high Bandwidth and restoration capability to DoD activities at GTMO. This SFOC will improve long-haul communications between the continental U.S. (CONUS), Puerto Rico and GTMO. The FONSI reports the studies that prove that there will be no significant environmental impact from the installation of this SFOC. This notice announces the availability of the final EA and FONSI to concerned agencies and the public.
The public comment period will end on January 22, 2018.
Requests to receive a copy of the EA or FONSI should be mailed to Defense Information Systems Agency, Public Affairs Officer, P.O. Box 549, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-0549. Arrangements must be made in advance to pick up the documents, due to facility security requirements.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
DISA Public Affairs at 301-225-8100 or
The proposed Guantanamo Bay to Puerto Rico Submarine Fiber Optic Cable system (GTMO-PR SFOC) comprises a marine cable route approximately 1,400 kilometers (756 nm) in length from a pre-laid shore end stub cable (installed in 2016 as part of Phase 1 SFOC (published at 80 FR 12985-12986, March 12, 2015)) ending 19 kilometers (10/26 nautical miles) offshore of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba to the DISN node located in Fort Buchanan, Bayamon, Puerto Rico. The landing location for Puerto Rico is the Puerto Rico Air National Guard (PRANG) Radar installation located in Punta Salinas, Toa Baja through a horizontally directional drilled (HDD) pipe. For the subsequent connection to the Army Reserves Base, Fort Buchanan in Bayamon, DISA will lease commercial 10 Gb/s lit services to facilitate the terrestrial connection.
Deepwater Cable Route Alternatives—Several deep-water route alternatives were evaluated as part of the cable route planning process with the final route selection chosen to maximize the cable protection while minimizing the environmental impact. These alternatives were not analyzed with respect to impacts on the human or natural environment because the DISA determined that the action of a one-time, direct-laid SFOC system on the seabed has been demonstrated in past commercial and government project actions worldwide to ordinarily have only a minor, localized, and transient effect on the environment. Therefore, the action lacks the potential to cause significant harm to the environment outside the U.S. and meets the exemption requirement (E2.3.3.1.1) to prepare environmental documentation under Executive Order (E.O.) 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.
No Action Alternative—The No Action Alternative would be not to proceed with the GTMO-PR SFOC system project linking NAVSTAGTMO at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba with the Fort Buchanan facility in Puerto Rico. NAVSTAGTMO would continue to operate with existing Phase 1 SFOC and backup satellite communication capabilities which would not meet the operational need for reliability and additional bandwidth nor provide a secure disaster recovery plan.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Chief of Engineers, Environmental Advisory Board (EAB). This meeting is open to the public. For additional information about the EAB, please visit the committee's website at
The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on January 10, 2018. Public registration will begin at 8:30 a.m.
The EAB meeting will be conducted at The DoubleTree by Hilton Jacksonville Riverfront; 1201 Riverplace Blvd., Jacksonville, FL 32207. 904-398-8800.
Ms. Mindy M. Simmons, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the committee, in writing at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CECW-P, 441 G St NW, Washington, DC 20314; by telephone at 202-761-4127; and by email at
The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
Office of Communications and Outreach (OCO), 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 Aba Kumi, 202-401-1767.
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.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 22, 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 Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for comments.
EIA, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend with changes for three years with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Form EIA-846
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before February 20, 2018. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in
Written comments may be sent to Tom Lorenz, U.S. Energy Information Administration, EI-22, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 or by fax at (202) 586-9753, or by email at
Access to the proposed form, instructions, and internet data collection screens can be found at:
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Tom Lorenz by phone at (202) 586-3442, or by email at
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to identify alternate sources of manufacturing consumption information EIA proposes to collect. EIA will evaluate comments on duplication of data sources based on terms of data coverage, level of aggregation, frequency of collection, data reliability, and statutory requirements to determine whether alternate data sources represent a suitable substitute for EIA data.
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(4a)
1.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-275, codified as 15 U.S.C. 772 (b) and the DOE Organization Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-91, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7101
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice.
EIA has submitted an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of its Form GC-859 “
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before January 22, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-1254 or emailed at
Written comments should be sent to the:
DOE Desk Officer: James Tyree, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 9249, 735 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
And to: Marta Gospodarczyk, Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis, EI-34, Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585, or by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Marta Gospodarczyk at the contact information given above or phone at, 202-586-0527. Form GC-859 and its instructions are available on the internet at
This information collection request contains:
(1) OMB No. 1901-0287;
(2)
(3)
(4)
Form GC-859 collects information on nuclear fuel use and spent fuel discharges from all utilities that operate commercial nuclear reactors and from all others that possess irradiated fuel from commercial nuclear reactors. The data collection provides stakeholders with detailed information concerning the spent nuclear fuel generated by the respondents (commercial utility generators of spent nuclear fuel and other owners of spent nuclear fuel within the U.S.).
Data collected from the survey are used by personnel from DOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM), and the national laboratories to meet their research objectives of developing a range of options and supporting analyses that facilitate informed choices about how best to manage spent nuclear fuel (SNF).
(4a)
• Collection of fuel manufacturer and lattice size used in Section C.1.1 of the 2013 GC-859 is replaced by fuel assembly type codes for fuel discharged from July 1, 2013—December 31, 2017. Fuel assembly type codes were last collected in the 2003 RW-859. Identification of the fuel assembly type provides significantly more information of the spent fuel than just manufacturer and lattice size.
• Section C.1.3 is added to the survey to collect fuel assembly type codes for fuel discharged from January 1, 2003—June 30, 2013. Selection boxes are added to this section to reduce reporting burden. Respondents may mark the fuel assembly type code based on the reactor design, previously used fuel types, range of assembly identification numbers, and initial cycle in core.
• “Cumulative Burnup for Each Cycle,” for each assembly is added to Section C.1.2 of the survey. Respondents may voluntarily report this data. Assembly burnup data by cycle is used to calculate discharged fuel characteristics and obtain fundamental parameters needed for spent fuel safety analyses.
• Section C.1.4 is added to the survey to collect data on all discharged fuel that is shipped or transferred to other storage sites (since January 1, 2003). This information was last collected in 2003 using Form RW-859 and allows the tracking of all spent nuclear fuel discharged by commercial reactors, regardless of current ownership or transit status.
• Section C.2 “Projected Assembly Discharges” is deleted since this data is no longer needed for analysis.
• Section C.3.3.1 requests information for consolidated, reconstituted, reconstructed fuel assemblies. A drop-down menu was created with these three choices of fuel assemblies.
• A note is added in Section D.3.2 “Multi-Assembly Canisters/Casks Inventory” to capture deviations from standard operating procedures related to drying, backfilling, leak testing, or pad transfer processes.
• Dry cask loading pattern maps with orientation details are added to Section D.3.2 of the survey. For each canister/cask model, respondents provide or reference a loading map that clearly indicates identifiers for basket cell locations relative to fixed drain and vent port locations. For systems stored horizontally, the map indicates which direction is up when placed in a horizontal storage module. The dry cask loading pattern data facilitates detailed as-loaded analyses and enables the quantification of realistic safety margins and conditions.
• Section E.2 “Non-fuel Components Integral to an Assembly” is deleted and the data on non-fuel components integral to an assembly should be reported in Section C.1.1. The collection of data on non-fuel component identifiers was also added to Section C.1.1.
• Schedule G is deleted. This schedule was used to collect comments. It is easier for respondents to provide comments when completing a schedule so the new form will collect comments after each section.
• A copy of Standard Contract (10 CFR 961.11) Appendix E
• The following terms have either been added or updated to match the definition prescribed by the Standard Contract; Canister, DOE Facility, Failed Fuel, Multi-Assembly Canister/Cask, Non-fuel Component Identifier, Non-standard Fuel and Reconstructed Assembly.
• DOE is changing Form GC-859 to collect information once every three years on a triennial basis. Reporting once every three years reduces respondent burden by permitting all new data for the multiyear period to be reported in one report.
• In response to a public comment on the 60-day
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Public Law 93-275, codified as 15 U.S. C. 772(b) and the DOE Organization Act of 1977, Public Law 95-91, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7101
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of request for nominations.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to the National Advisory Committee (NAC) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), to advise the U.S. Representative to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). Vacancies on these two committees are expected to be selected by the spring of 2018. Please submit nominations by no later than February 16, 2018. Additional sources may be utilized in the solicitation of nominees.
Although we are unable to provide compensation or an honorarium for your services, you may receive travel and per diem allowances, according to applicable federal travel regulations. EPA is seeking nominations from various sectors,
• Professional knowledge of the subjects examined by the committees, including trade & environment issues, NAFTA, the NAAEC, and the CEC.
• Represent a sector or group involved in trilateral environmental policy issues.
• Senior-level experience in the sectors represented on both committees.
• A demonstrated ability to work in a consensus building process with a wide range of representatives from diverse constituencies.
• Nominees may self-nominate.
If you are interested in serving on the NAC or GAC, please submit the following information:
• Nominations must include a brief statement of interest, a resume or curriculum vitae, and a short biography describing your professional and educational qualifications, including a list of relevant activities and any current or previous service on advisory committees. The statement of interest, resume, curriculum vitae, or short biography should include the candidate's name, and name and address of current organization, position title, email address, and daytime telephone number(s). In preparing your statement of interest, please describe how your background, knowledge, and experience, will bring value to the work of the NAC or GAC, and how these qualifications will contribute to the overall diversity of the committees. Also, please describe any previous involvement with EPA through employment, grant funding, and/or contracting sources.
• Candidates from the academic and tribal sectors must also provide a letter of recommendation authorizing the nominee to represent their organization or Tribal government.
• Please be advised that federally registered lobbyists are not permitted to serve on federal advisory committees.
• EPA's policy is that, unless otherwise prescribed by statute, members generally are appointed for two-year terms.
Submit nominations to Oscar Carrillo, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1601-M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. You may also email nominations with subject line “NAC/GAC Nomination 2018” to
Oscar Carrillo, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. EPA, telephone (202) 564-0347; fax (202) 564-8129.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before February 20, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Additionally, the Order adopted a rule requiring utilities to make available and keep up-to-date a reasonably sufficient list of approved contractors to perform surveys and make-ready work in the communications space of a utility pole. If an attacher uses a utility-approved contractor, then it must notify the utility and invite the utility to send a representative to oversee the work. Finally, the Order also broadened the existing enforcement process by permitting incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to file complaints alleging that the pole attachment rates, terms, or conditions demanded by utilities are unjust or unreasonable. If an incumbent LEC can demonstrate that it is similarly situated to an attacher that is a telecommunications carrier or a cable television system (through relevant evidence, including pole attachment agreements), then it can gain comparable pole attachment rates, terms, and condition as the similarly-situated carrier. The paperwork burdens for this provision are contained in OMB Collection No. 3060-0392. The Order also encourages incumbent LECs that benefit from lower pole attachment costs to file data at the Commission that demonstrate that the benefits are being passed on to consumers.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of Designated Reserve Ratio for 2018.
Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation designates that the Designated Reserve Ratio (DRR) for the Deposit Insurance Fund shall remain at 2 percent for 2018. The Board is publishing this notice as required by section 7(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
Munsell St. Clair, Chief, Banking and Regulatory Policy Section, Division of Insurance and Research, (202) 898-8967; Robert Grohal, Chief, Fund Analysis and Pricing Section, Division of Insurance and Research, (202) 898-6939; or Sheikha Kapoor, Senior Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 898-3960.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
30-Day notice of submission of information collection for approval from Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA or the Agency) is seeking public comments concerning an information collection known as “Federal Home Loan Bank Directors,” which has been assigned control number 2590-0006 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). FHFA intends to submit the information collection to OMB for review and approval of a three-year extension of the control number, which is due to expire on December 31, 2017.
Interested persons may submit comments on or before January 22, 2018.
Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Washington, DC 20503, Fax: (202) 395-3047, Email:
•
•
•
We will post all public comments we receive without change, including any personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, and telephone number, on the FHFA website at
Patricia Sweeney, Senior Management Analyst, Division of Bank Regulation, by email at
Section 7 of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) vests the management of each Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank) in its board of directors.
Part 1261 of the regulations requires that each Bank administer its own annual director election process. As part of this process, a Bank must require each nominee for both types of directorship, including any incumbent that may be a candidate for re-election, to complete and return to the Bank a form that solicits information about the candidate's statutory eligibility to serve and, in the case of independent director candidates, about his or her professional qualifications for the directorship being sought.
Each Bank must also require all of its incumbent directors to certify annually that they continue to meet all eligibility requirements.
The Banks use the information collection contained in the
The Banks use the information collection contained in the
The OMB control number for this information collection is 2590-0006 and the current PRA clearance expires on December 31, 2017. The likely respondents are individuals who are prospective and incumbent Bank directors. The three Bank director forms that FHFA will be submitting to OMB for review, copies of which appear at the end of this notice, are substantively identical to those that are currently approved under the PRA. However, FHFA is considering major revisions to each of the forms and expects to publish another set of PRA notices regarding the revised forms and to submit the revised forms to OMB for review and clearance under the PRA in the near future.
FHFA estimates the total annual hour burden imposed upon respondents by the three Bank director forms comprising this information collection to be 145 hours (37 hours + 75 hours + 33 hours = 145 hours, as detailed below).
The Agency estimates the total annual hour burden on all member director candidates and incumbent member directors associated with review and completion of the
The Agency estimates the total annual hour burden on all independent director candidates associated with review and completion of the
The Agency estimates the total annual hour burden on all incumbent independent directors associated with review and completion of the
In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FHFA published a request for public comments regarding this information collection in the
In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.10(a), FHFA is publishing this second notice to request comments regarding the following: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FHFA
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed changes to the currently approved information collection project:
Comments on this notice must be received by February 20, 2018.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed changes to questions asked of household respondents, data collection instruments, collection plans, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. For over thirty years, results from the MEPS and its predecessor surveys (the 1977 National Medical Care Expenditure Survey, the 1980 National Medical Care Utilization and Expenditure Survey and the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey) have been used by OMB, DHHS, Congress and a wide number of health services researchers to analyze health care use, expenses and health policy.
Major changes continue to take place in the health care delivery system. The MEPS is needed to provide information about the current state of the health care system as well as to track changes over time. The MEPS permits annual estimates of use of health care and expenditures and sources of payment for that health care. It also permits tracking individual change in employment, income, health insurance and health status over two years. The use of the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) as a sampling frame expands the MEPS analytic capacity by providing another data point for comparisons over time.
Households selected for participation in the MEPS-HC are interviewed five times in person. These rounds of interviewing are spaced about 5 months apart. The interview will take place with a family respondent who will report for him/herself and for other family members.
The only change to the MEPS-HC from the previous OMB clearance is an update to the existing Adult Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ).
The MEPS-HC has the following goal:
The MEPS-MPC will contact medical providers (hospitals, physicians, home health agencies and institutions) identified by household respondents in the MEPS-HC as sources of medical care for the time period covered by the interview, and all pharmacies providing prescription drugs to household members during the covered time period. The MEPS-MPC is not designed to yield national estimates as a stand-alone survey. The sample is designed to target the types of individuals and providers for whom household reported expenditure data was expected to be insufficient. For example, Medicaid enrollees are targeted for inclusion in the MEPS-MPC because this group is expected to have limited information about payments for their medical care.
The MEPS-MPC collects event level data about medical care received by sampled persons during the relevant time period. The data collected from medical providers include:
Data collected from pharmacies include:
The MEPS-MPC has the following goal:
• To serve as an imputation source for and to supplement/replace household reported expenditure and source of payment information. This data will supplement, replace and verify information provided by household respondents about the charges, payments, and sources of payment associated with specific health care encounters.
There are no changes to the MEPS-MPC from the previous OMB clearance.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractors, Westat and RTI International, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the cost and use of health care services and with respect to health statistics and surveys. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(3) and (8); 42 U.S.C. 299b-2.
To achieve the goals of the MEPS-HC the following data collections are implemented:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
To achieve the goal of the MEPS-MPC the following data collections are implemented:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Dentists, optometrists, psychologists, podiatrists, chiropractors, and others not providing care under the supervision of a MD or DO are considered out of scope for the MEPS-MPC.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the MEPS-HC and the MEPS-MPC. The MEPS-HC Core Interview will be completed by 15,093* (see note below Exhibit 1) “family level” respondents, also referred to as RU respondents. Since the MEPS-HC consists of 5 rounds of interviewing covering a full two years of data, the annual average number of responses per respondent is 2.5 responses per year. The MEPS-HC core requires an average response time of 92 minutes to administer. The Adult SAQ will be completed once a year by each person in the RU that is 18 years old and older, an estimated 28,254 persons. The Adult SAQ requires an average of 7 minutes to complete. The Diabetes care SAQ will be completed once a year by each person in the RU identified as having diabetes, an estimated 2,345 persons, and takes about 3 minutes to complete. The authorization form for the MEPS-MPC Provider Survey will be completed once for each medical provider seen by any RU member. The 14,489 RUs in the MEPS-HC will complete an average of 5.4 forms, which require about 3 minutes each to complete. The authorization form for the MEPS-MPC Pharmacy Survey will be completed once for each pharmacy for any RU member who has obtained a prescription medication. RUs will complete an average of 3.1 forms, which take about 3 minutes to complete. About one third of all interviewed RUs will complete a validation interview as part of the MEPS-HC quality control, which takes an average of 5 minutes to complete. The total annual burden hours for the MEPS-HC are estimated to be 67,826 hours.
All medical providers and pharmacies included in the MEPS-MPC will receive a screening call and the MEPS-MPC uses 7 different questionnaires; 6 for medical providers and 1 for pharmacies. Each questionnaire is relatively short and requires 2 to 15 minutes to complete. The total annual burden hours for the MEPS-MPC are estimated to be 18,876 hours. The total annual burden for the MEPS-HC and MPC is estimated to be 86,702 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annual cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in this information collection. The annual cost burden for the MEPS-HC is estimated to be $1,618,328; the annual cost burden for the MEPS-MPC is estimated to be $316,532. The total annual cost burden for the MEPS-HC and MPC is estimated to be $1,934,860.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ healthcare research and healthcare information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Notice; partial withdrawal.
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published a notice document entitled, “Agency Information Collection Activities:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by February 20, 2018.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep
1.
The descriptive study will document the policies and practices of child welfare agencies and related organizations to identify, assess, and refer to services children who may have been exposed to prenatal substances and/or diagnosed with a resulting condition such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD). The study will document procedures as well as challenges faced and lessons learned to inform the field of practice as well as policy makers, program administrators, and funders at various levels.
The proposed information collection activities consist of semi-structured interviews and surveys conducted at 28 child welfare agency sites. Focus groups conducted at 8 of the 28 sites will gather information on needs, challenges, and strategies to support children with prenatal substance exposures and their families within the child welfare system.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 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: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Amendment to `Revised Preventive Measures to Reduce the Possible Risk of Transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease by Blood and Blood Products; Guidance for Industry;' Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance document provides blood collection establishments with revised recommendations intended to reduce the possible risk of transmission of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) by blood and blood products by revising and removing certain recommended deferrals for geographic risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) exposure and recommending deferral for individuals with a history of blood transfusion in Ireland from 1980 to the present. The recommendations apply to the collection of Whole Blood and blood components intended for transfusion or for use in further manufacturing into injectable and non-injectable products, including recovered plasma, Source Leukocytes and Source Plasma.
The draft guidance, when finalized, will amend the document entitled “Revised Preventive Measures to Reduce the Possible Risk of Transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease by Blood and Blood Products; Guidance for Industry” updated January 2016 (“2016 vCJD Guidance”) by incorporating into an updated final guidance any new recommendations adopted. All other recommendations in the 2016 vCJD Guidance will remain unchanged.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by March 22, 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
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 (CBER), 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
Melissa Segal, 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 “Amendment to `Revised Preventive Measures to Reduce the Possible Risk of Transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease by Blood and Blood Products; Guidance for Industry;' Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance provides blood collection establishments with revised recommendations intended to reduce the possible risk of transmission of vCJD by blood and blood products. The draft guidance, when finalized, will amend FDA's current recommendations by revising and removing certain recommended deferrals for geographic risk of BSE exposure; and recommending deferral for individuals with a history of blood transfusion in Ireland from 1980 to the present. The draft guidance also includes recommendations for blood collection establishments to update their donor history questionnaires (DHQ), including full-length and abbreviated DHQs and accompanying materials, and processes to incorporate the recommendations provided in the guidance, and recommendations for licensed establishments on how to report such changes to FDA. The recommendations apply to the collection of Whole Blood and blood components intended for transfusion or for use in further manufacturing into injectable and non-injectable products, including recovered plasma, Source Leukocytes and Source Plasma. While this draft guidance specifically provides revised recommendations to address vCJD risk, we may address Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) risk in future guidance documents.
The revised donor deferral recommendations are based on the results of an FDA quantitative risk assessment model. The model was developed to rank the risk of vCJD in different countries, to evaluate risk reduction and donor loss resulting from the current donor deferral policy compared with alternative policies, and to evaluate the potential additional reduction in risk afforded by leukocyte reduction of red blood cells. The model estimated that the United Kingdom, Ireland, and France, the three countries with the highest vCJD risks, contributed 95 percent of the total vCJD risk in the United States. The model also predicted that a revised policy of deferring donors only for time spent in these three countries would maintain a level of blood safety similar to that resulting from current policy, assuming approximately 71.3 to 95 percent of red blood cells currently transfused in the United States are leukocyte reduced. Based on its value in reducing the risk of transfusion-transmitted vCJD and its other medical benefits, FDA continues to consider potential rulemaking that would require leukocyte reduction of red blood cells and platelets intended for transfusion. The draft guidance, when finalized, will amend the 2016 vCJD Guidance.
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 “Revised Preventive Measures to Reduce the Possible Risk of Transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease by Blood and Blood Products.” 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
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 601.12 and Form FDA 356h have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.
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), in collaboration with the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI), is requesting nominations of patient advocates interested in participating on the Patient Engagement Collaborative (PEC). The PEC will be an ongoing, collaborative forum coordinated through the Patient Affairs Staff, Office of Medical Products and Tobacco (OMPT), Office of the Commissioner, and will be hosted by CTTI. Through the PEC, the patient community and regulators will be able to discuss an array of topics regarding increasing meaningful patient engagement in medical product development and regulatory discussions at FDA. The activities of the PEC may include, but are not limited to, providing diverse perspectives on topics such as systematic patient engagement, transparency, and communication; providing considerations for implementing new strategies to enhance patient engagement at FDA; and proposing new models of collaboration in which patients and patient advocates are partners in certain aspects of the medical product development and FDA review process.
Nominations received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on or before January 29, 2018, will be given first consideration for membership on the PEC. Nominations received after the submission deadline will be retained for future consideration.
All nominations should be submitted to the FDA's Patient Affairs Staff in the OMPT. Email nominations are preferred and should be submitted to
Andrea Furia-Helms, Office of Medical Products and Tobacco, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 1316, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-8455,
The CTTI is a public-private partnership co-founded by FDA and Duke University whose mission is to develop and drive adoption of practices that will increase the quality and efficiency of clinical trials. FDA and CTTI have long involved patients and considered patient perspectives in their work. Furthering the engagement of patients as valued partners across the medical product research and development continuum requires an open forum for patients and regulators to discuss and exchange ideas.
The PEC will be an ongoing, collaborative forum in which the patient community and regulators will discuss an array of topics regarding increasing patient engagement in medical product development and regulatory discussions at FDA. The PEC will be a joint endeavor between the CTTI and FDA. The activities of the PEC may inform relevant FDA and CTTI activities. The PEC is not intended to advise or otherwise direct the activities of either organization, and membership will not constitute employment by either organization.
The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), section 1137, entitled “Patient Participation in Medical Product Discussions,” added section 569C to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-8c). This provision directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop and implement strategies to solicit the views of patients during the medical product development process and consider the perspectives of patients during regulatory discussions. On November 4, 2014, FDA issued a
Recent legislation in both section 3001 of the 21st Century Cures Act and section 605 of the Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act of 2017 supports tools for fostering patient participation in the regulatory process.
The purpose of this notice is to announce that the nomination process for the PEC is now open, and to invite and encourage nominations by the submission deadline for appropriately qualified individuals. Self-nominations are accepted.
The PEC will include up to 16 diverse representatives of the patient community. Selected members will include the following: (1) Patients who have personal disease experience; (2) caregivers who support patients, such as a parent, child, partner, other family member, or friend, and who have personal disease experience through this caregiver role; and (3) representatives from patient groups who, through their role in the patient group, have direct or indirect disease experience. Please note that for purposes of this activity, the term “caregiver” is not intended to include individuals who are engaged in caregiving as health care professionals; and the term “patient group” is used herein to encompass patient advocacy
Selection criteria include the nominee's potential to meaningfully contribute to the activities of the PEC, ability to represent and express the patient voice for his or her constituency, ability to work in a constructive manner with involved stakeholders, and understanding of the clinical research enterprise. Consideration will also be given to ensuring the PEC includes diverse perspectives and experiences, including but not limited to, sociodemographic and disease experience diversity. It is anticipated that approximately half of the PEC membership will be selected from eligible CTTI member organizations and individuals, and half will be selected from other nominees. Members are required to be citizens and residents of the United States.
Financial and other conflicts of interest will not necessarily make nominees ineligible for membership in the PEC. However, nominees cannot be direct employees of the medical product development industry.
Meetings of the PEC will typically be held four times per year, either in-person (in the Washington, DC area) or by webinar, and additional meetings may be organized as needed. Accommodations will be made for members with special needs for travel or for participation in a meeting (
To help ensure continuity in its activities and organizational knowledge, the PEC will maintain staggered membership terms for patient community representatives. Membership terms are anticipated as 1- to 2-year appointments, and will be determined during the process of selecting members. Members may serve up to two terms, with the possibility of extensions.
Additional responsibilities and expectations are set forth in the Patient Engagement Collaborative Framework, which should be reviewed prior to submitting a nomination. The full text of the Patient Engagement Collaborative Framework is available at
Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified individuals for membership on the PEC. Self-nominations are also accepted.
Nominations should include the following: (1) A personal statement (maximum 800 words) from the nominee explaining his or her interest in becoming a member of the PEC; (2) a current, complete curriculum vitae or resume that shows relevant activities and experience; and (3) an optional letter of endorsement (maximum 800 words) from a patient group with which the nominee has worked closely on activities relevant to the PEC.
The personal statement and optional letter of endorsement (if provided) should emphasize information relevant to the criteria for membership described above. The letter may address topics such as the nominee's involvement in patient advocacy activities, experiences that stimulated an interest in participating in discussions about patient engagement in medical product development and regulatory decision-making, and other information that may be helpful in evaluating the nominee's qualifications as a potential member of the PEC.
Nominations must provide the nominee's contact information (phone and email preferred), as well as state that the nominee is aware of the nomination (unless self-nominated) and is willing to serve as a member of the PEC.
Additional information may be needed from nominees, including information relevant to understanding potential sources of conflict of interest, in which case nominees will be contacted directly.
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 “Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Changes to an Approved Application: Certain Biological Products; Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance is intended to assist applicants and manufacturers of certain licensed biological products in determining which reporting category is appropriate for a change in chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) information to an approved biologics license application (BLA). The draft guidance provides applicants and manufacturers general and administrative information on reporting and evaluating changes and recommendations for reporting categories based on a tiered-reporting system for specific changes. The draft guidance, when finalized, is intended to supersede the document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Changes to an Approved Application: Biological Products” dated July 1997 (July 1997 guidance).
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by March 22, 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 (CBER), 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
Jessica T. Walker, 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 “Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Changes to an Approved Application: Certain Biological Products; Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance, when finalized, is intended to assist applicants and manufacturers of licensed biological products in determining which reporting category is appropriate for a change in CMC to an approved BLA as specified in 21 CFR 601.12. The draft guidance provides applicants and manufacturers general and administrative information on reporting and evaluating changes and recommendations for reporting categories based on a tiered-reporting system for specific changes under § 601.12.
FDA issued the July 1997 guidance (62 FR 39904; July 24, 1997) to assist applicants in determining which reporting mechanism is appropriate for reporting a change to an approved application to reduce the burden on manufacturers when reporting changes and to facilitate the approval process of the change being made. We are updating the July 1997 guidance to accommodate advances in manufacturing and testing technology and to clarify the FDA's current thinking on assessing reportable changes. The updated guidance applies to certain biological products licensed under the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), including in vitro diagnostics licensed under BLAs. This draft guidance applies to all manufacturing locations, including contract locations. The following biological products are not within the scope of this guidance: Whole blood, blood components, source plasma, and source leukocytes. This draft guidance also does not apply to human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 264), as described in 21 CFR part 1271; specified biotechnology and specified synthetic biological products; and biosimilar biological products subject to licensure under section 351(k) of the PHS Act. The draft guidance, when finalized, is intended to supersede the July 1997 guidance.
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 “Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Changes to an Approved Application: Certain Biological Products.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This draft guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 210 and
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
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 22, 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.
OMB No. 0990—NEW—Office within OS—President's Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition (PCFSN), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), HHS.
Notice of establishment meeting dates of the Health Information Technology Advisory Committee.
The Health Information Technology Advisory Committee (HITAC) is established in accordance with section 4003(e) of the 21st Century Cures Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Health information Technology Advisory Committee, among other things, shall identify priorities for standards adoption and make recommendations to the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology (National Coordinator) on a policy framework to advance an interoperable health information technology infrastructure. The HITAC will hold public meetings throughout 2018 with its first public meeting scheduled for January 18, 2018, from approximately 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m./Eastern Time at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert Street NW, Washington, DC 20008.
Lauren Richie, Designated Federal Officer, at
Section 4003(e) of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255) establishes the Health Information Technology Advisory Committee (referred to as the “HITAC”). The HITAC will be governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. App .), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.
The HITAC is comprised of at least 25 members, of which:
• No fewer than 2 members are advocates for patients or consumers of health information technology;
• 3 members are appointed by the HHS Secretary
○ 1 of whom shall be appointed to represent the Department of Health and Human Services and
○ 1 of whom shall be a public health official;
• 2 members are appointed by the majority leader of the Senate;
• 2 members are appointed by the minority leader of the Senate;
• 2 members are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
• 2 members are appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives; and
• Other members are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States.
Introductory members will serve for one-, two-, or three-year terms. All members may be reappointed for subsequent three-year terms. Each member is limited to two three-year terms, not to exceed six years of service. After establishment, members shall be appointed for a three year term. Members serve without pay, but will be provided per-diem and travel costs for committee services.
The HITAC shall recommend to the National Coordinator a policy framework for adoption by the Secretary consistent with the strategic plan under section 3001(c)(3) for advancing following target areas: (1) Achieving a health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic access, exchange, and use of health information; (2) the promotion and protection of privacy and security of health information in health information technology; (3) the facilitation of secure access by an individual to such individual's protected health information; and (4) any other target area that the HITAC identifies as an appropriate target area to be considered. Such policy framework shall seek to prioritize achieving advancements in these target areas and may incorporate policy recommendations made by the HIT Policy Committee, as in existence before the date of the enactment of the 21st Century Cures Act.
The first public meeting of the HITAC will be held on January 18, 2018, from approximately 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m./Eastern Time at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert Street NW, Washington, DC 20008. Subsequently, the remainder of the meetings to be held in 2018 is scheduled as follows:
All meetings are open to the public. For web conference instructions and the most up-to-date information, please visit the HITAC calendar on the ONC website,
Persons attending ONC's HITAC meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing wireless access or access to electrical outlets.
ONC welcomes the attendance of the public at its HITAC meetings. Seating is limited at the location, and ONC will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Lauren Richie at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2).
National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of propose projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Ms. Tawanda Abdelmouti, Assistant Project Officer, Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 350, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892 or call non-toll-free number (301) 435-0978 or Email your request, including your address to:
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the NIH's services will be unavailable.
The NIH will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally Identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 49,333.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee will meet in New Orleans, Louisiana to discuss Committee matters relating to the safe transit of vessels and cargoes to and from the ports of the Lower Mississippi River. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District office, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118. For driving directions:
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the individual listed in the
Written comments must be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Lieutenant Brian Porter, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee, U.S. Coast Guard Sector New Orleans, 200 Hendee Street, New Orleans, LA 70114; telephone (504) 365-2375, email
Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the
On January 9, 2018, from 9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. CST, the Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee will meet to review, discuss, deliberate, and formulate recommendations, as appropriate, on the following:
(1) Status of Systematic Port Planning Action Item.
(2) U.S. Coast Guard Regulatory Reform Regulations.
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at
Public comments or questions will be taken throughout the meeting as the Committee discusses the issues and prior to deliberations and voting. There will also be a public comment period at the end of the meeting. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the period allotted, following the last call for comments. Contact the individual listed in the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 20, 2018.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0111 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2012-0011. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(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 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; and
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
USCIS collects biometrics from aliens present in the CNMI at the time of requesting initial grant of CW-1 status. The information is used to verify the alien's identity, background information and ultimately adjudicate their request for CW-1 status.
The CW-1 classification is unique in that Form I-129CW is a petition for the CW-1 classification as well as a “grant of status.” A “grant of status” allows beneficiaries lawfully present in the CNMI to change status directly from their CNMI classification or DHS-issued parole to the CW-1 classification.
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
The RHFS will collect data on property values of residential structures, characteristics of residential structures, rental status and rental value of units within the residential structures, commercial use of space within residential structures, property management status, ownership status, a detailed assessment of mortgage financing, and benefits received from Federal, state, local, and non-governmental programs.
Many of the questions are the same or similar to those found on the 1995 Property Owners and Managers Survey, the rental housing portion of the 2001 Residential Finance Survey, the 2012 Rental Housing Finance Survey, and the 2015 Rental Housing Finance Survey. This survey does not duplicate work done in other existent HUD surveys or studies that deal with rental units financing.
Policy analysts, program managers, budget analysts, and Congressional staff can use the survey's results to advise executive and legislative branches about the mortgage finance characteristics of the rental housing stock in the United States and the suitability of public policy initiatives. Academic researchers and private organizations will also be able to utilize the data to facilitate their research and projects. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) needs the RHFS data for the following two reasons:
1. This is the only source of information on the rental housing finance characteristics of rental properties.
2. HUD needs this information to gain a better understanding of the mortgage finance characteristics of the rental housing stock in the United States to evaluate, monitor, and design HUD programs.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including using appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Downs.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond: Including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by January 22, 2018.
You may submit written comments and request copies of the application, HCP, environmental action statement, or low-effect screening form by any one of the following methods:
Erin M. Gawera, telephone: (904) 731-3121; email:
Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Regulations governing incidental take permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. The ESA's take prohibitions do not apply to federally listed plants on private lands unless such take would violate State law. In addition to meeting other criteria, an incidental take permit's proposed actions must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plants.
Lennar Corporation is requesting to take of approximately .31 acres (ac) of occupied sand skink (
We have determined that the Applicant's proposal, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, we have determined that the ITP for this project is “low effect” and qualifies for categorical exclusion under NEPA, as provided by 43 CFR 46.205 and 46.210. A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources.
We will evaluate the HCP and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the ITP complies with section 7 of the ESA by conducting an intra-Service consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP. If the requirements are met, we will issue ITP number TE50490C-0 to the Applicant.
If you wish to comment on the permit application, HCP, or associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods listed above in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA and NEPA regulation 40 CFR 1506.6.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) intends to prepare two programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for BLM Districts in the Great Basin region. By this Notice BLM is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues to be addressed in the environmental analyses.
This Notice initiates the public scoping process for the two programmatic EISs. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until February 20, 2018. The date(s) and
You may submit comments related to the programmatic EISs by any of the following methods:
• Website:
•
•
•
Jonathan Beck, Project Manager Boise Support Team, telephone 208-373-3841; address 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise ID 83709; email
The BLM is proposing to develop two programmatic EISs: (1) Fuel Breaks Programmatic EIS and (2) Fuels Reduction and Rangeland Restoration Programmatic EIS. One EIS will analyze potential effects of constructing fuel breaks and the other EIS will analyze potential effects of reducing fuel loading, and restoring rangeland productivity within the Great Basin region, which includes portions of the states of Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, California, Utah, and Washington.
Both projects would protect and conserve natural habitats from loss resulting from wildfires and the spread of invasive species. Although these proposals are similar, they have different purposes. The purpose of the Fuel Breaks Programmatic EIS is the protection of life and property and to reduce the threat and size of wildfires on western rangelands. The purpose of the Fuels Reduction and Rangeland Restoration Programmatic EIS is to restore the rangelands habitat so they provide multiple use opportunities for all user groups and habitat for the hundreds of plants and animals that define this iconic landscape.
The BLM is proposing to prepare these analyses concurrently to gain efficiencies in scoping and effects analyses. The goal of these programmatic EISs is to analyze the region-wide and cumulative impacts of the proposed actions and to gain efficiencies in subsequent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses required for individual projects.
The programmatic EISs would expedite the development, enhancement, maintenance and utilization of fuel breaks, fuels reduction, and rangeland restoration for the protection, recovery, and conservation of natural western habitats in the Great Basin region. The projects would reduce the threat of habitat loss from fires and restore habitat to maintain the rangeland's productivity and support the western lifestyle. Fuel breaks act as fire-anchor points and firefighter staging areas; provide protection of ongoing and pending habitat restoration projects; and assist in quicker and earlier fire suppression response times, thereby reducing wildfire risk, aiding in the protection of human life and property, protecting taxpayer investment in habitat restoration projects, and improving western landscapes by offering multiple use opportunities. The restoration will replace invasive species with native habitat, decreasing the continuous cover of annual grasses that fuel large wildfires.
Large-scale wildfires have increased significantly throughout the western United States in recent years, particularly in sagebrush-steppe ecosystems, resulting in the widespread loss of sagebrush-steppe vegetation. These wildfires are largely a result of continuous fuel loading, caused by widespread increases in invasive annual grasses and very large areas of continuous sagebrush cover. In the last decade, fires have exceeded 100,000 acres on a regular basis, and the number of areas that burn again before habitat can establish has increased. These large-scale wildfires, with very high to extreme burning conditions, have resulted in increased numbers of injuries and deaths among wildland firefighters and increased destruction of private property and habitat loss for a variety of species. Wildfires have resulted in widespread impacts to healthy sage-lands quality, and have hampered BLM's ability to maintain productive lands. These large-scale, repeated wildfires facilitate the spread of invasive annual grasses, further reducing rangeland quality and availability, thereby adversely affecting sagebrush-recovery rates or, in some instances, preventing recovery altogether. In warm, dry settings, sagebrush-steppe usually takes, at a minimum, many decades to recover, even where invasive annual grasses or other invasive plant species do not become dominant. Invasive species and conifer encroachment can be exacerbated as a result of wildfires in sagebrush ecosystems, resulting in an increased risk of wildfires (positive feedback loop). By compartmentalizing desirable vegetation and providing safer access for firefighters, fuel breaks aid in decreasing potential habitat loss from wildfires, protecting habitat restoration areas, and combatting the spread of invasive species,
The programmatic EISs, once implemented, will provide for increased firefighter safety in the event of wildfires and faster response times to wildfires. They will also assist in the maintenance, protection and restoration of the iconic sagebrush western landscape.
The programmatic EISs will provide a mechanism for the BLM to streamline any future NEPA processes pertaining to fuel breaks, fuels reduction, and rangeland restoration proposals in the Great Basin region.
The public scoping process is conducted to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the programmatic EISs. At present, the BLM has identified the following preliminary issues:
1. Fuel break construction and associated road improvement for firefighter access could increase human activity in remote areas and introduce noxious and invasive weeds and increase the incidence of human-caused wildfires.
2. Fuel break construction could remove or alter sagebrush habitat, rendering it unusable for some species.
3. Fuel break construction on either side of existing roads may create movement barriers to small-sized wildlife species by reducing hiding cover.
4. Fuel break construction in highly resistant and resilient habitats may not be necessary because those sites are less likely to burn or will respond favorably to natural regeneration.
5. After habitat restoration treatments, historic uses such as livestock grazing and recreation activities may be temporarily halted until the treatment becomes established and objectives are met.
6. Fuel reduction treatments in pinyon/juniper could disrupt traditional tribal use of these sites.
7. The use of non-native species in fuel breaks could affect listed species and affect species composition in adjacent native plant communities.
Project design features would be used to minimize impacts to rangelands, sensitive species habitat, cultural sites and watersheds, and to limit introduction and spread of noxious and invasive weeds.
The BLM will use and coordinate the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill the public involvement requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with Tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed fuel break, fuel reduction, and rangeland restoration programmatic proposals that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1501.7.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined in the above-captioned investigation to grant a motion to terminate the investigation on the basis of settlement, resulting in termination of the investigation in its entirety.
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. 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 June 24, 2016, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Tessera Technologies, Inc.; Tessera, Inc.; and Invensas Corporation, all of San Jose, California (collectively, “Tessera”). 81 FR 41344 (Jun. 24, 2016). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,856,007 (“the '007 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,849,946 (“the '946 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 6,133,136 (“the '136 patent”). The notice of investigation names 24 respondents. Those respondents are Broadcom Limited of Singapore, and Broadcom Corporation of Irvine, California (collectively, “Broadcom”), as well 22 other manufacturers and importers of products containing Broadcom's semiconductor devices: Avago Technologies Limited of Singapore, and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. of San Jose, California (collectively, “Avago”); Arista Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara, California; ARRIS International plc, ARRIS Group, Inc., ARRIS Solutions, Inc., ARRIS Enterprises, and Pace Ltd., all of Suwanee, Georgia, as well as Pace Americas LLC and Pace USA LLC, both of Boca Raton, Florida, and ARRIS Technology, Inc. of Horsham, Pennsylvania (collectively “ARRIS”); ASUSTek Computer, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan, and ASUS Computer International of Fremont, California (collectively, “ASUS”); Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, and Comcast Business Communications, LLC, each of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (collectively, “Comcast”); HTC Corporation of Taoyuan, Taiwan, and HTC America Inc. of Bellevue, Washington (collectively, “HTC”); NETGEAR, Inc. of San Jose, California; Technicolor S.A. of Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France, as well as Technicolor USA, Inc. and Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC, both of Indianapolis, Indiana (collectively, “Technicolor”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not participating in the investigation.
Earlier in Commission proceedings, Avago was terminated from the investigation. Order No. 70 (Feb. 27, 2017),
On June 30, 2017, the ALJ issued the final initial determination (“final ID”). The final ID finds a violation of section 337 as to claims 16, 17, 20, and 22 of the '946 patent. Final ID at 262. The final ID finds that for claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 16, 24-26, and 34 of the '136 patent, the claims are infringed, and not invalid, but that the existence of a domestic industry was not shown.
Tessera and the respondents each filed a petition for review of the ID. In addition, the parties and a number of non-parties submitted statements on the public interest.
On September 29, 2017, the Commission determined to review the ID in part. Notice at 3 (Sept. 29, 2017) (“Notice of Review”). For the '007 patent, the Commission determined to review, and on review, to take no position on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, and infringement of claim 18.
In response to the Commission notice, Tessera and the respondents filed opening and reply submissions on the issues under review, and remedy, the public interest, and bonding. In addition, the Commission received submissions on remedy and the public interest from several non-parties.
On December 18, 2017, Tessera and the respondents filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation on the basis of settlement.
The Commission finds that the motion is proper in form and complies with Commission Rules.
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 the U.S. International Trade Commission has instituted a formal enforcement proceeding relating to the July 14, 2017, remedial orders issued in the above-captioned investigation.
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3042. 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 (
The Commission instituted the original investigation on March 14, 2016, based on a complaint filed by Nautilus Hyosung Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea and Nautilus Hyosung America Inc. of Irving, Texas (collectively, “Nautilus”). 81 FR 13149 (Mar. 14, 2016). Pertinent to this action, the complaint alleged violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation into the United States, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of any of claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,523,235 (“the '235 patent”).
On July 14, 2017, the Commission found a Section 337 violation as to the '235 patent and issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) as well as cease and desist orders (“CDOs”). 82 FR 33513-14 (July 20, 2017). The LEO prohibits the unlicensed entry of automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more of claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 of the '235 patent that are manufactured by, or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated, Diebold Self-Service Systems, or any of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, agents, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns.
On November 17, 2017, Nautilus filed a complaint requesting that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding under Commission Rule 210.75(b) to investigate violations of the remedial orders by Diebold. Having examined the enforcement complaint and the supporting documents, the Commission has determined to institute a formal enforcement proceeding to determine whether Diebold is in violation of the July 14, 2017, remedial orders issued in the original investigation and to determine what, if any, enforcement measures are appropriate. Diebold is named as a respondent. OUII is named as a party.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“section 337”), as amended, in this investigation. The Commission has issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of certain L-tryptophan and L-tryptophan products that infringe claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,180,373 (“the '373 patent”) or claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,666,655 (“the '655 patent”). The Commission has also issued a cease and desist order directed to the domestic respondent. The investigation is terminated.
Houda Morad, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4716. 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 Investigation No. 337-TA-1005 on June 14, 2016, based on a complaint filed by Complainants Ajinomoto Co., Inc. of Tokyo, Japan and Ajinomoto Heartland Inc. of Chicago, Illinois (collectively, “Ajinomoto” or “Complainants”).
On April 17, 2017, the ALJ issued an initial determination (“ID”) granting Complainants' unopposed motion for summary determination that they satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A) and (B) for both asserted patents.
On August 11, 2017, the ALJ issued his final initial determination (“FID”) finding no violation of section 337. Specifically, the FID finds that: (1) Respondents' accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of the '373 or the '655 patents either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; (2) claim 10 of the '373 patent is invalid for indefiniteness and lack of written description; (3) claim 20 of the '655 patent is invalid for lack of written description; and (4) Complainants' products do not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '655 or the '373 patents. In addition, the ALJ issued a Recommended Determination (“RD”) recommending, should the Commission find a section 337 violation, that the Commission issue: (1) A limited exclusion order against Respondents' accused products; and (2) a cease and desist order against Respondent CJ America. The RD further recommends no bond during the Presidential review period.
On August 14, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice requesting written submissions on the public interest.
On October 12, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice determining to review the FID in its entirety.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the FID, the RD, and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined to:
(1) Reverse the FID's finding that the accused products do not infringe claim 10 of the '373 patent;
(2) reverse the FID's finding that the domestic industry requirement is not satisfied for the '373 patent.
(3) Reverse the FID's finding that claim 10 of the '373 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness;
(4) reverse the FID's finding that claim 10 of the '373 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description;
(5) affirm the FID's finding that claim 10 of the '373 patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement;
(6) affirm the FID's finding that claim 10 of the '373 patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103 for obviousness;
(7) affirm in part and reverse in part the FID's finding that the accused products do not infringe claim 20 of the '655 patent;
(8) reverse the FID's finding that the domestic industry requirement is not satisfied for the '655 patent.
(9) Affirm the FID's finding that claim 20 of the '655 patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness.
(10) Reverse the FID's finding that claim 20 of the '655 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description; and
(11) affirm all other findings in the FID that are not inconsistent with the Commission's determination.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that there is a violation of section 337 with respect to both asserted patents. The Commission has determined the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order against Respondents' accused products, and a cease and desist order against Respondent CJ America. The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in subsections 337(d)(l) and (f)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l), (f)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order. The Commission has further determined to set a bond at zero (0) percent of entered value during the Presidential review period (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)).
The Commission's orders and opinion were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
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.
Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of cancellation of public hearing.
The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure has been canceled: Bankruptcy Rules Hearing on January 17, 2018, in Washington, DC.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Announcement for this hearing was previously published in 82 FR 37610.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) 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. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until January 22, 2018.
Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
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) 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 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; and
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) 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. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until January 22, 2018.
Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
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) 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 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; and
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) 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. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until January 22, 2018.
Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
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) 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 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; and
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) 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. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until January 22, 2018.
Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
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) 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 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; and
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E, 405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) 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. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until January 22, 2018.
Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
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) 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 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; and
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the
AEWRs are the minimum wage rates the Department has determined must be offered and paid by employers to H-2A workers and workers in corresponding employment so that the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers will not be adversely affected. In this notice, the Department announces the annual update of the AEWR for workers engaged in the herding or production of livestock on the range, as required by the methodology established in the
The rates take effect January 1, 2018.
William W. Thompson, II, Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Box #12-200, Employment & Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202-513-7350 (this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security will not approve an employer's petition for the admission of H-2A nonimmigrant temporary and seasonal agricultural workers in the U.S. unless the petitioner has received from the Department an H-2A labor certification. The labor certification provides that: (1) There are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, and qualified and who will be available at the time and place needed to perform the labor or services involved in the petition; and (2) the employment of the foreign worker(s) in such labor or services will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the U.S. similarly employed. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 1184(c)(1), and 1188(a); 8 CFR 214.2(h)(5); 20 CFR 655.100.
The Department's H-2A regulations covering the herding or production of livestock on the range (H-2A Herder Rule) at 20 CFR 655.210(g) and 655.211(a)(1) provide that employers must offer, advertise in recruitment, and pay each worker employed under 20 CFR 655.200-655.235 a wage that is at least the highest of: (i) The monthly AEWR, (ii) the agreed-upon collective bargaining wage, or (iii) the applicable minimum wage imposed by Federal or State law or judicial action. Further, when the monthly AEWR is adjusted during a work contract, and is higher than both the agreed-upon collective bargaining wage and the applicable minimum wage imposed by Federal or State law or judicial action in effect at the time the work is performed, the employer must pay that adjusted monthly AEWR upon publication by the Department in the
As provided in 20 CFR 655.211(c) of the H-2A Herder Rule, the methodology for establishing the monthly AEWR for range occupations in all states is based on the rate of $7.25/hour multiplied by 48 hours per week, and then multiplied by 4.333 weeks per month. Beginning with calendar year 2017, the monthly AEWR is adjusted annually based on the Employment Cost Index (ECI) for wages and salaries published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the preceding annual period.
In setting the AEWR for 2017, ETA applied the required ECI adjustment of 2.4 percent, resulting in a monthly wage of $1544.07. The H-2A Herder Rule at 20 CFR 655.211(d) applied a two-year transition to the full monthly AEWR, with the wage in 2017 set at 90 percent of the full monthly AEWR,
Thus, the national monthly AEWR rate for all range occupations in the H-2A program in 2018 is calculated by multiplying the full AEWR for calendar year 2017 by the 2018 ECI adjustment ($1544.07 × 1.026 = $1,584.22). Accordingly, any employer certified or seeking certification for range workers must pay each worker a wage that is at least the highest of the monthly AEWR of $1,548.22, the agreed-upon collective bargaining wage, or the applicable minimum wage imposed by Federal or State legislation or judicial action, at the time work is performed on or after the effective date of this notice.
Signed in Washington, DC.
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor.
Notice.
Announcement of meeting of the Subcommittee on the Site Exposure Matrices of the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health (Advisory Board) for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA).
The subcommittee will meet via teleconference on January 16, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
For press inquiries: Ms. Amy Louviere, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-1028, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-4672; email
This is not a toll-free number.
The Advisory Board is mandated by Section 3687 of EEOICPA. The Secretary of Labor established the Board under this authority and Executive Order 13699 (June 26, 2015). The purpose of the Advisory Board is to advise the Secretary with respect to: (1) The Site Exposure Matrices (SEM) of the Department of Labor; (2) medical guidance for claims examiners for claims with the EEOICPA program, with respect to the weighing of the medical evidence of claimants; (3) evidentiary requirements for claims under Part B of EEOICPA related to lung disease; and (4) the work of industrial hygienists and staff physicians and consulting physicians of the Department of Labor and reports of such hygienists and physicians to ensure quality, objectivity, and consistency. The Advisory Board sunsets on December 19, 2024. This subcommittee is being assembled to gather and analyze data and continue working on advice under Area #1, the Site Exposure Matrices.
The Advisory Board operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and its implementing regulations (41 CFR part 102-3).
OWCP transcribes Advisory Board subcommittee meetings. OWCP posts the transcripts on the Advisory Board web page,
•
•
Comments must be received by January 11, 2017. OWCP will make available publically, without change, any written comments, including any personal information that you provide. Therefore, OWCP cautions interested parties against submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
Electronic copies of this
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Alan T. Waterman Award Committee (#1172).
January 30, 2018; 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite W19000, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
Closed.
Sherrie B. Green, Program Manager, NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite W17126, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: (703) 292-8040.
To provide advice and recommendations in the selection of the Alan T. Waterman Award recipient.
To review and evaluate nominations as part of the selection process for awards.
The nominations being reviewed include information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Proposal Review Panel for Ocean Sciences (#10752)—JOIDES Resolution Science Operator (JRSO), Texas A&M (Site Visit).
February 28-March 2, 2018, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
JOIDES Resolution Science Operator (JRSO), Texas A&M University, 1000 Discovery Drive, Texas A&M University West Campus, College Station, TX 77845, Conference Room C126.
Part-open.
James F. Allan, Program Director, Ocean Drilling, Division of Ocean Sciences; National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: (703) 292-8144.
Site visit to provide advice and recommendations
During closed sessions the review will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the review. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering Meeting (#25104).
January 26, 2018; 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; 703-292-8710.
Open.
Roxanne Nikolaus, Program Manager, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; 703-292-8710.
To provide advice, recommendations and counsel on major goals and policies pertaining to international programs and activities.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing exemptions in response to a request from Omaha Public Power District (OPPD or the licensee) regarding certain emergency planning (EP) requirements. The exemptions will eliminate the requirements to maintain an offsite radiological emergency plan and reduce the scope of onsite EP activities at the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1 (FCS), based on the reduced risks of accidents that could result in an offsite radiological release at a decommissioning nuclear power reactor.
The exemption was issued on December 11, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0223 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:
•
•
•
James Kim, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4125; email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Omaha Public Power District (OPPD, the licensee) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40 for Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1 (FCS). The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of a pressurized-water reactor located in Washington County, Nebraska.
By letter dated August 25, 2016 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16242A127), OPPD submitted a certification to the NRC indicating it would permanently cease power operations at FCS on October 24, 2016. On October 24, 2016, OPPD permanently ceased power operation at FCS. On November 13, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16319A254), OPPD certified that it had permanently defueled the FCS reactor vessel.
In accordance with § 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii), and § 50.82(a)(2) of Title 10 of the
During normal power reactor operations, the forced flow of water through the reactor coolant system removes heat generated by the reactor. The reactor coolant system, operating at high temperatures and pressures, transfers this heat through the steam generator tubes converting non-radioactive feedwater to steam, which then flows to the main turbine generator to produce electricity. Many of the accident scenarios postulated in the updated safety analysis reports (USARs) for operating power reactors involve failures or malfunctions of systems, which could affect the fuel in the reactor core and, in the most severe postulated accidents, would involve the release of large quantities of fission products. With the permanent cessation of reactor operations at FCS and the permanent removal of the fuel from the reactor vessel, such accidents are no longer possible. The reactor, reactor coolant system, and supporting systems are no longer in operation and have no function related to the storage of the spent fuel. Therefore, emergency planning (EP) provisions for postulated accidents involving failure or malfunction of the reactor, reactor coolant system, or supporting systems are no longer applicable.
The EP requirements of 10 CFR 50.47, “Emergency plans,” and Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, “Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities,” continue to apply to nuclear power reactors that have permanently ceased operation and have removed all fuel from the reactor vessel. There are no explicit regulatory provisions distinguishing EP requirements for a power reactor that is permanently shut down and defueled from those for a reactor that is authorized to operate. To reduce or eliminate EP requirements that are no longer necessary due to the decommissioning status of the facility, OPPD must obtain exemptions from those EP regulations. Only then can OPPD modify the FCS emergency plan to reflect the reduced risk associated with the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of FCS.
By letter dated December 16, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16356A578), OPPD requested exemptions from certain EP requirements of 10 CFR part 50 for FCS. More specifically, OPPD requested exemptions from certain planning standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) regarding onsite and offsite radiological emergency plans for nuclear power reactors; from certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) that require establishment of plume exposure and ingestion pathway emergency planning zones for nuclear power reactors; and from certain requirements in 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV, which establish the elements that make up the content of emergency plans. In letters dated February 10, April 14, and April 20, 2017 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17041A443, ML17104A191, and ML17111A857, respectively), OPPD provided responses to the NRC staff's requests for additional information concerning the proposed exemptions.
The information provided by OPPD included justifications for each exemption requested. The exemptions requested by OPPD would eliminate the requirements to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans, reviewed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the requirements of 44 CFR part 350, and reduce the scope of onsite EP activities. The licensee stated that the application of all of the standards and requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c), and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E is not needed for adequate emergency response capability, based on the substantially lower onsite and offsite radiological consequences of accidents still possible at the permanently shutdown and defueled facility, as compared to an operating facility. If offsite protective actions were needed for a very unlikely accident that could challenge the safe storage of spent fuel at FCS, provisions exist for offsite agencies to take protective actions using a comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) under the National Preparedness System to protect the health and safety of the public. A CEMP in this context, also referred to as an emergency operations plan (EOP), is addressed in FEMA's Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101, “Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans,” which is publicly available at
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions,” the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when: (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) any of the special circumstances listed in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) are present. These special circumstances include, among other things, that the application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
As noted previously, the current EP regulations contained in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 apply to both operating and shutdown power reactors. The NRC has consistently acknowledged that the risk of an offsite radiological release at a power reactor that has permanently ceased operations and removed fuel from the reactor vessel is significantly lower, and the types of possible accidents are significantly fewer, than at an operating power reactor. However, current EP regulations do not recognize that once a power reactor permanently ceases operation, the risk of a large radiological release from credible emergency accident
In the past, EP exemptions similar to those requested by FCS, have been granted to permanently shutdown and defueled power reactor licensees. However, the exemptions did not relieve the licensees of all EP requirements. Rather, the exemptions allowed the licensees to modify their emergency plans commensurate with the credible site-specific risks that were consistent with a permanently shutdown and defueled status. Specifically, the NRC's approval of these prior exemptions was based on the licensee's demonstration that: (1) the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents would not exceed the limits of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Early Phase Protective Action Guides (PAGs) of one roentgen equivalent man (rem) at the exclusion area boundary; and (2) in the unlikely event of a beyond-design-basis accident resulting in a loss of all modes of heat transfer from the fuel stored in the SFP, there is sufficient time to initiate appropriate mitigating actions, and if needed, for offsite authorities to implement offsite protective actions using a CEMP approach to protect the health and safety of the public.
With respect to design-basis accidents at FCS, the licensee provided analysis demonstrating that 10 days following permanent shutdown, the radiological consequences of the only remaining design-basis accident with potential for offsite radiological release (the FHA in the Auxiliary Building, where the SFP is located) will not exceed the limits of the EPA PAGs at the exclusion area boundary. Therefore, because FCS has been permanently shutdown for approximately 13 months, there is no longer any design-basis accident that would warrant an offsite radiological emergency plan meeting the requirements of 10 CFR part 50.
With respect to beyond design-basis accidents at FCS, the licensee analyzed a drain down of the spent fuel pool water that would effectively impede any decay heat removal. The analysis demonstrates that at 530 days (1 year, 165 days) after shutdown, there would be at least 10 hours after the assemblies have been uncovered until the limiting fuel assembly (for decay heat and adiabatic heatup analysis) reaches 900 degrees Celsius, the temperature used to assess the potential onset of fission product release. The analysis conservatively assumed the heat up time starts when the spent fuel pool has been completely drained, although it is likely that site personnel will start to respond to an incident when drain down starts. The analysis also does not consider the period of time from the initiating event causing loss of SFP water inventory until cooling is lost.
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's justification for the requested exemptions against the criteria in 10 CFR 50.12(a) and determined, as described below, that the criteria in 10 CFR 50.12(a) are met, and that the exemptions should be granted. An assessment of the OPPD EP exemptions is described in SECY-17-0080, “Request by the Omaha Public Power District for Exemptions from Certain Emergency Planning Requirements for the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1,” dated August 10, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17116A430). The Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to grant the exemptions in the staff requirements memorandum to SECY-17-0080, dated October 25, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17298A976). Descriptions of the specific exemptions requested by OPPD and the NRC staff's basis for granting each exemption are provided in SECY-17-0080 and summarized in Table 1, “Evaluation of Specific Exemptions to EP Requirements,” of the exemption issued December 11, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17263B191). The staff's detailed review and technical basis for the approval of the specific EP exemptions, requested by OPPD, are provided in the NRC staff's safety evaluation dated December 11, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17263B198).
The licensee has proposed exemptions from certain EP requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV, that would allow OPPD to revise the FCS Emergency Plan to reflect the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the station. As stated above, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50. The NRC staff has determined that granting of the licensee's proposed exemptions will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the NRC's regulations. Therefore, the exemptions are authorized by law.
As stated previously, OPPD provided analyses that show the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents will not exceed the limits of the EPA early phase PAGs at the exclusion area boundary. Therefore, formal offsite radiological emergency plans required under 10 CFR part 50 are no longer needed for protection of the public beyond the exclusion area boundary, based on the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents still possible at FCS.
Although very unlikely, there is one postulated beyond-design-basis accident that might result in significant offsite radiological releases. However, NUREG-1738 confirms that the risk of beyond-design-basis accidents is greatly reduced at permanently shutdown and defueled reactors. The NRC staff's analyses in NUREG-1738 concludes that the event sequences important to risk at permanently shutdown and defueled power reactors are limited to large earthquakes and cask drop events. For EP assessments, this is an important difference relative to operating power reactors, where typically a large number of different sequences make significant contributions to risk. As described in NUREG-1738, relaxation of offsite EP requirements in 10 CFR part 50, a few months after shutdown resulted in only a small change in risk. The report further concludes that the change in risk due to relaxation of offsite EP requirements is small because the overall risk is low, and because even under current EP requirements for operating power reactors, EP was judged to have marginal impact on evacuation effectiveness in the severe earthquakes that dominate SFP risk. All other sequences including cask drops (for which offsite radiological emergency plans are expected to be more effective) are too low in likelihood to have a significant impact on risk.
Therefore, granting exemptions to eliminate the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 to maintain offsite radiological emergency plans and to reduce the scope of onsite EP activities will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.
The requested exemptions by OPPD only involve EP requirements under 10 CFR part 50 and will allow OPPD to revise the FCS Emergency Plan to reflect the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the facility. Physical security measures at FCS are not affected by the requested EP exemptions. The discontinuation of formal offsite radiological emergency plans and the reduction in scope of the onsite emergency planning activities at FCS will not adversely affect OPPD's ability to physically secure the site or protect special nuclear material. Therefore, the proposed exemptions are consistent with common defense and security.
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present whenever application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV, is to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event
As discussed previously in Section III, because FCS is permanently shut down and defueled, there is no longer a risk of a significant offsite radiological release from a design-basis accident exceeding EPA early phase PAG at the exclusion area boundary and the risk of a significant offsite radiological release from a beyond-design-basis accident is greatly reduced when compared to an operating power reactor. The NRC staff has confirmed the reduced risks at FCS by comparing the generic risk assumptions in the analyses in NUREG-1738 to site-specific conditions at FCS and determined that the risk values in NUREG-1738 bound the risks presented by FCS. As indicated by the results of the research conducted for NUREG-1738 and more recently, for NUREG-2161, “Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor” (ADAMS Accession No. ML14255A365), while other consequences can be extensive, accidents from SFPs with significant decay time have little potential to cause offsite early fatalities, even if the formal offsite radiological EP requirements were relaxed. The licensee's analysis of a beyond-design-basis accident involving a complete loss of SFP water inventory, based on an adiabatic heatup analysis of the limiting fuel assembly for decay heat, shows that within 530 days (1 year, 165 days) after shutdown, the time for the limiting fuel assembly to reach 900 °C is 10 hours after the assemblies have been uncovered assuming a loss of air cooling.
The only analyzed beyond-design-basis accident scenario that progresses to a condition where a significant offsite release might occur, involves the very unlikely event where the SFP drains in such a way that all modes of cooling or heat transfer are assumed to be unavailable, which is referred to as an adiabatic heatup of the spent fuel. The licensee's analysis of this beyond-design-basis accident shows that within 530 days (1 year, 165 days) after shutdown, more than 10 hours would be available between the time the fuel is initially uncovered (at which time adiabatic heatup is conservatively assumed to begin), until the fuel cladding reaches a temperature of 1652 degrees Fahrenheit (900 °C), which is the temperature associated with rapid cladding oxidation and the potential for a significant radiological release. This analysis conservatively does not include the period of time from the initiating event causing a loss of SFP water inventory until all cooling means are lost.
The NRC staff has verified OPPD's analyses and its calculations. The analyses provide reasonable assurance that in granting the requested exemptions to OPPD, there is no design-basis accident that will result in an offsite radiological release exceeding the EPA early phase PAGs at the exclusion area boundary. In the unlikely event of a beyond-design-basis accident affecting the SFP that results in a complete loss of heat removal via all modes of heat transfer, there will be well over 10 hours available before an offsite release might occur and, therefore, at least 10 hours to initiate appropriate mitigating actions to restore a means of heat removal to the spent fuel. If a radiological release were projected to occur under this unlikely scenario, a minimum of 10 hours is considered sufficient time for offsite authorities to implement protective actions using a CEMP approach to protect the health and safety of the public.
Exemptions from the offsite EP requirements in 10 CFR part 50 have previously been approved by the NRC when the site-specific analyses show that at least 10 hours is available following a loss of SFP coolant inventory accident with no air cooling (or other methods of removing decay heat) until cladding of the hottest fuel assembly reaches the zirconium rapid oxidation temperature. The NRC staff concluded in its previously granted exemptions, as it does with the OPPD requested EP exemptions, that if a minimum of 10 hours is available to initiate mitigative actions consistent with plant conditions, or if needed, for offsite authorities to implement protective actions using a CEMP approach, then formal offsite radiological emergency plans, required under 10 CFR part 50, are not necessary at permanently shutdown and defueled facilities.
Additionally, FCS committed to maintaining SFP makeup strategies in its letter to the NRC dated December 16, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16356A578). The multiple strategies for providing makeup to the SFP include: using existing plant systems for inventory makeup; an internal strategy that relies on the fire protection system with redundant pumps (one diesel-driven and electric motor-driven); and onsite diesel fire truck that can take suction from the Missouri River. These strategies will continue to be required as license condition 3.G, “Mitigation Strategy License Condition.” Considering the very low probability of beyond-design-basis accidents affecting the SFP, these diverse strategies provide multiple methods to obtain additional makeup or spray to the SFP before the onset of any postulated offsite radiological release.
For all the reasons stated above, the NRC staff finds that the licensee's requested exemptions to meet the underlying purpose of all of the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b), and requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, acceptably satisfy the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) in view of the greatly reduced risk of offsite radiological consequences associated with the permanently shutdown and defueled state of the FCS facility.
The NRC staff has concluded that the exemptions being granted by this action will maintain an acceptable level of emergency preparedness at FCS and, if needed, that there is reasonable assurance that adequate offsite protective measures can and will be taken by State and local government agencies using a CEMP approach in the unlikely event of a radiological emergency at the FCS facility. Since the underlying purposes of the rules, as exempted, would continue to be achieved, even with the elimination of the requirements under 10 CFR part 50 to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans and reduction in the scope of the onsite emergency planning activities at FCS, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.31(a), the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment as discussed in the NRC staff's Finding of No Significant Impact and associated Environmental Assessment published November 27, 2017 (82 FR 56060).
Accordingly, the Commission has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), that OPPD's request for exemptions from certain EP requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV, and as summarized in Table 1 of the exemption dated December 11, 2017, are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants OPPD's exemptions from certain EP requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV, as discussed and evaluated in detail in the staff's safety evaluation dated December 11, 2017. The exemptions are effective as of April 7, 2018.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of December, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Director's decision under 10 CFR 2.206; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a director's decision in response to a petition dated February 19, 2016, filed by Roy Mathew, Sheila Ray, Swagata Som, Gurcharan Singh Matharu, Tania Martinez Navedo, Thomas Koshy, and
The director's decision was issued on December 12, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0061 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:
•
•
•
Tanya Mensah, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3610, email:
Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has issued a director's decision (ADAMS Accession No. ML17304A893) under Title 10 of the
The Petitioners requested that the NRC take enforcement action against all operating nuclear power plants. Specifically, the Petitioners requested that the NRC either: (1) Issue orders to require immediate corrective actions including compensatory measures to address the operability of electric power systems in accordance with their plant technical specifications, and to implement plant modifications in accordance with current NRC regulatory requirements and staff guidance provided in the references within the 2.206 petition; or (2) issue orders to immediately shut down the nuclear power plants that are operating without addressing the significant design deficiency identified in NRC Bulletin 2012-01, “Design Vulnerability in Electric Power System,” dated July 27, 2012, (ADAMS Accession No. ML12074A115) since the licensees are not in compliance with their technical specifications (typically Section 3.8.1) related to onsite and offsite power systems.
On February 24, 2016, the NRC's petition manager acknowledged receipt of the petition and offered the Petitioners an opportunity to address the Petition Review Board (PRB). The Petitioners declined an opportunity to address the PRB on the basis that the petition already contained all of the relevant facts to support the PRB's review.
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed director's decision to the Petitioners and to the licensees for comment by letters dated September 18, 2017 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17156A197 and ML17156A214). The Petitioners and the licensees were provided the opportunity to provide comments on any part of the proposed director's decision that was considered to be erroneous or any issues in the petition that were not addressed. The Petitioners provided comments by letter dated October 11, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17291A040), and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) provided comments, on behalf of licensees, by letter dated October 16, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17291A846). No new information was provided. To enhance the clarity of the director's decision, the NRC staff revised the description of the NRC's accident sequence precursor (ASP) program provided in Section D of the director's decision, to differentiate between condition and event assessments. The comments from the Petitioners and NEI, along with the NRC staff's responses to the comments, are included as an attachment to the director's decision. The attachment identifies any updates to the director's decision, as a result of comments received from the Petitioners and NEI.
The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has determined that the request(s) to issue orders to operating reactor licensees regarding an open phase condition be denied. The reasons for this decision are explained in the Director's Decision DD-17-04, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.
The NRC will file a copy of the director's decision with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206. As provided by this regulation, the director's decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the director's decision in that time.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing recent Postal Service filings for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The 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 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
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.
3.
4.
5.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice of revisions to an existing systems of records.
The United States Postal Service® (Postal Service) is proposing to revise the Customer Privacy Act Systems of Records (SOR). These changes are being made to:
a. Improve the customer experience by enhancing convenience and facilitating the provision of accurate and reliable delivery information.
b. To support other Federal Government agencies by providing authorized services.
These revisions will become effective without further notice on January 22, 2018 unless comments received on or before that date result in a contrary determination.
Comments may be mailed or delivered to the Privacy and Records Management Office, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 1P830, Washington, DC 20260-1101. Copies of all written comments will be available at this address for public inspection and photocopying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Janine Castorina, Chief Privacy and Records Management Officer, Privacy and Records Management Office, 202-268-3069 or
This notice is in accordance with the Privacy Act requirement that agencies publish their systems of records in the
A. Electronic signature on file (eSOF) is being implemented to improve customer experience for Informed Delivery® enrollees that opt-in to eSOF, by providing a convenient option for Priority Mail Express, Signature confirmation and Insured (over $500) package recipients, that agree to Terms and Conditions of use to apply an electronic signature at the point of delivery. Informed Delivery customers that are interested in eSOF will have the opportunity to opt-in to the feature. After opting in, customers can apply their electronic signature on an item by USPS tracking number for packages that are eSOF eligible and are inbound to the 11 digit delivery point ZIP-Code tracked on the customers' Informed Delivery dashboard. With this feature, package shippers will also have the opportunity to choose whether or not they wish to allow their packages to be signed for with an electronic signature applied through the eSOF process.
B. Provide interagency support to other Federal Government agencies with services authorized under 39 U.S.C., Section 411. The Postal Service intends to conduct a biometric capture of fingerprints to support the needs of other Federal Government agencies. This process will include: Collection of the individual's name, order number, or email address entered into the appropriate online computer application for scheduling purposes; in-person capturing of the individual's fingerprints using a biometric fingerprint reader and transmitting the information to the Federal Government Agency that has requested the information; and collecting a fingerprinting service fee, as appropriate, from the individual.
Privacy Act System of Records 910.000, System Name: Identity and Document Verification Services, is being revised to improve customer and mailer experience with shipping records that include accurate and reliable delivery information and to support other Federal Government agencies by providing authorized services.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, or arguments on this proposal. A report of the proposed revisions has been sent to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget for their evaluations. The Postal Service does not expect these amended systems of records to have any adverse effect on individual privacy rights. The affected systems are as follows:
Identity and Document Verification Services.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, 404, and 411.
6. To improve the customer experience and facilitate the provision of accurate and reliable delivery information.
7. To identify, prevent, or mitigate the effects of fraudulent transactions.
8. To support other Federal Government agencies by providing authorized services.
9. To ensure the quality and integrity of records.
7. Records related to electronic signature images are retained in an electronic database for 3 years.
8. Other categories of records are retained for a period of up to 30 days.
Chief Information Officer and Executive Vice President, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1500.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) intends to issue an order, pursuant to Section 17A(c)(4)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Christian Sabella, Associate Director, or Catherine Whiting, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-4990, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of Trading and Markets, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-7010 or by email at
Section 17A(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides that if the Commission finds that any transfer agent registered with the Commission is no longer in existence or has ceased to do business as a transfer agent, the Commission shall by order cancel that transfer agent's registration.
Although the Commission has made efforts to locate and to determine the status of each of the transfer agents listed in the Appendix, based on the facts it has, the Commission believes that each of those transfer agents is no longer in existence or has ceased doing business as a transfer agent. Accordingly, at any time after January 31, 2018, the Commission intends to issue an order cancelling the registrations of the transfer agents listed in the Appendix.
The representative of any transfer agent listed in the Appendix who believes the registration of the transfer agent should not be cancelled must notify the Commission in writing or by email prior to January 31, 2018. Written notifications may be mailed to Office of Clearance and Settlement, Division of Trading and Markets, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20459-7010. Email notifications may be sent to
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 Exchange seeks to amend Rule 5.4 to allow the Exchange to restrict option series to closing transactions when an option class is open for trading solely on the Exchange and the underlying security continues to meet the requirements for approval. (additions are
No change.
.01-.12 No change.
.13 If an option class is open for trading on another national securities exchange, the Exchange may delist such option class immediately. If an option class is open for trading solely on the Exchange, the Exchange may determine to not open for trading any additional series in that option class[,]
.14-.16 No change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also 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.
The Exchange seeks to amend Rule 5.4 to allow the Exchange to restrict option series to closing transactions when an option class is open for trading solely on the Exchange and the underlying security continues to meet the requirements for approval. The Exchange believes the ability to restrict option series to closing transactions when an option class is open for trading solely on the Exchange and the underlying security continues to meet the requirements for approval will allow the Exchange to delist option series in a timely and efficient manner.
Currently, when an option class is trading on another exchange Cboe Options may delist such option class immediately, regardless of whether the option class continues to meet the requirements for approval.
The Exchange seeks to amend Interpretation and Policy .13 to Rule 5.4 to allow the Exchange to restrict option series to closing transactions when an option class is open for trading solely on the Exchange and the underlying security continues to meet the requirements for approval.
There are various business reasons why the Exchange may choose to no longer list an option class (
The Exchange notes that this proposal is consistent with the manner in which Rule 5.4 operates in relation to option classes with underlying securities that no longer meet the requirements for approval—additional series are not added, series with open interest are restricted to closing only, and series without open interest are delisted. As proposed, when the Exchange seeks to delist an option class with an underlying security that continues to meet the requirements for approval the Exchange will not open additional series in the option class and will restrict trading to closing transactions. Also consistent with current Rule 5.4, opening transactions by Market-Makers executed to accommodate closing transactions of other market participants and opening transactions by TPH organizations to facilitate the closing transactions of public customers executed as crosses pursuant to and in accordance with Cboe Rule 6.74(b) or
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, when seeking to delist an option class—whether or not the underlying security continues to meet the requirements for approval—the Exchange believes that restricting series to closing transactions is a better way to transition the class to a delisted state than the current method of not adding additional series and allowing market participants to continue to add new positions in the existing series. Restricting trading to closing transactions encourages market participants to close transactions, which helps to limit any potential negative effects associated with delisting a class and helps to protect customers and the public interest.
The Exchange notes that this proposal is consistent with the manner in which Rule 5.4 operates in relation to option classes with underlying securities that no longer meet the requirements for approval—additional series are not added, series with open interest are restricted to closing only, and series without open interest are delisted. As proposed, when the Exchange seeks to delist an option class with an underlying security that continues to meet the requirements for approval the Exchange will not open additional series in the option class and will restrict trading to closing transactions. Also consistent with current Rule 5.4, opening transactions by Market-Makers executed to accommodate closing transactions of other market participants and opening transactions by TPH organizations to facilitate the closing transactions of public customers executed as crosses pursuant to and in accordance with Cboe Rule 6.74(b) or (d) may be permitted. Allowing Market-Makers and TPH organizations to facilitate closing transactions of public customers will help public customers close positions in classes that will be delisted by the Exchange, which helps to protect investors and the public interest. It is reasonable to restrict series to closing only pursuant to current Rule 5.4 when underlying securities no longer meet requirements for approval. The Exchange believes it is also reasonable to restrict series to closing when the option class no longer satisfies business justifications for listing the class.
Cboe 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. This proposed rule change is consistent with the manner in which Rule 5.4 operates in relation to option classes with underlying securities that no longer meet the requirements for approval—additional series are not added, series with open interest are restricted to closing only, and series without open interest are delisted. Also consistent with current Rule 5.4, opening transactions by Market-Makers executed to accommodate closing transactions of other market participants and opening transactions by TPH organizations to facilitate the closing transactions of public customers executed as crosses pursuant to and in accordance with Cboe Rule 6.74(b) or (d) may be permitted. Allowing Market-Makers and TPH organizations to facilitate closing transactions of public customers will help public customers close positions in classes that will be delisted by the Exchange, which helps to protect investors and the public interest and does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 30, 2017, Banque Central de Compensation, which conducts business under the name LCH SA (“LCH SA”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
LCH SA has proposed to amend its CDSClear Margin Framework to adjust the manner in which the WWR margin component of the Framework addresses offsets between currencies when calculating WWR margin. According to LCH SA, the WWR component of the Framework is designed to cover the anticipated financial contagion effect that would arise in case of a clearing member being declared in default. The current WWR margin formula provides for offsets between currencies by allowing offset between WWR and right way risk (“RWR”). Specifically, under the current approach, a WWR currency offset is applied as the greater of: (x) The WWR amount in Euros minus the RWR amount in Euros
LCH SA proposed to revise this approach by amending the WWR currency offset formula in the Framework to set the WWR margin component of Framework as the greater of: (i) The WWR amount in Euros, minus the RWR amount multiplied by the 10-year average historical correlation of credit spreads on CDS in respect of European and U.S. financial institutions; and (ii) zero. Thus, under the proposed approach, RWR would never completely offset WWR, but rather would offset WWR after discounting it based on the average of observed correlations of CDS credit spreads with respect to European and U.S. financial institutions.
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.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act and the relevant provisions of Rule 17Ad-22 thereunder. Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change will enhance LCH SA's assessment of the risks associated with clearing products that may exhibit WWR, and thereby collect an appropriate level of resources, which in turn will improve LCH SA's ability to withstand the default of a Clearing Member. As a result, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change will augment LCH SA's ability to safeguard the securities and funds which are in its custody and control. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Moreover, the Commission believes that WWR is a relevant factor when considering the risks associated with clearing securities products, including CDS products, and when developing margin models to cover credit exposures associated with providing clearance and settlement services for such products. By ensuring that it will take into consideration both WWR and RWR as proposed, LCH SA will have margin that more accurately measures the level of risk, and should therefore produce margin requirements that are commensurate with such risks, as well as the attributes of the products it clears. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v).
It Is Therefore Ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act that the proposed rule change (SR-LCH SA-2017-009) be, and hereby is, approved.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to adopt a rebate for the NYSE Bonds
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to provide a rebate for the NYSE Bonds system.
The Exchange currently does not charge any execution fee for orders in bonds that take liquidity from the NYSE Bonds Book. For orders in bonds that provide liquidity, the Exchange currently provides a rebate of $0.05 per bond, with a maximum rebate of $50 per execution, for bond liquidity providers that meet the requirements of Rule 88.
The Exchange proposes to adopt the Agency Order Incentive Program. As proposed, a monthly rebate of $4,000 would be payable to a User that submits an average of 400 resting limit orders of any size per trading day
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed fee change would provide an incentive for Users to provide additional liquidity to the market and add competition to the existing group of liquidity providers. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory in that it would apply uniformly to all Users accessing NYSE Bonds. All similarly situated Users would be subject to the same rebate structure, and each User would have the ability to determine the extent to which the Exchange's proposed rebate structure will provide it with an economic incentive to use NYSE Bonds, and model its business accordingly.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues that are not transparent. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges as well as with alternative trading systems and other venues that are not required to comply with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to adopt a Decommission Extension Fee for receipt of the NYSE Arca Integrated Feed market data product. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a Decommission Extension Fee for receipt of the NYSE Arca Integrated Feed market data product,
As part of the Exchange's efforts to regularly upgrade systems to support more modern data distribution formats and protocols as technology evolves, beginning August 21, 2017, NYSE Arca Integrated Feed began transmitting in a new format, Exchange Data Protocol (XDP). Since August 21, 2017, the Exchange has been transmitting NYSE Arca Integrated Feed in both the legacy format and in XDP format without any additional fee being charged for providing this data feed in both formats. The dual dissemination remained in place until November 30, 2017, the planned decommission date of the legacy format.
The purpose of the proposed Decommission Extension Fee is to provide customers an incentive to fully transition to the XDP format so the Exchange does not have to continue to support both the legacy format and the XDP format and incur, for example, the costs involved in maintaining additional servers and monitoring multiple distribution channels and testing environments not needed by the XDP format. Therefore, beginning December 1, 2017, recipients of NYSE Arca Integrated Feed who wish to continue to receive NYSE Arca Integrated Feed in the legacy format will be subject to the proposed Decommission Extension Fee of $5,000 per month.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that adopting an extension fee for subscribers of NYSE Arca Integrated Feed who wish to receive this data feed in the legacy format for a period of time beyond the built-in overlap period is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fee would apply equally to all data recipients that subscribe to NYSE Arca Integrated Feed. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to require data recipients to pay the proposed Decommission Extension fee during the extension period for taking the data feed in the legacy format beyond the period of time specifically allotted by the Exchange for data feed customers to adapt to the new XDP format at no extra cost. To that end, the extension fee is designed to encourage data recipients to migrate to the XDP format in order to continue to receive NYSE Arca Integrated in XDP as the legacy format would no longer be available after close of trading on January 30, 2018. The Exchange does not intend to support the legacy format at all after January 30, 2018.
The Exchange notes that NYSE Arca Integrated Feed is entirely optional. Firms are not required to purchase NYSE Arca Integrated Feed, nor is the Exchange required to offer any feed (NYSE Arca Integrated Feed, or otherwise) in a particular format, and it is a benefit to the markets generally that NYSE Arca update its distribution technology to make it more efficient (and at the same time eliminate less efficient forms of dissemination). Firms that do purchase NYSE Arca Integrated Feed do so for the primary goals of using them to increase revenues, reduce expenses, and in some instances compete directly with the Exchange (including for order flow); those firms are able to determine for themselves whether NYSE Arca Integrated Feed or any other similar products are attractively priced or not.
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence of competition in the marketplace for proprietary market data and that the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore satisfy the relevant statutory standards. In addition, the existence of alternatives to the legacy format, such as converting to XDP as soon as possible, further ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can select such alternatives.
As the
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
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. An exchange's ability to price its proprietary market data feed products is constrained by actual competition for the sale of proprietary market data products, the joint product nature of exchange platforms,
The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs necessary for the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with one another for listings and order flow and sales of market data itself, providing ample opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to compete in any or all of those areas, including producing and distributing their own market data. Proprietary data products are produced and distributed by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (the primary antitrust regulator) has expressly acknowledged the aggressive actual competition among exchanges, including for the sale of proprietary market data. In 2011, the DOJ stated that exchanges “compete head to head to offer real-time equity data products. These data products include the best bid and offer of every exchange and information on each equity trade, including the last sale.”
Moreover, competitive markets for listings, order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products and therefore constrain markets from overpricing proprietary market data. Broker-dealers send their order flow and transaction reports to multiple venues, rather than providing them all to a single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive constraint. As a 2010 Commission Concept Release noted, the “current market structure can be described as dispersed and complex” with “trading volume . . . dispersed among many highly automated trading centers that compete for order flow in the same stocks” and “trading centers offer[ing] a wide range of services that are designed to attract different types of market participants with varying trading needs.”
If an exchange succeeds in competing for quotations, order flow, and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and increases the value of its proprietary market data products because they will contain greater quote and trade information. Conversely, if an exchange is less successful in attracting quotes, order flow, and trade executions, then its market data products may be less desirable to customers in light of the diminished content and data products offered by competing venues may become more attractive. Thus, competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions puts significant pressure on an exchange to maintain both execution and data fees at reasonable levels.
In addition, in the case of products that are also redistributed through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters, the vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Vendors will not elect to make available NYSE Arca Integrated Feed in the legacy format unless their customers request it, and customers will not elect to pay the proposed fees unless NYSE Arca Integrated Feed in the legacy format can provide value by sufficiently increasing revenues or reducing costs in the customer's business in a manner that will offset the fees. And as noted above, the Exchange has provided customers with adequate notice that it intends to discontinue dissemination of the data feed in the legacy format.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Diamond Mountains: Travel and Nostalgia in Korean Art,” 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 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about February 7, 2018, until on or about May 20, 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,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that twenty-four objects to be included in the exhibition “Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination,” 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 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about May 10, 2018, until on or about October 8, 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 Indiana Rail Road Company (INRD), a Class II rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(8) for its acquisition of limited, temporary overhead trackage rights over a line of railroad of CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) between its connection with CSXT at approximately CSXT milepost OZA 204.5 at Sullivan, Ind., and the connection with trackage serving the Oaktown Mine at approximately CSXT milepost OZA 219.05 at Oaktown, Ind., a distance of approximately 14.55 miles.
As explained by INRD in its notice of exemption in Docket No. FD 36068, pursuant to a May 15, 2008 trackage rights agreement and two subsequent supplements to that agreement dated August 1, 2009, and November 20, 2009, INRD holds trackage rights over a line of railroad of CSXT from Sullivan to Carlisle and Oaktown, Ind.
As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the acquisition of the temporary trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(8). If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption.
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36068 (Sub-No. 2), must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on INRD's representative, Thomas J. Litwiler, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Dr., Ste. 920, Chicago, IL 60606-2832.
According to INRD, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and historic reporting under 49 CFR 1105.8(b)(3).
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Surface Transportation Board.
Approval of rail cost adjustment factor.
The Board has approved the first quarter 2018 Rail Cost Adjustment Factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of American Railroads. A new base level for the index is calculated in the Board's decision, as the statute requires be done every five years. The first quarter 2018 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 1.027. The first quarter 2018 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.422. The first quarter 2018 RCAF-5 is 0.402.
Pedro Ramirez, (202) 245-0333. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: (800) 877-8339.
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available on our website,
This action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-
Submit comments on or before January 22, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0199. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
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
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel CHASIN TAIL 2 is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collections and their expected burden. The
Comments must be submitted to OMB on or before January 22, 2018.
Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
Stephen Hench, Office of Chief Counsel (NCC-0100), Room W41-229, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202.366.2992.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following collection of information:
This collection covers the information collection requirements found within various statutory sections in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Act), 49 U.S.C. 30101,
Pursuant to the Act, motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers are obligated to notify, and then provide various information and documents to, NHTSA in the event a safety defect or noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) is identified in products they manufactured.
Manufacturers are also required to file with NHTSA a plan explaining how they intend to reimburse owners and purchasers who paid to have their products remedied before being notified of the safety defect or noncompliance, and explain that plan in the notifications they issue to owners and purchasers about the safety defect or noncompliance.
In addition, in an enforcement action, certain manufacturers may be required by administrative order to conduct supplemental recall communications utilizing non-traditional means (
The Act and Part 573 also contain numerous information collection requirements specific to tire recall and remedy campaigns. These requirements relate to the proper disposal of recalled tires, including a requirement that the manufacturer conducting the tire recall submit a plan and provide specific instructions to certain persons (such as dealers and distributors) addressing that disposal, and a requirement that those persons report back to the manufacturer certain deviations from the plan.
49 U.S.C. 30166(n) and its implementing regulation found at 49 CFR 573.10 mandate that anyone who knowingly and willfully sells or leases for use on a motor vehicle a defective tire or a tire that is not compliant with FMVSS, and with actual knowledge that the tire manufacturer has notified its dealers of the defect or noncompliance as required under the Act, is required to report that sale or lease to NHTSA no more than five working days after the person to whom the tire was sold or leased takes possession of it.
Based on current information, we estimate 274 distinct manufacturers filing an average of 963 part 573 Safety Recall Reports each year. This is a change from our previous estimate of 854 part 573 Safety Recall Reports filed by 275 manufacturers each year. In addition, with reference to the metric associated with NHTSA's VIN Look-up Tool regulation, see 49 CFR 573.15, we estimate it takes the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers (that each produce more than 25,000 vehicles annually) more burden hours to complete these Reports to NHTSA.
We estimate that maintenance of the required owner, purchaser, dealer, and distributor lists requires 8 hours a year per manufacturer. Alliance & Global commented that it was unclear what this task involves, but that “[i]f it includes obtaining the data and curating it for accuracy on a weekly or biweekly basis, this estimate is far too low.” Without more information, it is difficult for NHTSA to revise its estimate in light of this comment. However, we note that this list maintenance involves tasks necessary to ensure a company has accurate records (
We estimated that it takes a major passenger-vehicle manufacturer 20 burden hours, on average, to prepare and file their Part 573 Reports. In a
Accordingly, we estimate the annual burden hours related to the reporting to NHTSA of a safety defect or noncompliance for the 17 major passenger vehicle-manufacturers to be 11,960 hours annually (299 notices × 40 hours/report), and that all other manufacturers require a total of 2,656 hours annually (664 notices × 4 hours/report) to file their notices. Accordingly, the estimated annual burden hours related to the reporting to NHTSA of a safety defect or noncompliance is 16,808 hours (11,960 hours + 2,656 hours) + (274 MFRs × 8 hours to maintain purchaser lists).
We estimate that an additional 40 hours will be needed to account for major passenger-vehicle manufacturers adding details to Part 573 Safety Recall Reports relating to the intended schedule for notifying its dealers and distributors, and tailoring its notifications to dealers and distributors in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 577.13. For all other manufacturers, an additional 2 hours will be needed to account for this obligation. This burden is estimated at 13,288 hours annually (664 notices × 2 hours/notification) + (299 notices × 40 hours/notification).
49 U.S.C. 30166(f) requires manufacturers to provide the Agency copies of all communications regarding defects and noncompliances sent to owners, purchasers, and dealerships. Manufacturers must index these communications by the year, make, and model of the vehicle as well as provide a concise summary of the subject of the communication. We estimated this burden requires 30 minutes for each vehicle recall. Alliance & Global commented that as a “best fit” of information collected from its member companies, its members spend 3 hours per recall on this requirement. NHTSA does acknowledge that its previous estimate could have been low, particularly in the case of larger recalls involving a diverse group of vehicle years, makes, and models, which Alliance & Global members may face more frequently than smaller manufacturers. Accordingly, NHTSA now estimates this burden to be 3 hours for the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers. This totals an estimated 1,229 hours annually (299 recalls × 3 hours for the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers) + (664 recalls × .5 for all other manufacturers).
In the event a manufacturer supplied the defective or noncompliant product to independent dealers through independent distributors, that manufacturer is required to include in its notifications to those distributors an instruction that the distributors are to then provide copies of the manufacturer's notification of the defect or noncompliance to all known distributors or retail outlets further down the distribution chain within five working days.
As for the burden linked with a manufacturer's preparation of and notification concerning its reimbursement for pre-notification remedies, we estimated that the preparation of a reimbursement plan takes approximately 4 hours annually, an additional .5 hours is spent tailoring each plan to particular defect and noncompliance notifications to NHTSA and adding tailored language about the plan to a particular safety recall's owner notification letters, and an additional 12 hours annually is spent disseminating plan information. Alliance & Global commented that as a “best fit” of information collected from its member companies, its members spend 1.5 hours, instead of .5 hours, tailoring reimbursement plans for a given recall.
NHTSA appreciates Alliance & Global's comment, and acknowledges that its previous estimate could have been low, particularly in the case of larger recalls involving a diverse group of vehicle years, makes, and models, which Alliance & Global members may face more frequently than smaller manufacturers. NHTSA now estimates this burden to be 1 hour for the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers. Incorporating this revision, for this burden NHTSA estimates a total 5,165 annual hours (274 MFRs × 4 hours to prepare plan) + [(299 recalls × 1.5 hours tailoring plan for each recall for 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers) + (664 recalls × .5 tailoring plan for all other manufacturers)] + (274 MFRs × 12 hours to disseminate plan information)).
The Safety Act and 49 CFR part 573 also contain numerous information collection requirements specific to tire recall and remedy campaigns, as well as a statutory and regulatory reporting requirement that anyone who knowingly and intentionally sells or leases a defective or noncompliant tire notify NHTSA of that activity.
Manufacturers are required to include specific information related to tire disposal in the notifications they provide NHTSA concerning identification of a safety defect or noncompliance with FMVSS in their tires, as well as in the notifications they issue to their dealers or other tire outlets participating in the recall campaign.
Manufacturer-owned or controlled dealers are required to notify the manufacturer and provide certain information should they deviate from the manufacturer's disposal plan. Consistent with our previous analysis, we ascribe zero burden hours to this requirement since to date no such reports have been provided and our original expectation that dealers would comply with manufacturers' plans has proven true.
Accordingly, we estimate 24 burden hours a year will be spent complying with the tire recall campaign requirements found in 49 CFR 573.6(c)(9).
The agency recently received one report under 49 U.S.C. 30166(n) and its implementing regulation at 49 CFR 573.10 of a defective or noncompliant tire being intentionally sold or leased, so our previous estimate of zero burden hours for this regulatory requirement is being revised. The agency estimates 1 burden hour annually will be spent preparing and submitting such reports.
We continue to believe nine vehicle manufacturers, who did not operate VIN-based recalls lookup systems prior to August 2013, incur certain recurring burdens on an annual basis. We continue to estimate that 100 burden hours will be spent on system and database administrator support. These 100 burden hours include: Backup data management and monitoring; database management, updates, and log management; and data transfer, archiving, quality assurance, and cleanup procedures. We estimate another 100 burden hours will be incurred on web/application developer support. These burdens include: Operating system and security patch management; application/web server management; and application server system and log files management. We estimate these burdens will total 1,800 hours each year (9 MFRs × 200 hours). We estimate the recurring costs of these burden hours will be $30,000 per manufacturer.
Changes to 49 CFR part 573 in 2013 required 27 manufacturers to update each recalled vehicle's repair status no less than every 7 days, for 15 years from the date the VIN is known to be included in the recall. This ongoing requirement to update the status of a VIN for 15 years continues to add a recurring burden on top of the one-time burden to implement and operate these online search tools. We estimate that 8 affected motorcycle manufacturers will make recalled VINs available for an average of 2 recalls each year and 19 affected passenger-vehicle manufacturers will make recalled VINs available for an average of 8 recalls each year. We believe it will take no more than 1 hour, and potentially much less with automated systems, to update the VIN status of vehicles that have been remedied under the manufacturer's remedy program. We estimate this will require 8,736 burden hours per year (1 hour × 2 recalls × 52 weeks × 8 MFRs + 1 hour × 8 recalls × 52 weeks × 19 MFRs) to support the requirement to update the recalls completion status of each VIN in a recall at least weekly for 15 years.
As the number of Part 573 Recall Reports has increased in recent years, so has the number of quarterly reports that track the completion of safety recalls. Our previous estimate of 3,800 quarterly reports received annually is now revised upwards to 4,498 quarter reports received annually. We estimated it takes manufacturers 10 minutes to gather the pertinent information for each quarterly report, and 4 additional hours annually for the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers to electronically submit their reports. Alliance & Global commented that as a “best fit” of information collected from its member companies, its members spend 1 hour (instead of 10 minutes) gathering pertinent information for each quarterly report, and 10 hours annually (instead of 4 hours) in additional time related to submitting their reports.
As NHTSA previously observed in revising its estimate—in light of comments from Nissan—the gathering of pertinent information is likely automated through electronic reporting.
NHTSA's estimate of 4 additional related hours annually for the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers to electronically submit their reports was based on an estimate of time, in response to a comment from Nissan, to electronically submit reports each quarter (for up to 30 recalls in each given quarter).
We continue to estimate a small burden of 2 hours annually in order to set up a manufacturer's online recalls portal account with the pertinent contact information and maintaining/updating their account information as needed. We estimate this will require a total of 548 hours annually (2 hours × 274 MFRs).
We estimated that 20 percent of Part 573 reports will involve a change or addition regarding recall components, and that at one hour per amended report, this totals 193 burden hours per year. Alliance & Global implicitly commented on the 20 percent figure, assuming in its proposed burden estimate that all recalls involve a change or addition regarding recall components. However, not all recalls require such a change, and Alliance & Global do not offer an alternative figure and/or further explanation of their estimate. Accordingly, NHTSA will retain the 20-percent figure in its estimate. Alliance & Global did, however, comment that this task generally takes its members at least two (2) hours per recall, and “more in complex matters,” and NHTSA acknowledges that its previous estimate could have been low—particularly in the case of larger recalls involving a diverse group of vehicle years, makes, and models. NHTSA is adding another hour to this burden estimate for the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers, recognizing that many recalls are conducted by smaller manufacturers but, at the same time, the burden may be more than 2 hours for complex recalls that Alliance & Global members may more often face. NHTSA now estimates the burden associated with a change or addition regarding recall components at 253 burden hours per year (299 recalls for 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers × .20 = 60 recalls; 60 × 2 = 120 hours) + (664 recalls for all other manufacturers × .20 = 133 recalls × 1 = 133).
As to the requirement that manufacturers notify NHTSA in the
We estimated that it takes manufacturers an average of 8 hours to draft their notification letters, submit them to NHTSA for review, and then finalize them for mailing to their affected owners and purchasers. Alliance & Global commented that it believed its members generally require 11 hours on average for these tasks. NHTSA does acknowledge its estimate may be low for major passenger-vehicle manufacturers, of which much of Alliance & Global are comprised. Accordingly, we estimate that the 49 CFR part 577 requirements result in 8,601 burden hours annually (8 hours per recall × 664 recalls per year) + (11 hours per recall × 299).
The burden estimate associated with the regulation that requires interim owner notifications within 60 days of filing a Part 573 Safety Recall Report must be revised upward. We previously calculated that about 10 percent of past recalls require an interim notification mailing, but recent trends show that 12 percent of recalls require an interim owner notification mailing. We continue to estimate the preparation of an interim notification can take up to 10 hours. We therefore estimate that 1160 burden hours are associated with the 60-day interim notification requirement (963 recalls × .12 = 116 recalls; 116 recalls times 10 hours per recall = 1160 hours).
As for costs associated with notifying owners and purchasers of recalls, we continue to estimate a cost of $1.50 per first class mail notification, on average. This cost estimate includes the costs of printing, mailing, as well as the costs vehicle manufacturers may pay to third-party vendors to acquire the names and addresses of the current registered owners from state and territory departments of motor vehicles. In reviewing recent recall figures, we determined that an estimated 75.8 million letters are mailed yearly totaling $113,700,000 ($1.50 per letter × 75,800,000 letters). The requirement in 49 CFR part 577 for a manufacturer to notify their affected customers within 60 days would add an additional $13,644,000 (75,800,000 letters × .12 requiring interim owner notifications = 9,096,000 letters; 9,096,000 × $1.50 = $13,644,000). In total, we estimate that the current 49 CFR part 577 requirements cost manufacturers a total of $127,614,000 annually ($113,700,000 for owner notification letters + $13,644,000 for interim notification letters + $270,000 for VIN Look-up Tool operation = $127,614,000).
NHTSA further has authority to require that, in an enforcement action, vehicle manufacturers conduct supplemental recall communications, potentially utilizing non-traditional means (
To address the scope and complexity of the Takata recalls, NHTSA issued a Coordinated Remedy Order, as amended on December 9, 2016 (the “ACRO”), which requires affected vehicle manufacturers to conduct supplemental owner notification efforts in coordination with NHTSA and the Independent Monitor of Takata. On December 23, 2016, the Monitor, in consultation with NHTSA, issued Coordinated Communications Recommendations for vehicle owner outreach (“CCRs”), which includes a recommendation that vehicle manufacturers provide at least one form of consumer outreach per month for vehicles in a launched recall campaign (
Alliance & Global commented that supplemental recall communications are not mandatory. NHTSA acknowledges this is generally the rule (although the agency may require a manufacturer to provide additional notifications if it determines the initial notification did not result in an adequate number of remedied vehicles or equipment, see 49 U.S.C. 30119(e), 49 CFR 577.10), and appreciates manufacturers' efforts in furtherance of the shared goal of remedying as many vehicles affected by the Takata recalls as possible. Alliance & Global also cited to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding additional owner notifications, and drew a parallel between potential burdens associated with that rulemaking and this information collection. NHTSA appreciates the parallel, but emphasizes that the ACRO and CCRs prescribe distinct requirements pursuant to NHTSA's enforcement authority, and that neither those documents nor this notice involve a rulemaking.
Alliance & Global also commented that “NHTSA did not identify all of the Takata ACRO and related tasks that are subject to PRA approval,” and that the burden estimates should be revised accordingly. Alliance & Global thereafter listed additional “tasks” under the ACRO, with associated burdens for which they believe NHTSA must account here.
NHTSA recognizes the ACRO sets forth various requirements in addition to the consumer outreach described above, but believes the investigatory exception to the PRA, which specifically exempts collections of information “during the conduct of an administrative action, investigation, or audit involving an agency against specific individuals or entities,” applies to such requirements. 5 CFR 1320.3(c), 1320.4(a)(2); 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Monitor's recommendations for outreach were adopted in significant part because research supports that frequent notifications using non-traditional means results in improved remedy completion. The agency cited
In a similar vein, the agency is also aware of generalized concerns about “notification fatigue,” and invited comment on this phenomenon, including the optimal frequency, content, mode, and method of recall/defects notifications from manufacturers to consumers. The agency previously stated its interest in any research or data on consumer “fatigue” that relates to a recall with potential consequences of death or severe injury, as in the case of the Takata recalls. Alliance & Global did not provide any information on this issue. Instead, Alliance & Global noted that they are unaware of data-based research that supports the notion that outreach pursuant to the ACRO actually results in improved remedy completion. Setting aside findings of the Independent Monitor that indicate otherwise, see n.8, this also implicitly recognizes the central issue: The Takata recalls are unprecedented, and that while it may be “that no one knows `the optimal frequency, content, mode and method' of communicating with consumers about recalls, including whether `more' is always `better,' ” the studies NHTSA cites indicate that more is in fact better. Alliance & Global have cited no studies of their own to the contrary.
In any event, NHTSA appreciates Alliance & Global's comments as part of the ongoing dialogue to better understand the relationship between recall notification and recall completion. NHTSA has met, and continues to meet, with numerous manufacturers to discuss this very issue, including at regularly scheduled meetings for the vehicle manufacturers affected by the Takata air bag inflator recalls. As Alliance & Global acknowledge, affected vehicle manufacturers have been working with the Independent Monitor to improve outreach results in the Takata recalls, which should result in further understanding of the issue. NHTSA will continue to monitor the development of knowledge in this area, and looks forward to future collaboration with manufacturers.
The volume of outreach required by the ACRO and the CCRs (and the costs associated with that outreach) is a function of the number of unrepaired vehicles that are in a launched campaign and are not otherwise accounted for as scrapped, stolen, exported, or otherwise unreachable. The schedule in Paragraph 35 of the ACRO delineates the expected remedy completion rate, by quarter, of vehicles in a launched remedy campaign.
NHTSA estimated a yearly average of 19 vehicle manufacturers issuing monthly supplemental communications over the next three years pursuant to the ACRO and the CCRs. Manufacturers may satisfy the CCRs through third-party vendors (which many manufacturers are already utilizing), in-house strategies, or some combination thereof. NHTSA estimated the cost for supplemental communications at $0.44 per VIN per month.
Utilizing these variables, we estimated an initial annualized cost contemplated by the ACRO and CCRs over the next three years of $43,557,722 per year, and discounted this annualized cost by the cost of outreach efforts settling defendants in the Southern District of Florida multi-district litigation (Toyota, Subaru, Nissan, BMW, Mazda, and Honda) are required to conduct pursuant to their respective settlements—which amounted to a discount of $15,721,393.
Alliance & Global commented that, even assuming a cost of $0.44/VIN, monthly outreach costs would actually total $108 million per year based on the number of unremedied vehicles stated in the Independent Monitor's report,
Alliance & Global also commented that the cost burden of this outreach “is far more than $0.44/VIN on average and requires more than 2 hours per month to prepare and administer.” Alliance & Global, however, provide an unclear picture of alternative estimates, offering only “initial average estimates” of $2 to $5/VIN, and then observing that other initiatives “can further increase costs as high as approximately $30 to more than $100/VIN.” Indeed, at this time Alliance & Global can only provide what it refers to be a low-end estimate of a burden close to $40 million/month for its members affected by the Takata recalls, “expect[ing] to refine [their] estimates in supplemental comments.” And Alliance & Global offered no alternative estimate to the NHTSA's estimated burden of 2 hours per month to prepare and administer non-traditional outreach.
Alliance & Global appear to admit that their cost estimates are at most preliminary, and therefore it is difficult for NHTSA to significantly revise its cost estimate based on these comments. However, NHTSA appreciates Alliance & Global's input, which provides useful insight into the cost of these outreach programs—about which to this point NHTSA has had relatively little information. NHTSA further recognizes per-VIN outreach costs can vary significantly depending on the vehicles and owners involved, as well as the particular strategies manufacturers have selected to engage in consumer outreach for different recalls at different levels of maturity. Accordingly, NHTSA accepts Alliance & Global's assertion that, on average, a per-VIN-per-month outreach estimate of $0.44 is low, and will revise its estimate to $2/VIN per month. NHTSA will retain its estimated burden of 2 hours per month to prepare and administer non-traditional outreach. NHTSA looks forward to additional insights it may gain from supplemental information Alliance & Global may submit.
Alliance & Global also commented that discounting the annualized outreach costs by costs of anticipated outreach pursuant to MDL settlements was not “an appropriate baseline for this cost analysis.” Alliance & Global stated the outreach efforts the settling manufacturers were conducting pursuant to the ACRO and CCRs facilitated their MDL settlements, and that the ACRO and CCRs predated the MDL settlements. Alliance & Global also posited that it is “premature” to assume outreach efforts under the ACRO and CCRs will satisfy the MDL settlement obligations. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the ACRO and CCRs “facilitated” the MDL settlements, it is of no consequence; going forward, those settling vehicle manufacturers must comply with the terms of their respective settlements, which include provisions for enhanced outreach efforts. While NHTSA acknowledges the exact nature of this outreach is presently unclear, at this juncture NHTSA anticipates it is more likely than not that the outreach efforts conducted under the settlements would satisfy the minimum requirements of the ACRO and CCRs. Alliance & Global have provided no indication otherwise.
Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the terms of the ACRO and the CCRs, assuming remedy-completion rates consistent with those set forth in the former, contemplate an initial annualized cost of $197,989,647 per year for the next three years (2018-2020), with an annualized discount of $71,460,877 to account for outreach conducted pursuant to the MDL settlements described above, for a net annualized cost of $126,528,770. NHTSA estimates that manufacturers will take an average of 2 hours each month drafting or customizing supplemental recall communications utilizing non-traditional means, submitting them to NHTSA for review, and finalizing them to send to affected owners and purchasers. NHTSA therefore estimates that 456 burden hours annually are associated with issuing these supplemental recall communications (12 months × 2 hours per month × 19 manufacturers = 456 hours).
Because of the forgoing burden estimates, we are revising the burden estimate associated with this collection. The 49 CFR part 573 and 49 CFR part 577 requirements found in today's notice will require 63,606 hours each year. Additionally, manufacturers impacted by 49 CFR part 573 and 49 CFR part 577 requirements will incur a recurring annual cost estimated at $127,614,000 total. The burden estimate in this collection contemplated for conducting supplemental recall communications under the ACRO to achieve completion of the Takata recalls is 456 hours each year. Additionally, the ACRO contemplates impacted vehicle manufacturers incurring an annual cost estimated at $126,528,770. Therefore, in total, we estimate the burden associated with this collection to be 64,062 hours each year, with a recurring annual cost estimated at $254,142,770.
Notice and request for public comment.
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 proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), U.S. Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning the Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.
Written comments must be received on or before February 20, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Submit your comments via email to Brette Fishman, Management Analyst, CDFI Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, at
Brette Fishman, Management Analyst, CDFI Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20220 or by phone at (202) 653-0300. Other information regarding the CDFI Fund and its programs may be obtained through the CDFI Fund's website at
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
Pub. L. 104-13.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the VA New Hampshire Vision 2025 Task Force, which is a subcommittee of the Special Medical Advisory Group (SMAG), will meet January 9, 2018 from 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. ET and January 10, 2018 from 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. ET at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Manchester VA Medical Center, 718 Smyth Road Manchester, NH 03104, Building 1, 1st Floor, Training & Education Room. There will also be a teleconference line available for those attendees unable to attend in person. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the subcommittee is to develop a comprehensive set of options and recommendations to develop a future vision of what VA must do to best meet the needs of New Hampshire Veterans. The recommendations will be reviewed by the SMAG and then those final recommendations will be forwarded to the Secretary and Under Secretary for Health for decision and action.
The agenda will include an update on the ongoing VA-led national market assessment project and facilitated sessions with task force members as they synthesize the various data and focus group inputs from the various VA and non-VA support they have received so far. The listen only teleconference line is reached by dialing 1-800-767-1750 and then entering the access code: 91129#. However, there are a limited number of lines. Consequently, if more than one person at an organization wants to join, we encourage you to use one phone line to allow other organization to listen. Otherwise, you are welcome to join in person. No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, the public may submit written statements for the Subcommittee's review to Brenda Faas, Designated Federal Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs at
Because the meeting will be held in a federal government building, anyone attending must be prepared to show a valid photo government issued ID. Please allow 15 minutes before the meeting begins for this process.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the subcommittees of the Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board will meet from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on the dates indicated below:
The addresses of the meeting sites are:
* Teleconference—VA Central Office, 1100 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002. Crowne Plaza Washington National Airport Hotel, 1480 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. Crystal Gateway Marriott, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
The purpose of the Board is to review rehabilitation research and development applications and advise the Director, Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, and the Chief Research and Development Officer on the scientific and technical merit, the mission relevance, and the protection of human and animal subjects.
The subcommittee meetings will be open to the public for approximately one-half hour at the start of each meeting to cover administrative matters and to discuss the general status of the program. Members of the public who wish to attend the open portion of the teleconference sessions may dial 1 (800) 767-1750, participant code 35847. The remaining portion of each subcommittee meeting will be closed to the public for the discussion, examination, reference to, and oral review of the research applications and critiques. During the closed portion of each subcommittee meeting, discussion and recommendations will include qualifications of the personnel conducting the studies (the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), as well as research information (the premature disclosure of which would likely compromise significantly the implementation of proposed agency action regarding such research projects). As provided by subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended by Public Law 94-409, closing the meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B).
No oral or written comments will be accepted from the public for either portion of the meetings. Those who plan to attend (by phone or in person) the open portion of a subcommittee meeting must contact Tiffany Asqueri, Designated Federal Officer, Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, at Department of Veterans Affairs (10P9R), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, or email
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the VA Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Advisory Committee will meet January 18-19, 2018 at 301 7th St. SW, Conference Room 2720, Washington, DC, 20024, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. (EST). All sessions are open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officers, on matters relating to improving and enhancing VA's efforts to identify, prevent, and mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse across VA in order to improve the integrity of VA's payments and the efficiency of its programs and activities.
The agenda will include detailed discussions of VA's Care in the Community program, issues identified in the Community Care program, improper payment payments and root causes of improper payments, working group and subcommittee reports, and recommendations.
The meeting will include time reserved for public comments in the afternoon. A sign-up sheet for 5-minute comments will be available at the meeting. Individuals who wish to address the Committee may submit a 1-2 page summary of their comments for inclusion in the official meeting record. Members of the public may also submit written statements for the Committee's review to Tamika Barrier via email at
Because the meeting will take place in a Federal building, visitors will be required to present photo identification. Any person attending should allow an additional 30 minutes before the beginning to allow for this security process. For interested parties who cannot attend in person, there is a toll-free telephone number (800) 767-1750; access code 03905#.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) administers a program to hold retirement benefits for missing participants and beneficiaries in terminated retirement plans and to help those participants and beneficiaries find and receive the benefits being held for them. The existing program is limited to single-employer defined benefit pension plans covered by the pension insurance system under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). With this final regulation, PBGC revises the existing program to simplify procedures and remove unnecessary rules and, as authorized by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, establishes similar programs for most defined contribution plans, multiemployer plans covered by the pension insurance system, and certain defined benefit plans that are not covered.
Stephanie Cibinic (
This regulation is needed to implement changes in the statutory basis for the missing participants program. The changes provide for expansion of the program to cover defined contribution (individual account) plans, multiemployer pension plans, and small professional service employer plans not covered by title IV of ERISA.
PBGC's legal authority for this action comes from section 4002(b)(3) of ERISA, which authorizes PBGC to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of title IV of ERISA, and section 4050 of ERISA, which gives PBGC authority to prescribe regulations regarding missing persons owed benefits under terminated retirement plans, including rules on the amounts to be paid to and from the program and how to search for missing participants and beneficiaries.
The final regulation streamlines requirements and eliminates unnecessary provisions in the existing missing participants program, expands the program to most terminated defined contribution plans, to terminated multiemployer plans covered by title IV, and to terminated professional service plans with 25 or fewer participants. Under the regulatory action, PBGC will charge fees for plans to transfer benefits into the program; the fees will not exceed PBGC's costs. Responding to comments on the proposed rule, the regulatory action modifies the criteria for being “missing,” provides more flexibility in the diligent search rules for defined benefit plans, and simplifies the existing procedures for defined benefit plans to determine the appropriate sum to transfer to PBGC on behalf of a missing participant or beneficiary.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) administers the pension plan termination insurance program under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which applies to most defined benefit (DB) plans. In general terms, a DB plan is a retirement plan that provides specified benefits and is subject to certain funding requirements. Within statutory limits, PBGC guarantees benefits of participants and their beneficiaries upon the underfunded termination of a plan covered by title IV. PBGC also monitors the termination of covered plans that are fully funded for guaranteed benefits, which must follow procedures provided under title IV.
The process of closing out a terminated retirement plan involves the disposition of plan assets to satisfy the benefits of plan participants and beneficiaries. One difficulty faced by a plan administrator in closing out a terminated plan is how to provide for the benefits of missing persons. This problem was addressed for single-employer plans subject to the title IV insurance program by the creation, under the Retirement Protection Act of 1994 (RPA '94), of a program administered by PBGC to deal with the benefits of missing participants and beneficiaries in terminated plans.
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 amended section 4050 of ERISA to expand its scope dramatically—offering the prospect of participation in the missing participants program to terminated multiemployer plans covered by title IV and several categories of terminated non-covered plans, including most defined contribution (DC) plans. In general terms, a DC plan is a retirement plan that provides for a participant to receive whatever is in the vested portion of the participant's retirement account. Section 4050(c) of ERISA provides for program participation for title IV multiemployer plans similar to that for title IV single-employer plans now in the program (although close-out of a multiemployer plan may not follow immediately upon plan termination). Non-title IV plans described under
In November 2013, the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans (ERISA Advisory Council) issued a report
On August 14, 2014, the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) of the Department of Labor (DOL) issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2014-01 on Fiduciary Duties And Missing Participants In Terminated Defined Contribution Plans (the FAB).
As recommended by the ERISA Advisory Council, PBGC staff consulted with EBSA staff and staff at the Solicitor of Labor's Plan Benefits Security Division, as well as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of the Treasury. Those consultations were very helpful in developing the proposed and final regulations.
In those consultations, the IRS informed PBGC that it anticipates a DC plan would not fail to be qualified solely because it transfers appropriate amounts to PBGC in accordance with PBGC's missing participants program pursuant to section 4050(a)(2) of ERISA.
IRS also informed PBGC that, consistent with existing treatment of transfers to PBGC from terminated single-employer DB plans covered by title IV of ERISA, amounts transferred by terminated DC and other plans to PBGC under the expanded missing participants program are not taxable distributions subject to withholding or reporting.
The Department of Labor advised PBGC that it intends to review and possibly revise its regulations and guidance to coordinate with PBGC's implementation of a final rule on missing participants. For instance, the Department of Labor indicated its intent to review its fiduciary safe harbor regulation entitled “Safe Harbor for Distributions from Terminated Individual Account Plans,” which provides for distributions to individual retirement plans in such circumstances as when the participant or beneficiary was furnished a notice but failed to elect a form of distribution in a timely manner,
On September 20, 2016, PBGC published a proposed regulation (at 81 FR 64700) to expand the missing participants program to terminated multiemployer plans covered by title IV of ERISA similar to the program for covered single-employer plans. The proposal also provided for a voluntary program for terminated defined contribution plans and small professional service defined benefit plans not covered by PBGC insurance. PBGC received 14 written comments on the proposal from across the retirement community, including comments from plan sponsors, third party administrators, financial institutions, representatives of participants and beneficiaries, and participants themselves. PBGC adopted a few changes in the final regulation in response to comments, but the regulation is substantially similar to what was proposed. An overview of the program's features, the regulation's organization, and the comments and PBGC's responses are discussed below.
This final rulemaking lays the legal foundation for a program whose features extend far beyond the confines of the missing participants regulation. Major features of the new program include:
• A new option for DC plans to deal with missing participants and beneficiaries when closing out the plan and to make it more likely that missing persons will receive their benefits.
• A unified unclaimed pension database of information about missing participants and their benefits from terminated DB and DC plans.
• A centralized, reliable, easy-to-use directory through which persons who may be owed retirement benefits from DB or DC plans could find out whether benefits are being held for them.
• Robust features to protect private information about missing participants and their beneficiaries from inadvertent disclosure.
• Periodic active searches by PBGC for missing participants.
• Considerable benefits gained by reuniting missing participants with their lost retirement money that far outweigh the modest costs to plans and participants.
• Provision for a one-time administrative fee to be charged for
• Treating participants or beneficiaries as “missing” if they fail to make necessary benefit elections upon plan termination or fail to accept lump sum benefits, such as where there are uncashed checks.
• Fewer benefit categories and fewer sets of actuarial assumptions for DB plans determining the amount to transfer to PBGC and a free on-line calculator to do certain actuarial calculations.
• Elimination of unnecessary rules.
While the basic requirements are the same across all four types of plans, because some terminology and processes may vary with each plan type, the final regulation is divided into four subparts for readability, with each subpart describing the requirements for one of the four categories of plans. The four subparts of the regulation are:
• A revised version of the existing program for single-employer DB plans covered by the title IV insurance program (subpart A),
• New requirements for DC plans (subpart B),
• New requirements for small professional service DB plans (subpart C),
• New requirements for multiemployer plans covered by the title IV insurance program (subpart D).
Each subpart contains seven sections, dealing with “Purpose and scope,” “Definitions,” “Duties” (and options for non-PBGC-insured plans), “Diligent search,” “Filing with PBGC” (including fees), “Missing participant benefits,” and “PBGC discretion.”
Used throughout the regulation is the term “distributee.” The regulation that is being replaced, following the statute, used the phrase “missing participant” to refer to either a beneficiary or a participant. To reduce possible confusion from using the word “participant” in a phrase that may refer to a beneficiary, the final regulation (like the proposed) uses the term “missing distributee” to refer to a missing participant or missing beneficiary. However, some headings in the regulation and some discussion in this preamble refer to missing participants, the more familiar phrase.
The public comments focused exclusively on the revised rules for PBGC-insured single-employer DB plans and the new rules for DC plans (which are not insured by PBGC). There were no comments specific to multiemployer plans and non-PBGC-insured small professional service DB plans. However, because the diligent search rules, benefit transfer (pay-in) rules, and rules PBGC follows for paying benefits to located participants (pay-out rules) are the same across all DB plans, changes made to those requirements for PBGC-insured single-employer DB plans are carried over into the requirements for the other two types of DB plans. Similarly, because the program is voluntary for all non-PBGC-insured plans, any changes to rules implementing the voluntary features for DC plans are carried into the same rules for small professional service DB plans.
As authorized by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), this final regulation makes PBGC's missing participants program—heretofore limited to terminated single-employer DB plans covered by title IV's insurance program—available to other terminated retirement plans.
Commenters commended PBGC for opening up the missing participants program to terminated DC plans in particular, and six commenters expressed support for going even further. They encouraged PBGC to look past a plan's terminated status and assert authority to permit ongoing plans (particularly ongoing DC plans) with missing participants to use the program too.
Commenters explained that whether ongoing or terminated, plans face challenges handling the benefits of participants they can't locate. Two commenters explained that the challenges will grow as the number of missing participants continues to grow along with an increasingly mobile workforce, automatic enrollment in DC plans, etc. Others stated that PBGC's unclaimed pension search database would be more comprehensive if it also included information about missing participants from ongoing plans. Two mentioned legislative efforts in the last Congress to create another government repository for missing participant information and accounts, and noted that coordination and inclusion of ongoing plans in PBGC's program could discourage duplication, complication, and inefficiencies that might follow from potential multiple federal programs.
The final regulation, like the proposed, provides that PBGC's missing participants program is voluntary for terminated non-PBGC-insured plans,
Section 4050(d)(1) of ERISA permits but does not require non-PBGC-insured plans covered by the program to turn missing participants' benefits over to PBGC. Section 4050(d)(2) of ERISA, on the other hand, says that (to the extent provided in PBGC regulations) non-PBGC-insured plans must upon plan termination provide information about the disposition of missing participants' benefits that are not transferred to another pension plan. PBGC's 2013 request for information (RFI) flagged this reporting provision for public comment. There were some differences of opinion on whether reporting should be required or just permitted. In general, employer advocates considered mandatory reporting unnecessarily burdensome, while participant advocates considered it an essential part of an effective pension search program. PBGC proposed to begin by making participation in the missing participants
PBGC again considered the comments from both sides and decided to maintain the direction taken in the proposal—that is, to keep reporting voluntary for plans not covered by title IV—but to reevaluate the decision after plans and PBGC gain actual experience with the program. That will allow PBGC to use experience to determine the need for and costs of a mandatory requirement weighed against the completeness of the unclaimed pension search database.
Under the final regulation, as under the proposed, a DC plan that chooses to participate in the missing participants program and elects to be a transferring plan must transfer the benefits of all its missing participants into the missing participants program. In the preamble to the proposal, PBGC stated that it was concerned about the possibility of “cherry-picking”—that is, selective use of the missing participants program—by transferring plans. For example, a plan might turn over all its small accounts to PBGC, while larger accounts that can generate larger maintenance fees for commercial individual retirement plan providers might be turned over to private-sector institutions that charge asset-based fees. PBGC proposed that if a DC plan voluntarily participates in the missing participants program as a transferring plan, it may not pick and choose the missing distributees whose benefits it turns over to PBGC. PBGC invited public comment on the validity of its concerns about cherry-picking and on its proposal for dealing with those concerns.
PBGC received four comments: Three supporting the anti-cherry-picking rule and one objecting to it. Two supporters asserted that the rule would increase the number of individuals about whom PBGC has information in the unclaimed pension search database, making the database and overall missing participants program more effective, with one adding that the rule would simplify program administration and alleviate participant confusion. Another said it did not object if PBGC believes such a rule improves the program's ability to succeed. The commenter opposing the rule stated the rule is inconsistent with, and unnecessary to, a voluntary program. In the commenter's experience, the market hasn't failed to adequately handle larger missing participant accounts, which can be rolled over into IRAs, and some commercial providers have routinely taken in smaller automatic rollover accounts. The same commenter noted that the rule in any event may be unnecessary because most missing participant accounts are small.
PBGC considered the commenters' arguments. PBGC disagrees that the anti-cherry-picking rule changes the voluntary nature of the program; DC plans may participate in PBGC's missing participants program as transferring or notifying plans, or not at all. Further, the rule ensures that the amount in a missing participant's account, and the ability of that account to withstand fees charged by IRA providers, aren't factors in whether a plan transfers accounts into the missing participants program or into IRAs. The rule is consonant with section 4050 of ERISA, which does not put upper or lower limits on the size of the accounts DC plans may transfer into the missing participants program. Therefore, PBGC has adopted the anti-cherry-picking rule with respect to transferring plans without change in the final regulation.
The final regulation, like the proposed, defines what is a DB plan for purposes of the rules under subparts A (single-employer), C (small professional service), and D (multiemployer). For all three types of DB plans, the regulation provides that individual account plans (DC plans) are not included in the scope of the program for DB plans. One commenter asked PBGC to clarify that the regulation treats “rollover accounts” in DB plans like DC plans.
The IRS regulations under Code section 414(
In other cases, a participant may roll over a distribution from the participant's DC plan into the same sponsor's DB plan, pursuant to section 402(c) of the Code, to enable payment of a larger annuity benefit under the DB plan. These rollovers increase the participant's benefit under the DB plan and there is no separate DC account maintained in the DB plan.
PBGC stated in the preamble to its proposed regulation that it will charge fees for participation in the missing participants program. PBGC received five comments on fees, which are discussed below.
PBGC determined in the proposal to set fees at levels not to exceed its costs to run the missing participants program and provide essential services, such as periodically looking for participants and paying benefits. PBGC's methodology for setting fees under the missing participants program would incorporate the following elements and principles:
(1) PBGC would set fees in a manner consistent with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 9701 and relevant guidance of the Office of Management and Budget
(2) PBGC would set fees with a view to collecting, on average and over time, no more than its out-of-pocket costs for performance of non-governmental functions in support of the missing participants program. PBGC would not seek to recover through fees the value of performance of governmental functions by government employees.
(3) PBGC would set fees as one-time charges, payable when benefits are paid to PBGC, without any obligation to pay PBGC continuing “maintenance” fees or a distribution fee. Fees would not be charged for reporting to PBGC the disposition of benefits where no amount is transferred to PBGC.
After considering various fee structures, PBGC proposed a flat fee that would be simple to understand and easy for plans to administer. The fee was based on preliminary cost estimates to provide services for an estimated number of DB and DC missing participants coming into the new expanded program each year. Based on those estimates, PBGC will charge a one-time $35 fee per missing distributee, payable when benefit transfer amounts are paid to PBGC. There will be no charge for amounts transferred to PBGC of $250 or less. There will be no charge for plans that only send to PBGC information about where benefits are held (such as in an IRA or under an annuity contract). Fees will be set forth in the program's forms and instructions.
Most of the five commenters agreed that $35 is reasonable. Three commenters suggested PBGC would further increase the value and encourage the use of its missing participants program by increasing the size of the benefit exempt from the fee. Commenters suggested a range of benefit amounts—from $1,000 or less, to $700 or $500 or less—to exempt from the one-time fee. The commenter that recommended a fee exemption for accounts of $1,000 or less suggested, alternatively, a tiered fee structure for small accounts up to $1,000. Another commenter added that plan sponsors should pay the fee because they make the decisions to terminate plans.
Whether an expense is properly paid by the sponsor or the plan (or charged to a participant's account in the case of a DC plan) is an issue outside the scope of this rule. With respect to the suggestions for raising the benefit amount exempt from the fee, the various amounts presented show there isn't consensus supporting a fee amount or structure different from what PBGC initially proposed, and no quantitative data to back up one amount over another. Therefore, PBGC has decided not to change its initial fee structure. PBGC will review both the amount of the fee and fee structure to determine what is appropriate based on PBGC's actual experience with the new program and the principles stated herein.
Concurrently with publication of this final regulation, PBGC has posted on its website (
The proposed regulation provided that a distributee is “missing” if, for a DB plan, the plan does not know where the distributee is on close-out. A DB plan distributee also would be missing if the distributee's benefit was subject to mandatory “cash-out” under the terms of the plan and the distributee failed to elect a method of distribution on close-out of the plan.
PBGC distinguished in the proposed rule DB plan distributees with benefits not subject to mandatory cash-out under plan terms,
The final rule adopts the proposed rule's definition of “missing” for DB plans and the proposed rule's definition of “missing” for DC plans, but with some refinements.
The criterion of not knowing the whereabouts of a distributee was stated expressly for DB plans in the proposed rule. It is stated expressly for DB and DC plans in the final rule. PBGC also reconsidered the language in the proposed rule describing the concept of a distributee as being missing if the plan does not know where the distributee is on close-out. If this language were taken literally, a plan may never know with absolute certainty where a distributee is on close-out. The final rule provides that one of the conditions for “missing” is that the plan does not know “with reasonable certainty” (
In addition to the above refinements, PBGC further modified the definition of “missing,” and clarified the definition in the preamble, in response to several comments. Those comments are discussed below.
Two commenters recommended that PBGC clarify that plans may transfer into the missing participants program assets being held for distributees who do not accept lump sum distributions due them, for example amounts held to pay uncashed benefit distribution checks issued by a terminated plan. Under the proposed regulation, a distributee was not considered missing if the distributee had elected a form of distribution upon close-out of the plan. This definition would not have included a distributee whose benefit was being paid from the plan by check even if the check subsequently went uncashed.
PBGC considered the commenters' recommendations and modified “missing” for DB and DC plans in the
The benefit transfer amount for a missing distributee who does not cash a distribution check is to be determined in the same way as for any other missing distributee. The distributee's benefit transfer amount must reflect the total value of the benefit without any reduction for tax withholding.
PBGC believes this modified definition of “missing” for DB and DC plans relieves some administrative burden on plans trying to complete a termination when a distributee's benefit check remains uncashed. And it gives distributees some protection by allowing transfer of the benefit amount to the missing participants program where the distributee can search and be searched for and retirement benefits eventually claimed.
Two commenters asked PBGC to clarify whether participants for whom benefits were previously forfeited pursuant to Department of the Treasury regulation § 1.411(a)-4(b)(6), because the plan could not locate them, may be treated as missing under the final regulation. Treasury regulation § 1.411(a)-4(b)(6) provides that a right to a benefit isn't treated as forfeitable “merely because the benefit is forfeitable on account of the inability to find the participant or beneficiary to whom payment is due, provided that the plan provides for reinstatement of the benefit if a claim is made by the participant or beneficiary for the forfeited benefit.” PBGC believes that such a claim to benefits isn't lost on plan termination, and so the final missing participants regulation treats these individuals the same as any other missing participant. Thus, for example, in a single-employer DB plan covered by title IV of ERISA, the plan must either purchase an irrevocable commitment from an insurer or transfer the benefits to PBGC's program. In a DC plan, the plan may use PBGC's program as either a transferring or notifying plan. PBGC takes no position on the permissibility of conditional forfeitures under title I of ERISA.
One commenter requested that if the final regulation treats these individuals as any other missing participant (as it does), that PBGC provide transition guidance for terminating single-employer DB plans. The commenter stated that some plans may not have the records necessary to value the benefit of a missing participant whose benefit was conditionally forfeited under Treas. Reg. § 1.411(a)-4(b)(6). Because forfeiture is conditioned on the right to reinstatement if a claim is made for the benefits, the plan necessarily should have the records to determine the benefits the plan must reinstate if a participant makes a claim. PBGC therefore assumes plans will have such records. PBGC would expect to deal with defects in such records as it would with defects in any records on a case-by-case basis.
PBGC also recognizes that QTAs of abandoned DC plans for which there is no plan sponsor may not be able to reinstate benefits if there have been conditional forfeitures. As stated elsewhere with respect to abandoned DC plans, PBGC believes that the final rule's provision allowing discretion to promote the purposes of the missing participants program provides flexibility to accommodate this situation if it arises.
As stated above, the final regulation modifies the existing definition of “missing” for DB plans to include a non-responsive distributee,
Distributions made in contemplation of plan termination but before the formal commencement of termination proceedings under title IV of ERISA have been a matter of concern to PBGC because those to whom such distributions are made do not receive the protections that the termination process is designed to give distributees on termination. Transfers made just before the formal commencement of termination proceedings in a form that would be improper for a transfer upon plan termination deserve particular scrutiny. If such a distribution were found to be in violation of title IV,
In general, however, distributions made by an on-going DB plan in accordance with plan provisions and consistent with the plan's pre-termination practices would not be swept into the termination process. “Distributee” under this final rule refers to a person entitled to a distribution pursuant to close-out of a plan. Someone whose benefit is rolled over to an IRA before plan termination is not entitled to a distribution pursuant to close-out because the benefit has already been distributed. The final rule does not contemplate the undoing of pre-termination rollovers.
As discussed under
The proposed rule provided that a diligent search was required for every missing participant, but contained a proviso (in the section on plan duties) that a diligent search was not required for a missing distributee if the plan knew where the distributee was. PBGC concluded that this way of expressing the applicability of the diligent search requirement was potentially confusing. Accordingly, PBGC in the final rule in both the section on plan duties and the section on diligent search states that diligent searches are required only for missing distributees whose location the plan doesn't know with reasonable certainty.
As in the proposed rule, whether a distributee is considered missing depends on the distributee's status upon close-out; and likewise, whether a plan knows with reasonable certainty a missing distributee's whereabouts, for purposes of the diligent search requirement, is determined as of close-out.
The final regulation, like the proposed, provides that a DC plan must search for each missing distributee whose location the plan does not know with reasonable certainty. The plan must search in accordance with regulations and other applicable guidance issued by the Secretary of Labor under section 404 of ERISA. Compliance with that guidance satisfies PBGC's “diligent search” standard for DC plans.
Harmonization is the hallmark of the DC plan missing participants program. The ERISA Advisory Council in its 2013 report (see the discussion above in
As for waiving use of a commercial locator service, EBSA has advised PBGC that use of a commercial locator service is not necessarily required for DC plans. As explained in FAB 2014-01, a plan fiduciary at a minimum should take certain steps to find a participant. If those steps fail, ERISA's duties of prudence and loyalty require the fiduciary to consider if additional search steps are appropriate. In making this determination, the fiduciary should consider the size of the participant's account balance and cost of further search efforts. As a result, the specific additional steps that a plan fiduciary takes to locate a missing participant may vary depending on the facts and circumstances. Possible additional search steps include the use of internet search tools, commercial locator services, credit reporting agencies, information brokers, investigation databases and analogous services that may involve charges.
As noted in the preamble to the proposed regulation, where a DC plan knows a participant is deceased and has no known beneficiary, the unknown beneficiary is a distributee under the missing participants program. In the context of an abandoned DC plan (as defined under Department of Labor regulations at 29 CFR 2578.1), one commenter asked for clarification on how to handle benefits where a beneficiary can't be determined based on available information. The commenter said that a QTA of an abandoned plan particularly may not have adequate information to determine beneficiaries as the QTA may not have been the plan's contractor for services such as maintaining beneficiary designations or providing qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) review.
PBGC expects that there will be instances where a DC plan knows a participant is deceased but has little or no information about a beneficiary. Where an unknown beneficiary of a deceased participant is missing, as defined in the final regulation, the account balance of the deceased participant may be transferred into the missing participants program. PBGC will take into account the fact that there is no known person to search for in evaluating the plan's fulfillment of the diligent search requirement for any such distributee. Plan fiduciaries and QTAs would file in accordance with the forms and instructions for DC plans what information they have about the participant and beneficiary. See the section on Filing with PBGC, below, about flexibilities in filing for abandoned DC plans.
The search standard for DB plans in the proposed regulation was based on the requirements in the existing regulation with modifications inspired by the guidelines in EBSA's FAB.
While PBGC's proposed regulation attempted to bring its existing search rules into closer alignment with the search guidance in the FAB, PBGC believed that DB plans would welcome a more explicit and concrete “checklist” of steps as outlined in the proposal. PBGC sought comment on whether DB plans would be better served by a different or less prescriptive search standard. The one response affirmed PBGC's belief that a more explicit checklist for DB plans is warranted. Therefore the final regulation, like the proposed, retains this structure.
PBGC also invited comment on searching using a commercial locator service. The proposed regulation gave meaning to what is a commercial locator service for purposes of a diligent search to ensure a more robust, but also necessarily more expensive search, which might not be cost-effective for distributees with relatively small benefits. PBGC proposed to address this issue by reserving to itself the authority to place limits in the missing participants forms and instructions on the requirement for DB plans to use a commercial locator service. PBGC asked whether a waiver should be based on the monthly amount of a distributee's benefit or the present value of the benefit or on some other criterion, and on whether the waiver should be codified in the regulation.
In response, two commenters said they supported waiving use of the commercial locator service method for certain DB distributees and codifying such waiver. One commenter suggested a waiver for small plans (not small benefits) with fewer than 500 participants because a locator service may not be cost-effective for these plans. Another suggested a waiver for monthly annuity benefits of less than $100. One of these commenters added that codification would give plans notice that a waiver is available and if a waiver is subsequently changed.
PBGC considered the commenters' feedback and re-structured the final regulation so that a DB plan need not use the commercial locator service method for a distributee with a very small monthly benefit. The final regulation provides that a plan administrator must have diligently searched for a missing distributee using one of two search methods: A commercial locator service or, as an alternative for a distributee with a very small benefit,
The “records search method” includes the following steps: Searching the records of the plan that is closing out, of the employer, and of each retirement or welfare plan of the employer, for information to locate the distributee; contacting each beneficiary of the distributee identified from the records; and using an internet search for which no fee is charged, such as a search engine, a network database, a public record database (such as those for licenses, mortgages, and real estate taxes) or a “social media” website.
PBGC received comments on two search steps in the proposal that are now part of the final rule's “records search method”—searching using no-fee internet search engines and databases, and searching employer records.
Regarding no-fee internet searches, one commenter recommended that a plan that has used a commercial locator service but has not found a distributee be permitted to skip a no-charge internet search for that distributee. The commenter argued that no-fee internet searches are unwieldy for plans with large numbers of missing participants and that search results can be hard to verify. As stated above, the final regulation provides that a DB plan must have diligently searched for a distributee who is missing upon close-out using only one of two search methods, a commercial locator service or the “records search method.” If a DB plan uses a commercial locator service and does not locate the distributee, regardless of whether the benefit is large or small, no further searching is required. Similarly, if the “records search method” does not locate the distributee with a very small benefit, no further searching is required.
Two commenters recommended that PBGC modify or eliminate a search of the records of the employer that last employed the distributee and maintained the plan, claiming that this search could be more burdensome than useful. One commenter's suggestion was to limit the period for searching to the last employer that employed the participant within the previous 12 months. Another suggested the method should be optional to account for situations where a plan is acquired by another employer and the missing participant is a terminated vested participant of the former sponsor. In this case, the former sponsor is unlikely to have kept records on the separated employee.
PBGC considered the potential burden and fruitfulness of records searches that could go back many years or require searching the records of another employer. To that end and to keep the cost of the “records search method” in general reasonable, the final regulation provides that its requirements (
All these requirements are designed to support the basic function of a diligent search—to demonstrate that an appropriate level of effort has gone into finding a person who remains missing. To that end, plan administrators are expected to the extent possible to search using as much information about a distributee as possible, such as name, social security number, date of birth, and last known address. As one commenter explained, searches using multiple data points reduce false positives and oversized search results, producing a more effective search.
A plan (DB or DC) that uses PBGC's missing participants program to provide for the benefits of, or to provide information about the disposition of
Under the proposed regulation, a diligent search must have been completed within six months before the last distribution to a non-missing distributee (if the plan is sending information to PBGC) or within six months before the date the benefit is transferred to PBGC's program. One commenter recommended allowing a period longer than six months to do a diligent search. Experience shows that missing distributees can be found, and it is more efficient—and typically more advantageous for the distributee—to be found before close-out, so that benefits can be distributed in the normal manner. The fact that a distributee could not be found in the past does not mean that the distributee is forever lost. PBGC thus believes that diligent searches should be relatively recent. But after considering the comment, PBGC has concluded that nine months—rather than the six months provided in the proposal—is a reasonable time frame for a diligent search.
As stated above, the proposed regulation measured the diligent search period from a different date depending on whether PBGC received money or just information about a missing distributee. PBGC believes different dates aren't necessary and may be unworkable, for example if a plan has only missing distributees. So, the final regulation uses the same date for all cases. The nine-month period ends when the distributee is identified as missing in a filing with PBGC.
The amount to be transferred to PBGC on behalf of a missing distributee—the “benefit transfer amount”—is relatively simple for DC plans: It is the amount available for distribution to the distributee in connection with the close-out of the plan. PBGC received no comments on its proposed definition of benefit transfer amount for DC plans, and the final regulation follows the proposed in this regard. For a missing distributee who was a participant, the benefit transfer amount would generally be the participant's account balance, but might not be if (for example) a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) required distribution of a portion of the account to another person. The benefit transfer amount for a DC plan missing distributee also might (but might not) reflect the deduction of expenses. PBGC will not inquire into whether an account balance has been reduced for administrative expenses before it was transferred to PBGC. Whether plan termination expenses were properly allocated among all plan participants by the plan's fiduciary before the transfer is beyond the scope of this regulation.
For DB plans, the proposed regulation provided that the amount to be transferred to PBGC is the “benefit transfer amount” of a missing distributee (and a “plan make-up amount” if applicable). The benefit transfer amount would be the present value of future payments of an annuity.
The proposed valuation rules for determining the benefit transfer amount represented a significant departure from the existing valuation rules (for benefits from single-employer plans covered by title IV insurance). The proposal abandoned a four-category approach to valuing benefits in the existing regulation in favor of a leaner three-category approach consistent with that of the statute.
In addition to discarding the four-category approach to benefit valuations, PBGC proposed to abandon the “missing participant lump sum assumptions” and to modify the “missing participant annuity assumptions” (which were closer to termination assumptions in PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044)) into a new, single set of “PBGC missing participant assumptions.” The proposed “PBGC missing participant assumptions” included no adjustment for expenses—neither the adjustment that is part of the 4044 assumptions nor the load that is part of the missing participant annuity assumptions in the existing regulation. Mortality and interest under the proposed new assumptions were to be the same as under the existing old assumptions, except that the interest assumption in effect for valuations in January would be used for the entire calendar year.
Also under the proposal, pre-retirement death benefits were to be disregarded and the benefit to be valued was to be a straight life annuity beginning at the expected retirement age (XRA).
A plan that pays no lump sums (even for de minimis amounts) would have no “plan assumptions” for lump sums. Under the existing regulation, such plans used “missing participant lump sum assumptions” to value all benefits that could lawfully be cashed out. With the elimination of the “missing participant lump sum assumptions” and the associated benefit valuation category, the proposed regulation provided that such plans should use assumptions specified under section 205(g)(3) of ERISA and section 417(e)(3) of the Code (dealing with determination of the present value of certain benefits).
Benefits were to be valued as of the date the benefit transfer amount was paid to PBGC (the “benefit transfer date”). PBGC invited comment on this point. Valuing benefits as of the benefit transfer date would eliminate the need for the rules in the existing regulation about interest on transfers to PBGC
Plans were to account separately for the value of benefits payable in the future (the “benefit transfer amount”) and the value of benefit payments missed (or treated as missed) in the past (the “plan make-up amount”). The value of a missed payment would be the accumulated value of the payment (reflecting interest from the date the payment was due to the date of the plan's payment to PBGC), without reduction for mortality—that is, on the assumption that the annuitant was alive. Interest was to be calculated in the same way as for underpayments of guaranteed benefits by PBGC under PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) using the Federal mid-term rate described in section 1274(d) of the Code with monthly compounding. PBGC was to use the same interest assumption for crediting interest between the date of receipt of a payment from a plan and the date of payment of a lump sum by PBGC. This rate, to be called the “missing participants interest rate,” is the same rate prescribed in the existing missing participants regulation as the “designated benefit interest rate.”
The proposed plan make-up amount was to include not only missed payments to distributees who became missing after they had begun to receive benefit payments, but also payments not made after the required beginning date under section 401(a)(9)(C) of the Code, regardless of which assumptions (PBGC or Plan) were used to determine the transfer amount.
PBGC received three comments dealing with determining the value of benefits as of the benefit transfer date. One appreciated the clarity and consistency of valuing benefits as of the benefit transfer date as proposed. But two commenters expressed concern that the proposal would create undue complications and additional work where the actual transfer took place after the anticipated close-out date, especially with respect to lump sums. Commenters noted that plans determine the lump sum amounts payable to participants as of an assumed payment date, generally the anticipated close-out date. However, in some cases, a plan might not know that a participant is missing at the time the calculations are done. If the plan finds out that someone is missing after the fact, the actual benefit transfer date might be a month or two later than originally anticipated (
Commenters recommended PBGC apply either a 30-day grace period during which no adjustment to the benefit transfer amount is required, or essentially go back to the existing rule under which interest is owed if payment to PBGC is made significantly after the assumed payment date underlying the calculation of the benefit transfer amount.
In response, the final regulation departs significantly from the proposed, with a view to reducing burden and simplifying the procedures DB plans must follow. The benefit transfer date is replaced by a benefit determination date. The benefit transfer amount will be determined as of the benefit determination date and will not change even if it is paid to PBGC on a later date. When paying lump sums, PBGC will pay a participant the value of the participant's benefit plus interest for the full period from the date as of which the benefit was valued by the plan to the date PBGC pays the participant. But for administrative convenience, PBGC will allow DB plans a 90-day grace period from the benefit determination date before it collects interest for amounts not yet transferred. However, if payment is more than 90 days after the benefit determination date, interest at the Federal mid-term rate will be owed for the period after 90 days through the actual transfer date. (For a DC plan, the benefit determination date is the same as the date the plan pays PBGC, because the plan simply pays PBGC the amount in the account on that date.)
The benefit determination date will be selected by the plan subject to the limitation that it be within the period from the first distribution to a non-missing distributee to the last such distribution.
While the proposed regulation recognized that benefits must begin no later than the required beginning date under section 401(a)(9)(C) of the Code, it did not consider that some plans do not actuarially increase benefits for terminated vested participants that commence after normal retirement date and instead provide a lump sum to account for the accumulated value of benefits that weren't paid from normal retirement date to the benefit commencement date. For such plans, the proposal had a few shortcomings. For example, with respect to a missing participant under age 55 with a non-de minimis benefit, the proposal anticipated that a plan would be required to report the monthly straight life annuity payable at each integral age from 55 through the required beginning date. When the participant was located, the annuity PBGC would have provided would have been based on those reported amounts. For a plan that doesn't actuarially increase benefits after normal retirement age, the amounts reported to PBGC would have been the same at each age from normal retirement date through required beginning date, so the monthly benefit PBGC would have provided had the participant been located and commenced payment after normal retirement age would have been the same as if the participant had commenced payment at normal retirement date. Since there was no “pay-out” provision to account for missing payments before the required beginning date in the proposal, that participant would have been shortchanged.
To take plans of this type into account while still having a simplified approach that works for all DB plans, the final regulation modifies the pay-out rules for post-normal retirement age start dates, and the methodology for determining benefit transfer amounts using “PBGC missing participant assumptions,” for non-pay status participants past normal retirement age (with a corresponding change in the filing requirements).
Under the revised approach, a plan is required to report the monthly straight life annuity payable at each integral age from 55 through the normal retirement date (or in some cases accrual cessation date as explained below). When the participant is located, the annuity PBGC provides is based on those reported amounts (with missed payments paid as a lump sum with interest). With this approach, participants whose benefits aren't actuarially increased after normal retirement date aren't short-changed, and neither are participants who accrued benefits after normal retirement date.
As stated above, the normal retirement date, or if later, the date the participant stopped accruing benefits
In the proposal, for purposes of determining the present value of future benefits using PBGC missing participant assumptions, the assumed benefit start date (for determining the annuity to value) for a participant past normal retirement date but not yet past required beginning date, was the benefit transfer date and for a participant past required beginning date, the required beginning date. In the final rule, the assumed benefit start date for a participant past normal retirement date is generally the normal retirement date. However, to account for situations where a non-pay status missing participant accrued benefits after the plan's normal retirement date, the final rule provides that the assumed benefit start date in this situation is the date the participant ceased accruals. (The final rule does this to ensure that the annuity PBGC will provide to such a missing participant when found is no less than what the plan would have provided.)
With respect to participants not yet past normal retirement age, participants in pay status, and beneficiaries, the final rule retains the assumed benefit start date provisions from the proposed regulation for purposes of determining pay-in amounts.
In summary, under the final pay-in rules, the assumed benefit start date for purposes of the PBGC missing participant assumptions is:
• The expected retirement age (XRA) in PBGC's valuation regulation, for a participant not in pay status who has not reached normal retirement date;
• The normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later), for a participant not in pay status who has reached normal retirement date;
• The actual benefit start date, for a participant in pay status; and
• For a beneficiary, the later of the benefit determination date or the earliest date the beneficiary could receive benefits under the plan.
PBGC has created an on-line spreadsheet that will calculate the present value of a missing participant's benefit expected to be paid on or after the benefit determination date with the new PBGC missing participant assumptions. A person would simply enter data, such as eligibility for early and unreduced retirement and benefit amounts, and the spreadsheet would do the calculations—including XRA calculations—necessary to determine the present value of benefits, thus making the new PBGC missing participant assumptions easier to use.
Except for making the change from required beginning date to normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later), the final regulation retains the other PBGC missing participant assumptions in the proposed regulation (
Under the proposed regulation, the amount transferred to PBGC for some distributees—those in pay status or past the required beginning date—included both the benefit transfer amount and a “plan make-up amount,” representing payments that should have been made but were missed. The plan make-up amount accumulated the missed payments with interest at the Federal mid-term rate. In reconsidering its proposal as described above, PBGC found itself questioning whether the proposed manner of valuing missed payments, and the requirement to include it in the amount transferred, was appropriate in situations where benefits are valued using plan lump sum assumptions. For example, if a plan determines lump sum amounts for participants past normal retirement age as the present value of an actuarially increased benefit, there is no need for a plan make up amount (
Thus, the term “plan make-up amount” is eliminated. However, the concept is retained for calculations determined using PBGC missing participant assumptions. For those calculations, the amount of missed payments with interest is added to the present value of future benefits to yield the benefit transfer amount.
The proposed regulation specified certain items to be filed for each missing distributee, such as the benefit transfer amount or information about where the missing distributee's benefit is being held, diligent search documentation and other information, fees, and certifications.
There was some support among the comments for documentation of diligent searches, and PBGC considered this matter in developing the final regulation. With a view primarily to reducing burden, PBGC decided that it would not initially require that a plan submit specific documentation of diligent searches with its filing, since compliance with the regulation (including the performance of diligent searches) must be certified on the form. PBGC might revisit this decision if it appears necessary to encourage compliance with the diligent search requirements.
PBGC decided further to make the regulation less specific about documentation generally. PBGC realized, for example, that information would be required not just for each missing distributee (as the proposed regulation said) but also for the filing plan. Rather than trying to be more inclusive about data to be filed, the final rule simply refers to the missing participant forms and instructions for data required. The final rule does, however, list the three types of payments required: fees, benefit transfer amounts, and interest on the latter (for DB plans, if owed). And it retains the supplemental filing requirement from the proposed regulation for a plan to submit additional information if PBGC requests. But the nature of supplemental information that may be requested is more generally stated.
Not within the scope of this rule are documentation, recordkeeping and other requirements of plans and plan terminations elsewhere under ERISA and the Code. While PBGC as administrator of the title IV insurance program can and will audit ERISA title IV plans (such as single-employer DB plans under a standard termination), such other requirements for non-title IV plans are properly subject to the audit and enforcement mechanisms under title I of ERISA and the Code for ensuring that terminations are properly carried out.
The missing participants forms and instructions for DB plans require the reporting of the monthly amount of each missing participant's accrued benefit (if not de minimis) in straight-life form assuming commencement at each integral age going forward from the later of the benefit determination date or age 55 to the normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later).
Information on missing participants forms filed for DB and DC plans with PBGC must be certified. A commenter suggested that PBGC add a checkbox to the forms requiring filers to assert that benefit transfer amounts are correct, to remind filers of their obligations. PBGC believes the general certification is sufficient and that adding another check box to the form is unlikely to increase compliance.
One commenter recommended that some questions be added to the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan about whether and how DC plans used the missing participants program. PBGC will consider this comment as part of its review of the Form 5500.
The final regulation, like the proposed, provides that the requirements to use the missing participants program, including filing requirements and forms and instructions, apply to all terminated DC plans that choose to use the program, including abandoned plans and QTAs winding up such plans. One commenter asked PBGC to clarify filing requirements for abandoned DC plans with respect to diligent searches. The commenter noted that a QTA may not have or have access to the kinds of records that typically yield participant contact information as part of a diligent search.
The diligent search requirement for DC plans, including abandoned DC plans, is basically the same as the corresponding guidance for fiduciaries issued by the Department of Labor under section 404 of ERISA. PBGC expects that any documentation sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the fiduciary duty to search for missing participants would likewise satisfy any filing requirements PBGC might impose for diligent searches.
Missing or incomplete historical records can present a challenge to any plan, not just abandoned DC plans (although the latter as a group are particularly likely to suffer from this problem). PBGC expects the challenges of making, keeping, finding, and using records to be dealt with carefully, skillfully, prudently, and diligently, and where that is the case, PBGC believes this final rule provides flexibility to accommodate difficulties of the kind contemplated by the commenter.
In the proposed regulation, the filing deadline for title IV single-employer DB plans would have been 90 days after the distribution deadline in PBGC's regulation on Termination of Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4041). (For plans undergoing sufficient distress terminations, the distribution deadline reflects such plans' special circumstances.) For all other plans, including DC plans, the filing deadline would be 90 days after completion of all distributions not subject to the missing participants program.
One commenter expressed concern that the proposed filing deadline for DC plans—90 days after the last distribution to a participant who isn't missing—might not give DC plans enough time to complete diligent search and other termination tasks if the plan potentially has many missing participants. The commenter suggested the timeframe be extended to 180 days. There was also a question from a commenter as to whether payment from DC plans (of the benefit transfer amount and fees, if any) would be required when forms were filed. PBGC responds to this latter comment that it expects that forms and any required payment would be sent simultaneously.
As to the former, PBGC has given new thought to its administrative procedures for processing filings and now believes that the mechanics of filing are better left to the missing participants forms and instructions, where there is a bit more flexibility than if the procedures were hard-wired in the regulatory text. With regard to filing deadlines for DC plans, while PBGC wants plans to act promptly, it does not want to set standards that discourage DC plan participation. PBGC's understanding is that plans not covered by title IV of ERISA must distribute all assets to participants and beneficiaries as soon as administratively feasible after the plan's termination date. As a rule of thumb, plans are expected to complete termination within one year. Accordingly, the filing instructions set the filing deadline for plans not covered by title IV as the later of 90 days after the last distribution not subject to the missing participants regulation or one year after the plan's termination date under IRS Rev. Rul. 89-87.
For single-employer plans covered by title IV, the filing deadline set in the filing instructions is the same as under the existing regulations, the date the post-distribution certification is due,
The vast majority of plans using the expanded missing participants program will be DC plans, over which (beyond their participation in the program) PBGC has no authority. The same is true of small professional service DB plans. This circumstance has led PBGC to re-evaluate its function under the missing participants program with respect to all plans covered by the program; that re-evaluation is reflected in the revision of the administrative review regulation including noting that a participant's recourse is against the plan or plan sponsor, and not PBGC, if a plan incorrectly calculated a benefit transfer amount (see
One principle that carries over from the existing regulation to the final regulation is that PBGC will receive money for the benefits of some missing distributees but only information about the benefits of others. As under the current program, therefore, there will be two ways PBGC may connect claimants with their benefits. PBGC may pay benefits itself (where PBGC has received a benefit transfer amount from the claimant's plan) or may provide information to the claimant from the plan about how benefits not transferred to PBGC can be claimed (for example, where they have been annuitized with an insurer or transferred to an IRA). The final regulation, like the proposed, modifies the language about PBGC's providing information to clarify that PBGC's role in such circumstances (which is subject to the Privacy Act) does not include resolution of questions about entitlement to a benefit held by another entity (such as an insurance company). Those questions, and questions about revealing personal information about such a missing participant to a different claimant, are more properly resolved by the entity (for example, insurer or custodian) holding the benefit.
A concept common to both DB and DC plans in the final regulation, as in the proposed, is that of “qualified survivors,” who would be entitled to benefits with respect to a missing participant in situations involving—for example—deceased missing participants without spouses.
The difference between the proposed and final rules is that for both DB and DC plans, PBGC in the final rule would look to beneficiary designations provided by the plan in its filing with PBGC as part of determining who would be entitled to benefits with respect a deceased missing participant. The proposed rule only included this provision for DC plans. While it may be uncommon that a DB plan would have a valid beneficiary designation on file before a benefit election is made, it is not unheard-of. To recognize these cases, PBGC included in the definition of “qualified survivor” for DB plans reference to beneficiary designations provided by the plan in its filing with PBGC.
The final rule, therefore, provides that PBGC will identify qualified survivors for both DB and DC plan missing distributees by looking first to provisions of any applicable QDRO; then, PBGC will look to the plan's filing with PBGC for identification of persons potentially entitled to benefits with respect to the decedent under plan provisions (including beneficiary designations consistent with plan provisions); finally, if the plan's filing did not identify a person entitled to benefits with respect to a decedent, PBGC will refer to a list of relatives that echoes § 4022.93 of PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans, but includes just four categories:
When PBGC finds a participant, depending on whether the amount is de minimis, the participant has a choice of distribution options and methods. Several commenters queried whether PBGC could distribute lump sum retirement savings to found participants in a direct rollover to a qualified plan or IRA. PBGC does offer participants the option of tax-free rollovers directly into a qualified retirement plan or IRA. PBGC also allows for partial rollovers, rollovers to Roth IRAs, and taxable direct deposit into a savings or checking account (and participants may choose to be paid out by check). In addition, PBGC believes the missing participants program complies with all applicable tax withholding and reporting rules with respect to retirement plan money held in the program and rolled over or otherwise distributed to found participants.
The final regulation, like the proposed, does not provide pay-out rules for situations involving DB participants whose benefits went into pay status under the plan before they became missing. Nor does it provide pay-out rules for situations—under either DB or DC plans—involving missing beneficiaries (such as situations involving missing alternate payees or situations where a plan knows a participant is dead and has a beneficiary, but the beneficiary is missing). PBGC considers such circumstances sufficiently uncommon that the new regulation need not address them. PBGC had invited public comment about whether the regulation should address such circumstances and if so, how. One commenter acknowledged PBGC's conclusion, but suggested that PBGC might find those circumstances more common under the new program. While PBGC did not make a change in the final regulation, it intends to review whether pay-out rules may be necessary in such circumstances as it gains experience with the new missing participants program.
For both DB and DC plans, the final regulation does not deal (as the existing regulation does) with details such as election of annuity starting dates, which are left to policies and procedures reflected in PBGC's missing participants forms and instructions.
The DC plan pay-out rules in the final regulation, like the proposed, are relatively simple. The rules specify that PBGC will pay lump sums to found participants whose benefit transfer amounts are de minimis (defined under section 411(a)(11) of the Code and section 203(e) of ERISA as $5,000 or less). A found distributee whose benefit transfer amount is non-de minimis will be paid an annuity (a 50 percent joint and survivor annuity if married), unless the distributee elects (with spousal consent if married) a lump sum (or another type of annuity) instead. PBGC will make available the same annuity forms that it does for participants in trusteed plans under § 4022.8.
One commenter pointed out that most DC plans don't include annuity options and are designed to satisfy the statutory exception under the Code and ERISA (section 401(a)(11)(B)(iii) of the Code and section 205(b)(1)(C) of ERISA) from the qualified joint and survivor annuity rules. The commenter questioned why PBGC would propose a pay-out rule for participants with non-de minimis benefits contrary to the distribution options these DC plan participants might be expecting. Another commenter stated its support for having annuity options as the default pay-out for non-de minimis accounts.
As stated above, found participants with de minimis benefit transfer amounts will receive their distribution in a lump sum, as will the survivors of a deceased participant with no living spouse. This makes sense where benefits are small or spouses don't exist. PBGC believes found participants (and
Additionally, as in the proposed regulation, lump sum distributions will include interest at the Federal mid-term rate. Conversions to annuities will be made using assumptions under section 205(g)(3) of ERISA and section 417(e)(3) of the Code. For elections before the participant's age 55, PBGC will provide information on all available payment options for the individual's consideration, including annuity benefits, which are only available at 55 or later.
As discussed above (under
The pay-out rules that PBGC proposed for DB plan participants were generally standardized, rather than reflecting each participant's plan provisions. To collect, retain (perhaps for decades), interpret, and apply plan provisions for hundreds of plans, some of which might apply to only one missing distributee, seemed (and still seems) a daunting administrative challenge—a challenge out of proportion to the ideal of paying the benefits of found distributees as their plans would have paid them. Instead, PBGC focused on two pay-out features that loomed largest as having the most value to participants—eligibility for lump sums and early retirement subsidies—and proposed to preserve those, while in other respects treating all distributees according to common rules.
Two commenters recommended that PBGC preserve more of the features of each participant's plan—such as the early retirement date—or even that PBGC follow all pay-out provisions of each distributee's plan. PBGC understands the allure of reproducing the features of every distributee's plan, but believes it has drawn the line at a reasonable place. Accordingly, the pay-out rules are personalized in the final regulation only as much as in the proposed.
Flowing from the principle of preserving certain material rights under plans, PBGC will no longer compute annuity benefits for a participant as the actuarial equivalent of the benefit transfer amount (as under the existing regulation). Rather, PBGC will provide annuity benefits based on what the plan would have provided, including any early retirement subsidies to which participants would have been entitled had they not been missing. This is possible because plans must report the straight life annuity payable to the participant commencing at each integral age from age 55 to normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later).
Another commenter recommended that lump-sum pay-outs by PBGC for non-de minimis benefits be based on the value of distributees' benefits determined using plan assumptions. The benefit transfer amount is the larger of the amount determined using plan assumptions or the amount determined using PBGC missing participant assumptions. Thus, accepting this recommendation would appear to require additional reporting by plans and record-keeping by PBGC and to result in somewhat lower benefits for some distributees. PBGC has concluded on balance that the recommendation would introduce unnecessary administrative complexity without providing a clearly commensurate advantage. Accordingly, PBGC has not adopted this suggestion.
In the proposed rule, PBGC provided pay-out rules for deceased missing participants in DB plans that were the same whether the benefit was de minimis or non-de minimis. PBGC has rethought this approach in light of the fact that its benefit payment policy for trusteed plans treats the two categories of benefits differently. Lump sums are routinely paid to participants with de minimis benefits and become available for distribution to participants' heirs. In contrast, non-de minimis benefits are routinely paid as annuities. PBGC anticipates less opportunity for confusion in processing payments to located participants if its approach to deceased missing participants with de minimis benefits follows more closely its approach to deceased participants with de minimis benefits in trusteed plans. Accordingly, PBGC has revised the proposed DB pay-out rules for deceased participants to make those rules applicable to non-de minimis benefits only, and has added a new provision for payment of a deceased missing participant's de minimis benefit to the participant's qualified survivors as a lump sum.
The main elements of the DB pay-out rules are:
• Mandatory lump sums paid if the amount transferred to PBGC is $5,000 or less.
• Elective lump sums available if available under the plan and the amount transferred to PBGC is over $5,000 (subject to spousal consent if married).
• A variety of annuity payment forms available if the amount transferred to PBGC is over $5,000.
• Annuities available as early as age 55 if the amount transferred to PBGC is over $5,000.
• Amount of a straight life annuity starting at an integral age equal to the amount the plan would have paid at that age (as reported by the plan) (with linear interpolation between integral ages
• Annuity payments starting after normal retirement date calculated as if the annuity began at normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later), with missed payments paid as a lump sum with interest.
• Pre-retirement death benefits available if a married missing participant dies before the normal retirement date; but not if the participant is unmarried.
• Post-retirement death benefits available if a missing participant dies after normal retirement date whether married or not.
If the annuity PBGC would pay a participant is not a straight life annuity, the payments would be set to make the benefit actuarially equivalent to the straight life annuity that would have been payable starting at the same time. PBGC will use the actuarial assumptions under its regulation dealing with optional forms of benefit in trusteed plans (29 CFR 4022.8(c)(7)) to make the conversion. If, on the other hand, PBGC pays a lump sum, it would be equal to the amount transferred to PBGC plus interest at the Federal mid-term rate.
Lump sums—where available—are payable at any age (while annuities are not paid before a participant's age 55). Spousal consent is required if a participant wants to receive a non-de minimis benefit in any form other than a joint and 50-percent survivor annuity. In situations requiring spousal consent to payment of a lump sum before age 55,
If an annuity begins later than the participant's normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later), missed payments with interest (make-up amount) will be paid in a lump sum. If the participant dies before normal retirement age, the survivor annuity will be deemed to begin on the later of the participant's 55th birthday or date of death. If the participant dies on or after the normal retirement date, the survivor annuity will be deemed to begin at the normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later). For missing participants under contributory plans, PBGC will pay benefits (including pre-retirement death benefits) at least equal to the accumulated mandatory employee contributions.
It is impossible to anticipate and appropriately provide for every state of events in an undertaking like the missing participants program. To preserve as much flexibility as possible while treating like cases in like manner, the final regulation, like the proposed, incorporates in each subpart a section authorizing PBCG to grant waivers, extend deadlines, and in general adapt to unforeseen circumstances, with the proviso that similar treatment be given to similar situations. This provision takes the place of § 4050.12(g). No comments were received on the proposed provision and it is adopted without change in the final regulation.
Most of the special provisions in §§ 4050.11 and 4050.12 of the existing regulation are repealed as unnecessary or inappropriate:
• References to the maximum benefit under Code section 415 (if any) (§ 4050.5(a) of the existing regulation) and the minimum benefit under a contributory plan (§ 4050.12(c)(1)). Those limitations apply to the provisions and administration of plans generally and are not specific to the missing participants program.
• The exclusive benefit provision in § 4050.11(a) and the limitation on benefits to the amount transferred to PBGC by a plan for a missing participant (§ 4050.11(a) and (b)). The first of these seems unnecessary and the second would no longer be true.
• Relationship of benefits paid to the guaranteed benefit (§ 4050.11(c)), benefits payable in a sufficient distress termination (§ 4050.12(e)), and benefits payable on audit or other events (§ 4050.12(f)).
• Limitations on the annuity starting date (§ 4050.11(d)). PBGC plans to deal with such matters in its policies for administering the expanded missing participants program.
• Disposition of voluntary contributions (§ 4050.12(c)(2)) and residual assets (§ 4050.12(d)). PBGC specifically solicited comment on repeal of the treatment of residual assets (assets not needed to satisfy plan benefits), but received none.
• Provisions regarding missing participants located quickly by PBGC (§ 4050.12(a)). This provision has not been used, and PBGC believes that enforcement measures where a plan misrepresents its compliance with diligent search requirements will be more effective than this provision.
• QDROs (§ 4050.12(b)). PBGC provides in the pay-out rules that allowance be made for QDROs.
• Payments beginning after the required beginning date (§ 4050.12(h)). This subject is dealt with in the benefit pay-out provisions.
PBGC is making conforming amendments to its regulations on Filing, Issuance, Computation of Time, and Record Retention (29 CFR part 4000), Terminology (29 CFR part 4001), Termination of Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4041), and Termination of Multiemployer Plans (29 CFR part 4041A).
PBGC's regulation on Rules for Administrative Review of Agency Decisions (29 CFR part 4003) sets forth the determinations, listed in § 4003.1(b), for which aggrieved persons are required to seek administrative review, (
PBGC proposed changes to the administrative review regulation and received no comment on the proposed changes. The changes, which are adopted in the final regulation, are as follows. PBGC is changing § 4003.1(b)(11) by revising the content of paragraph (b)(11)(i) and eliminating paragraph (b)(11)(ii). Therefore section 4003.1(b)(11) will no longer have two subparagraphs. Section 4003.1(b)(11) does not refer to benefits based on an amount paid to PBGC, because in some cases benefits paid by PBGC under the new program will be monthly annuities based on information, such as calculations, reported by the plan, not on amounts paid to PBGC. Thus, an appeal right based on a determination pursuant to revised § 4003.1(b)(11) relates simply to a determination of the benefit payable under section 4050 of ERISA and the missing participants regulation.
An appeal based on a determination made under existing regulation § 4003.1(b)(11)(ii)—that the right amount was paid to PBGC—is no longer permitted. PBGC does not make determinations about the amounts to be transferred to PBGC by plans under the missing participants program; rather, it is plans themselves that determine how much to transfer. Thus, there is no PBGC action for a person to be aggrieved by or for PBGC to revoke or change. Recourse must be against the plan or, if the plan no longer exists, the plan sponsor. If a claimant's benefit is guaranteed by PBGC, and the claimant is unable to collect from the plan or sponsor, the claimant may have a right to payment of the guaranteed benefit by PBGC, and a dispute about PBGC's determination of the amount of that benefit is subject to the requirement to pursue administrative review under § 4003.1(b)(8).
This rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 because it results in no more than de minimis net costs. The rule has been determined to be “significant” under Executive Order 12866. The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this final rule under E.O. 12866.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, and public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes retrospective review of regulations, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. E.O. 13771 directs agencies
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require that a comprehensive regulatory impact analysis be performed for any economically significant regulatory action, defined as an action that would result in an annual effect of $100 million or more on the national economy or which would have other substantial impacts. It has been determined that this final rule is not economically significant. Thus a comprehensive regulatory impact analysis is not required. PBGC has nonetheless examined the economic and policy implications of this rule and has concluded that the net effect of the action is to reduce costs in relation to benefits.
This final rule repeals part 4050 of PBGC's regulations and substitutes an expanded but simpler and more cost-effective part.
This final rule is the cornerstone of a freshly designed program that expects to improve the process of reconnecting American workers with lost retirement benefits, at a relatively tiny cost. Here's how the program will work.
• PBGC will accept the retirement benefits and record information of missing participants from terminating retirement plans.
• PBGC will maintain a pension search directory where missing participants can find their lost retirement benefits.
• PBGC will actively search for missing participants.
• The benefits held by PBGC will earn interest and be protected against investment losses.
• When missing participants are found, PBGC will pay their benefits in annuity or lump sum form.
This program will save retirement plans time and money in dealing with the benefits of missing participants. More participants will receive their retirement benefits because the centralized pension search directory will make finding lost benefits much easier and PBGC will search for missing participants.
PBGC has been successfully operating a small-scale version of this program for years, limited to single-employer DB plans covered by title IV of ERISA. Allowing the far greater number of DC plans into the program will permit economies of scale. PBGC estimates that the transfer impacts of this final rule will be close to $19 million, as shown in the table below.
The “before” column of the table shows benefits and costs if the final rule did not become effective. The “after” column shows benefits and costs if the final rule becomes effective. The “net” column shows the effect of the final rule (the “after” column minus the “before” column). (The costs for DC plans are not imposed by the final rule, but arise from plans' voluntary election to participate in the program.)
The missing participants program provides the promise of a “one-stop shop” for workers to find lost benefits from terminated retirement plans, augmented by active searches by PBGC to find those to whom benefits are owed. By expanding the number of those who benefit from the current program, both absolutely and in relation to associated costs, this final rule cuts costs in relation to benefits.
For fiscal years 2013-2015, PBGC restored about $2.27 million in lost benefits annually to those entitled to them, while taking in about 955 missing participants per year from about 200 DB plans. Extrapolating from data gleaned from the existing single-employer DB program and Form 5500 filings, PBGC is projecting that its intake under this final rule will expand by 10,000 missing participants per year from 3,100 DC plans. In the proposed rule, PBGC calculated the anticipated benefit recovery based on the increase in the number of plans (about a 16-fold increase). PBGC believes a better and more conservative approach is to calculate its anticipated payment of benefits based on the projected increase in the number of missing participants (about an 11-fold increase). Accordingly, PBGC is projecting that it will unite missing participants with an estimated $26 million worth of lost retirement benefits each year under this final rule ($2.27 million × 10,955/955).
As noted above, PBGC's current benefit pay-out is about $2.27 million. But this is for DB plans only. Although DC plans have not been able to participate in the centralized missing participants program, PBGC assumes that some lost DC benefits are recovered. PBGC also assumes that the difference between the ease of finding benefits in a single centralized governmental data base versus many fragmented private-sector ones means that the benefit recovery ratio is far more favorable for the former. Accordingly, PBGC assumes that, among the DC plans that will choose to participate in the expanded missing participants program, the amount of benefits that would be recovered without the program is about 20 percent of the amount recoverable with the program, or about $4.75 million. Thus the total benefits that PBGC assumes would be reunited with those entitled to them in the absence of this final rule is about $7 million. The effect of the final rule will be to increase benefits by $19 million.
As discussed in the proposal, the burden of using PBGC's existing forms (or comparable forms) for the expanded program would be about $861,000 (for 3,300 plans per year), assuming two hours per plan. In the absence of this final rule, the portion of this cost attributable to 200 DB plans (about $52,180) would still be incurred. In addition, the 3,100 DC plans that PBGC expects to participate in the expanded
PBGC has redesigned its missing participants forms for use in the new program. The new forms contain only about 75 percent as many blanks to fill in as the current forms. Accordingly, PBGC is revising the assumed cost of filing under the final rule to 75 percent of the $861,000 previously assumed, or $645,750. For DB plans, this represents a decrease in costs. For DC plans, the costs will only be incurred by plans that decide to use the missing participants program. If, as PBGC assumes, 3,100 DC plans make that decision, the impact of the final rule is to increase costs by $189,160.
Since DC plans simply send missing participants' account balances to PBGC, they incur no cost for benefit valuation. And although the final rule changes the valuation rules for DB plans, the changes tend to offset each other. As indicated in the proposed rule, therefore, PBGC believes that the final rule makes no significant change in costs or benefits associated with valuing benefits.
Since the final rule imposes no search requirement on DC plans beyond what is already required under title I of ERISA, DC search costs are the same with or without the final rule and thus can be ignored in considering the changes in benefits and costs attributable to adoption of the final rule.
In the proposed rule, PBGC discussed DB search costs on a plan-by-plan basis, consistent with the proposal that the same search rules (records searches plus a commercial locator service search) apply to all missing participants. The final rule generally requires a commercial locator service search, but permits plans to use a simple records search method for participants with normal retirement benefits of not more than $50 a month. Accordingly, the analysis must now be participant-by-participant.
PBGC believes its estimate that a search using a commercial locator service as defined in the final rule costs about $40 per participant is conservative. PBGC further believes that under the existing program (without a definition of “commercial locator service”), many plans are incurring such costs, although many are not, and thus that it is reasonable to estimate that on average, search costs under the existing regulation are $20 per participant. On that basis, search costs under the existing program may be estimated at $19,100 ($20 each for 955 missing participants).
PBGC does not currently collect data on missing participants' normal retirement benefits because it simply pays annuities that are actuarially equivalent to the amounts plans deposit with PBGC. But the actuarial value of a $50 normal retirement benefit can be calculated for any age, and PBGC has statistics on the distribution of ages and benefit sizes among missing participants. Using this information, PBGC estimates that 80 percent of missing participants have normal retirement benefits of not more than $50. Out of 955 missing participants, therefore, PBGC expects 764 to be searched for by the commercial locator service method at a cost of $40 each (total $30,560).
Plans could choose to use commercial locator services for the 191 other missing participants, but since this group includes some very small benefits, PBGC assumes that simple records searches will be done for them. For smaller benefits, the “affordability” limitation in the final rule will keep costs low. For larger benefits, the cost of records searches will vary with the availability and format of records, but PBGC expects many record systems to be electronic, permitting nearly instantaneous searching. For purposes of this analysis, PBGC is putting a figure of $10 on the records search process. That makes the search cost for this group $1,910, and the total cost of searching under the final rule $32,470.
While actions establishing or changing fees for governmental services are not considered costs requiring offsets, as explained in OMB guidance on the requirements of E.O. 13771,
As noted above, PBGC's working hypothesis is that opening the missing participants program to DC plans will add 10,000 missing participants per year to the current figure of 955. The fee is only paid on benefits transferred that are greater than $250. Statistics on the current DB-only program indicate that about 86 percent of missing participants have benefits worth over $250. Extrapolating to the new combined program, PBGC expects $35 fees to be paid for about 9,420 missing participants, a total of about $330,000.
Under the current DB-only program, fees are paid in the form of a “load” of $300 built into the actuarial assumptions for valuing benefits over $5,000. About 210 (22 percent) of the 955 missing participants currently entering the program annually have benefits at least that high; thus annual fees are currently running at about $63,000. But fees are a factor in the placement of retirement benefits outside PBGC's program as well. One commenter described the exhaustion of a $100 account within months due to a combination of set-up and maintenance fees. Fees for account statements and for processing withdrawals are also common. Because it may be years before a missing participant finds and claims a benefit, maintenance or management fees can cumulate to very substantial levels. For the 10,000 missing participants that PBGC assumes DC plans would choose to bring into the PBGC missing participants program, the burden of fees in the absence of the program—in the absence of the final rule—can conservatively be considered equivalent to a single up-front charge of $100. For an assumed 10,000 missing participants, that amounts to $1 million a year. Thus, in the absence of this final rule, fees would be running about $1.06 million a year.
Accordingly, the effect of the final rule will be to reduce fees by about $730,000.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act imposes certain requirements with respect to rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act and that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unless an agency determines that a final rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires
For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements with respect to this final rule, PBGC considers a small entity to be a plan with fewer than 100 participants. This is consistent with certain requirements in title I of ERISA
Further, while some large employers may have small plans, in general most small plans are maintained by small employers. Thus, PBGC believes that assessing the impact of the final rule on small plans is an appropriate substitute for evaluating the effect on small entities. The definition of small entity considered appropriate for this purpose differs, however, from a definition of small business based on size standards promulgated by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) pursuant to the Small Business Act. PBGC therefore requested comments on the appropriateness of the size standard used in evaluating the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. PBGC received no comments on this point.
PBGC certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
PBGC is submitting the information collection requirements under part 4050 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The collection of information under part 4050 is currently approved under OMB control number 1212-0036 (expires November 30, 2017). That control number also covers PBGC's information collection on plan termination. PBGC is seeking paperwork approval of the new missing participants forms and instructions under a new control number. 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.
PBGC needs the information submitted by plans under part 4050 to identify the entities that are to provide benefits with respect to missing distributees whose benefits are not transferred to PBGC; and to attempt to find missing distributees whose benefits are transferred to PBGC and to pay their benefits.
PBGC estimates that the time for a plan to comply with the collection of information for the current program is 2 hours. But PBGC has significantly simplified its forms, reducing the number of items by a quarter. PBGC thus estimates that the burden of compliance will be 75 percent of the burden estimated in the proposed rule. As discussed in this final rulemaking, there would be about 3,300 respondents each year, and the total hours spent on the information collection would be 4,950. PBGC estimates that 20 percent of the work will be done in-house and 80 percent contracted out. Thus the hour burden for plans is estimated at about 990 hours (20 percent of 4,950 hours). The dollar burden of the 3,960 hours contracted out (80 percent of 4,950 hours) is estimated at about $621,750. The dollar equivalent of the 990 in-house hours is about $24,000. Total paperwork burden is estimated at $646,000.
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions.
Administrative practice and procedure, Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions.
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions.
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions.
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, PBGC amends 29 CFR parts 4000, 4001, 4003, 4041, 4041A, and 4050 as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1083(k), 1302(b)(3).
29 U.S.C. 1301, 1302(b)(3).
(b)
29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3).
(b) * * *
(11) Determinations with respect to benefits payable by PBGC under section 4050 of ERISA and part 4050 of this chapter.
29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1350.
The addition reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(3)
29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1341a, 1441.
(b)
29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1350.
(a)
(1) Is described in section 4021(a) of ERISA and not in any paragraph of section 4021(b) of ERISA and
(2) Terminates in a standard termination or in a distress termination described in section 4041(c)(3)(B)(i) or (ii) of ERISA (“sufficient distress termination”).
(b)
(c)
The following terms are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter: Annuity, Code, ERISA, insurer, irrevocable commitment, PBGC, person, and plan administrator. In addition, for purposes of this subpart:
(1) The plan administrator does not know with reasonable certainty the location of the distributee.
(2) Under the terms of the plan, the distributee's benefit is to be paid in a lump sum without the distributee's consent, and the distributee has not responded to a notice about the distribution of the lump sum.
(3) Under the terms of the plan and any election made by the distributee, the distributee's benefit is to be paid in a lump sum, but the distributee does not accept the lump sum. For this purpose, a lump sum paid by check is not accepted if the check remains uncashed after—
(i) A “cash-by” date prescribed (on the check or in an accompanying notice) that is at least 45 days after the issuance of the check, or
(ii) If no such “cash-by” date is so prescribed, the check's stale date.
(1) With respect to a benefit, that payment of the benefit has actually started before the benefit determination date; or
(2) With respect to a distributee, that payment of the distributee's benefit has actually started before the benefit determination date.
(1) The present value is determined as of the benefit determination date instead of the plan termination date.
(2) The mortality assumption is a fixed blend of 50 percent of the healthy male mortality rates in § 4044.53(c)(1) of this chapter and 50 percent of the healthy female mortality rates in § 4044.53(c)(2) of this chapter.
(3) No adjustment is made for loading expenses under § 4044.52(d) of this chapter.
(4) The interest assumption used is the assumption applicable to valuations occurring in January of the calendar year in which the benefit determination date occurs.
(5) The assumed payment form of a benefit not in pay status is a straight life annuity.
(6) Pre-retirement death benefits are disregarded.
(7) Notwithstanding the expected retirement age (XRA) assumptions in §§ 4044.55 through 4044.57 of this chapter,—
(i) In the case of a participant who is not in pay status and whose normal retirement date is on or after the benefit determination date, benefits are assumed to commence at the XRA, determined using the high retirement rate category under Table II-C of Appendix D to part 4044 of this chapter;
(ii) In the case of a participant who is not in pay status and whose normal retirement date is before the benefit determination date, benefits are assumed to commence on the participant's normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later);
(iii) In the case of a participant who is in pay status, benefits are assumed to commence on the date on which benefits actually commenced; and
(iv) In the case of a beneficiary, benefits are assumed to commence on the benefit determination date or, if later, the earliest date the beneficiary can begin to receive benefits.
(1) If the plan specifies actuarial assumptions and methods to be used to calculate a lump sum distribution, such actuarial assumptions and methods, or
(2) Otherwise, the actuarial assumptions specified under section 205(g)(3) of ERISA and section 417(e)(3) of the Code, determined as of the benefit determination date, including use of the missing participants interest rate to calculate the present value as of the benefit determination date of a payment or payments missed in the past.
(1) A person who survives the participant or beneficiary and is entitled under applicable provisions of a QDRO to receive the benefit;
(2) A person that is identified by the plan in a submission to PBGC by the plan as being entitled under applicable plan provisions (including elections, designations, and waivers consistent with such provisions) to receive the benefit; or
(3) If no such person is so entitled, a survivor of the participant or beneficiary who is the participant's or beneficiary's living—
(i) Spouse, or if none,
(ii) Child, or if none,
(iii) Parent, or if none,
(iv) Sibling.
(a)
(1) By purchasing an irrevocable commitment from an insurer, or
(2) By—
(i) Determining the distributee's benefit transfer amount under paragraph (d) of this section, and
(ii) Transferring to PBGC as described in this subpart A an amount equal to the distributee's benefit transfer amount.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(i) For a missing distributee not in pay status whose normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later) precedes the benefit determination date, the aggregate value of payments of the straight life annuity that would have been payable beginning on the normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later), accumulated at the missing participants interest rate from the date each payment would have been made to the benefit determination date, assuming that the distributee survived to the benefit determination date, as determined by the plan administrator; or
(ii) For a missing distributee in pay status, the aggregate value of payments of the pay status annuity due but not made, accumulated at the missing participants interest rate from each payment due date to the benefit determination date, assuming that the distributee survived to the benefit determination date.
(3)
(a)
(1) For any distributee, regardless of the size of the distributee's benefit, the commercial locator service method described in paragraph (b) of this section; or
(2) For a distributee whose normal retirement benefit is not more than $50 per month, the records search method described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b)
(2)
(c)
(i) Searching the records of the plan for information to locate the distributee.
(ii) Searching the records of the plan's contributing sponsor that is the most recent employer of the distributee for information to locate the distributee.
(iii) Searching the records of each retirement or welfare plan of the plan's contributing sponsor in which the distributee was a participant for information to locate the distributee.
(iv) Contacting each beneficiary of the distributee identified from the records referred to in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section for information to locate the distributee.
(v) Using an internet search method for which no fee is charged, such as a search engine, a network database, a public record database (such as those for licenses, mortgages, and real estate taxes) or a “social media” website.
(2)
(i) Searching is not feasible to the extent that, as a practical matter, it is thwarted by legal or practical lack of access to records, and
(ii) Searching is not affordable to the extent that the cost of searching (including the value of labor) is more than a reasonable fraction of the benefit of the distributee being searched for. In no event would searching need to be pursued beyond the point where the cost equals the value of the benefit.
(d)
(a)
(1) The benefit transfer amount for the missing distributee;
(2) If the benefit transfer amount is paid more than 90 days after the benefit determination date, interest on the benefit transfer amount computed at the missing participants interest rate for the period beginning on the 90th day after the benefit determination date and ending on the date the benefit transfer amount is paid to PBGC; and
(3) Any fee provided for in the missing participants forms and instructions.
(b)
(c)
(2) For rules about permissible methods of filing with PBGC under this subpart, see subpart A of part 4000 of this chapter.
(3) For rules about the date that a submission under this subpart was filed with PBGC, see subpart C of part 4000 of this chapter.
(4) For rules about any time period for filing under this subpart, see subpart D of part 4000 of this chapter.
(d)
(e)
(a)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(3)
(e)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(3)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(1)
(i) The date when the participant would have reached age 55, if the participant died before that date, or
(ii) The participant's date of death, if the participant died between age 55 and the normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later), or
(iii) The normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later), if the participant died after that date.
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(j)
(1)
(2)
(k)
(
(1) The date the participant receives or begins to receive a benefit, or
(2) The date the participant dies.
PBGC may in appropriate circumstances extend deadlines, excuse noncompliance, and grant waivers with regard to any provision of this subpart to promote the purposes of the missing participants program and title IV of ERISA. Like circumstances will be treated in like manner under this section.
(a)
(1) That—
(i) Is a defined contribution (individual account) plan described in section 3(34) of ERISA; or
(ii) Is treated as a defined contribution (individual account) plan under section (3)(35) of ERISA (to the extent so treated);
(2) That is described in section 4021(a) of ERISA and not in any paragraph of section 4021(b) of ERISA other than paragraph (1), (5), (12), or (13), including a plan described in section 403(b) of the Code under which benefits are provided through custodial accounts described in section 403(b)(7) of the Code;
(3) That, if it is a transferring plan, pays all benefit transfer amounts to PBGC in money, consistent with plan provisions and applicable law; and
(4) That terminates and closes out.
(b)
(c)
The following terms are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter: Annuity, Code, ERISA, PBGC, and person. In addition, for purposes of this subpart:
(1) The plan does not know with reasonable certainty the location of the distributee.
(2) The distributee has not elected a form of distribution in response to a notice about the distribution.
(3) Under the terms of the plan and any election made by the distributee, the distributee's benefit is to be paid in a lump sum, but the distributee does not accept the lump sum. For this purpose, a lump sum paid by check is not accepted if the check remains uncashed after—
(i) A “cash-by” date prescribed (on the check or in an accompanying notice) that is at least 45 days after the issuance of the check, or
(ii) If no such “cash-by” date is so prescribed, the check's stale date.
(1) A person who survives the participant or beneficiary and is entitled under applicable provisions of a QDRO to receive the benefit;
(2) A person that is identified by the plan in a submission to PBGC by the plan as being entitled under applicable plan provisions (including elections, designations, and waivers consistent with such provisions) to receive the benefit; or
(3) If no such person is so entitled, a survivor of the participant or beneficiary who is the participant's or beneficiary's living—
(i) Spouse, or if none,
(ii) Child, or if none,
(iii) Parent, or if none,
(iv) Sibling.
(a)
(1) Will be a “transferring plan,” that is, will pay a benefit transfer amount to PBGC for each distributee who is missing upon close-out of the plan and will be bound by the provisions of this subpart B to the extent that they apply to transferring plans, or
(2) Will be a “notifying plan,” that is, will notify PBGC of the disposition of the benefits of each distributee identified in the filing who is missing upon close-out of the plan and will, with respect to those distributees, be bound by the provisions of this subpart B to the extent that they apply to notifying plans.
(b)
(2)
(c)
(2)
(a)
(2)
(b)
(a)
(1) The benefit transfer amount for the missing distributee; and
(2) Any fee provided for in the missing participants forms and instructions.
(b)
(c)
(2) For rules about permissible methods of filing with PBGC under this subpart, see subpart A of part 4000 of this chapter.
(3) For rules about the date that a submission under this subpart was filed with PBGC, see subpart C of part 4000 of this chapter.
(4) For rules about any time period for filing under this subpart, see subpart D of part 4000 of this chapter.
(d)
(e)
(a)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(e)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(1)
(2)
(j)
(1) The date the participant receives or begins to receive a benefit, or
(2) The date the participant dies.
PBGC may in appropriate circumstances extend deadlines, excuse noncompliance, and grant waivers with regard to any provision of this subpart to promote the purposes of the missing participants program and title IV of ERISA. Like circumstances will be
(a)
(1) Is described in section 4021(a) of ERISA and not in any paragraph of section 4021(b) of ERISA other than paragraph (13), and
(2) Terminates and closes out with sufficient assets to satisfy all liabilities with respect to employees and their beneficiaries.
(b)
The following terms are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter: Annuity, Code, ERISA, PBGC, person, and plan administrator. In addition, for purposes of this subpart:
(1) The plan administrator does not know with reasonable certainty the location of the distributee.
(2) Under the terms of the plan, the distributee's benefit is to be paid in a lump sum without the distributee's consent, and the distributee has not responded to a notice about the distribution of the lump sum.
(3) Under the terms of the plan and any election made by the distributee, the distributee's benefit is to be paid in a lump sum, but the distributee does not accept the lump sum. For this purpose, a lump sum paid by check is not accepted if the check remains uncashed after—
(i) A “cash-by” date prescribed (on the check or in an accompanying notice) that is at least 45 days after the issuance of the check, or
(ii) If no such “cash-by” date is so prescribed, the check's stale date.
(1) With respect to a benefit, that payment of the benefit has actually started before the benefit determination date; or
(2) With respect to a distributee, that payment of the distributee's benefit has actually started before the benefit determination date.
(1) The present value is determined as of the benefit determination date instead of the plan termination date.
(2) The mortality assumption is a fixed blend of 50 percent of the healthy male mortality rates in § 4044.53(c)(1) of this chapter and 50 percent of the healthy female mortality rates in § 4044.53(c)(2) of this chapter.
(3) No adjustment is made for loading expenses under § 4044.52(d) of this chapter.
(4) The interest assumption used is the assumption applicable to valuations occurring in January of the calendar year in which the benefit determination date occurs.
(5) The assumed payment form of a benefit not in pay status is a straight life annuity.
(6) Pre-retirement death benefits are disregarded.
(7) Notwithstanding the expected retirement age (XRA) assumptions in §§ 4044.55 through 4044.57 of this chapter,—
(i) In the case of a participant who is not in pay status and whose normal retirement date is on or after the benefit determination date, benefits are assumed to commence at the XRA, determined using the high retirement rate category under Table II-C of Appendix D to part 4044 of this chapter;
(ii) In the case of a participant who is not in pay status and whose normal retirement date is before the benefit determination date, benefits are
(iii) In the case of a participant who is in pay status, benefits are assumed to commence on the date on which benefits actually commenced; and
(iv) In the case of a beneficiary, benefits are assumed to commence on the benefit determination date or, if later, the earliest date the beneficiary can begin to receive benefits.
(1) If the plan specifies actuarial assumptions and methods to be used to calculate a lump sum distribution, such actuarial assumptions and methods, or
(2) Otherwise, the actuarial assumptions specified under section 205(g)(3) of ERISA and section 417(e)(3) of the Code, determined as of the benefit determination date, including use of the missing participants interest rate to calculate the present value as of the benefit determination date of a payment or payments missed in the past.
(1) A person who survives the participant or beneficiary and is entitled under applicable provisions of a QDRO to receive the benefit;
(2) A person that is identified by the plan in a submission to PBGC by the plan as being entitled under applicable plan provisions (including elections, designations, and waivers consistent with such provisions) to receive the benefit; or
(3) If no such person is so entitled, a survivor of the participant or beneficiary who is the participant's or beneficiary's living—
(i) Spouse, or if none,
(ii) Child, or if none,
(iii) Parent, or if none,
(iv) Sibling.
(a)
(1) Will be a “transferring plan,” that is, will pay a benefit transfer amount to PBGC for each distributee who is missing upon close-out of the subpart C plan and will be bound by the provisions of this subpart C to the extent that they apply to transferring plans, or
(2) Will be a “notifying plan,” that is, will notify PBGC of the disposition of the benefits of each distributee identified in the filing who is missing upon close-out of the plan and will, with respect to those distributees, be bound by the provisions of this subpart C to the extent that they apply to notifying plans.
(b)
(2)
(c)
(2)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(i) For a missing distributee not in pay status whose normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later) precedes the benefit determination date, the aggregate value of payments of the straight life annuity that would have been payable beginning on the normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later), accumulated at the missing participants interest rate from the date each payment would have been made to the benefit determination date, assuming that the distributee survived to the benefit determination date, as determined by the plan administrator; or
(ii) For a missing distributee in pay status, the aggregate value of payments of the pay status annuity due but not made, accumulated at the missing participants interest rate from each payment due date to the benefit determination date, assuming that the distributee survived to the benefit determination date.
(3)
(a)
(1) For any distributee, regardless of the size of the distributee's benefit, the commercial locator service method described in paragraph (b) of this section; or
(2) For a distributee whose normal retirement benefit is not more than $50 per month, the records search method described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b)
(2)
(c)
(i) Searching the records of the plan for information to locate the distributee.
(ii) Searching the records of the plan's contributing sponsor that is the most recent employer of the distributee for information to locate the distributee.
(iii) Searching the records of each retirement or welfare plan of the plan's contributing sponsor in which the distributee was a participant for information to locate the distributee.
(iv) Contacting each beneficiary of the distributee identified from the records referred to in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section for information to locate the distributee.
(v) Using an internet search method for which no fee is charged, such as a search engine, a network database, a public record database (such as those for licenses, mortgages, and real estate taxes) or a “social media” website.
(2)
(i) Searching is not feasible to the extent that, as a practical matter, it is thwarted by legal or practical lack of access to records, and
(ii) Searching is not affordable to the extent that the cost of searching (including the value of labor) is more than a reasonable fraction of the benefit of the distributee being searched for. In no event would searching need to be pursued beyond the point where the cost equals the value of the benefit.
(d)
(a)
(1) The benefit transfer amount for the missing distributee;
(2) If the benefit transfer amount is paid more than 90 days after the benefit determination date, interest on the benefit transfer amount computed at the missing participants interest rate for the period beginning on the 90th day after the benefit determination date and ending on the date the benefit transfer amount is paid to PBGC; and
(3) Any fee provided for in the missing participants forms and instructions.
(b)
(c)
(1) For rules about where to file, see § 4000.4 of this chapter.
(2) For rules about permissible methods of filing with PBGC under this subpart, see subpart A of part 4000 of this chapter.
(3) For rules about the date that a submission under this subpart was filed with PBGC, see subpart C of part 4000 of this chapter.
(4) For rules about any time period for filing under this subpart, see subpart D of part 4000 of this chapter.
(d)
(e)
(a)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(3)
(e)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(3)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(1)
(i) The date when the participant would have reached age 55, if the participant died before that date, or
(ii) The participant's date of death, if the participant died between age 55 and the normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later), or
(iii) The normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later), if the participant died after that date.
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(j)
(1)
(2)
(k)
(
(1) The date the participant receives or begins to receive a benefit, or
(2) The date the participant dies.
PBGC may in appropriate circumstances extend deadlines, excuse noncompliance, and grant waivers with regard to any provision of this subpart to promote the purposes of the missing participants program and title IV of ERISA. Like circumstances will be treated in like manner under this section.
(a)
(1) Is described in section 4021(a) of ERISA and not in any paragraph of section 4021(b) of ERISA, and
(2) Completes the process of closing out under subpart D of PBGC's regulation on Termination of Multiemployer Plans (29 CFR part 4041A).
(b)
(c)
The following terms are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter: Annuity, Code, ERISA, insurer, PBGC, person, and plan sponsor. In addition, for purposes of this subpart:
(1) The plan sponsor does not know with reasonable certainty the location of the distributee.
(2) Under the terms of the plan, the distributee's benefit is to be paid in a lump sum without the distributee's consent, and the distributee has not responded to a notice about the distribution of the lump sum.
(3) Under the terms of the plan and any election made by the distributee, the distributee's benefit is to be paid in a lump sum, but the distributee does not accept the lump sum. For this purpose, a lump sum paid by check is not accepted if the check remains uncashed after—
(i) A “cash-by” date prescribed (on the check or in an accompanying notice) that is at least 45 days after the issuance of the check, or
(ii) If no such “cash-by” date is so prescribed, the check's stale date.
(1) With respect to a benefit, that payment of the benefit has actually started before the benefit determination date; or
(2) With respect to a distributee, that payment of the distributee's benefit has actually started before the benefit determination date.
(1) The present value is determined as of the benefit determination date instead of the plan termination date.
(2) The mortality assumption is a fixed blend of 50 percent of the healthy male mortality rates in § 4044.53(c)(1) of this chapter and 50 percent of the healthy female mortality rates in § 4044.53(c)(2) of this chapter.
(3) No adjustment is made for loading expenses under § 4044.52(d) of this chapter.
(4) The interest assumption used is the assumption applicable to valuations occurring in January of the calendar year in which the benefit determination date occurs.
(5) The assumed payment form of a benefit not in pay status is a straight life annuity.
(6) Pre-retirement death benefits are disregarded.
(7) Notwithstanding the expected retirement age (XRA) assumptions in §§ 4044.55 through 4044.57 of this chapter,—
(i) In the case of a participant who is not in pay status and whose normal retirement date is on or after the benefit determination date, benefits are assumed to commence at the XRA, determined using the high retirement rate category under Table II-C of Appendix D to part 4044 of this chapter;
(ii) In the case of a participant who is not in pay status and whose normal retirement date is before the benefit determination date, benefits are assumed to commence on the participant's normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later);
(iii) In the case of a participant who is in pay status, benefits are assumed to commence on the date on which benefits actually commenced; and
(iv) In the case of a beneficiary, benefits are assumed to commence on the benefit determination date or, if later, the earliest date the beneficiary can begin to receive benefits.
(1) If the plan specifies actuarial assumptions and methods to be used to calculate a lump sum distribution, such actuarial assumptions and methods, or
(2) Otherwise, the actuarial assumptions specified under section 205(g)(3) of ERISA and section 417(e)(3) of the Code, determined as of the benefit determination date, including use of the missing participants interest rate to calculate the present value as of the benefit determination date of a payment or payments missed in the past.
(1) A person who survives the participant or beneficiary and is entitled under applicable provisions of a QDRO to receive the benefit;
(2) A person that is identified by the plan in a submission to PBGC by the plan as being entitled under applicable plan provisions (including elections, designations, and waivers consistent with such provisions) to receive the benefit; or
(3) If no such person is so entitled, a survivor of the participant or beneficiary who is the participant's or beneficiary's living—
(i) Spouse, or if none,
(ii) Child, or if none,
(iii) Parent, or if none,
(iv) Sibling.
(a)
(1) By purchase of an annuity contract from an insurer; or
(2) By—
(i) Determining the distributee's benefit transfer amount under paragraph (e) of this section, and
(ii) Transferring to PBGC as described in this subpart D an amount equal to the distributee's benefit transfer amount.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(i) For a missing distributee not in pay status whose normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later) precedes the benefit determination date, the aggregate value of payments of the straight life annuity that would have been payable beginning on the normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later), accumulated at the missing participants interest rate from the date each payment would have been made to the benefit determination date, assuming that the distributee survived to the benefit determination date, as determined by the plan sponsor; or
(ii) For a missing distributee in pay status, the aggregate value of payments of the pay status annuity due but not made, accumulated at the missing participants interest rate from each payment due date to the benefit determination date, assuming that the distributee survived to the benefit determination date.
(3)
(a)
(1) For any distributee, regardless of the size of the distributee's benefit, the commercial locator service method described in paragraph (b) of this section; or
(2) For a distributee whose normal retirement benefit is not more than $50 per month, the records search method described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b)
(2)
(c)
(i) Searching the records of the plan for information to locate the distributee.
(ii) Searching the records of the contributing sponsor that is the most recent employer of the distributee for information to locate the distributee.
(iii) Searching the records of each retirement or welfare plan of the contributing sponsor in which the distributee was a participant for information to locate the distributee.
(iv) Contacting each beneficiary of the distributee identified from the records referred to in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section for information to locate the distributee.
(v) Using an internet search method for which no fee is charged, such as a search engine, a network database, a public record database (such as those for licenses, mortgages, and real estate taxes) or a “social media” website.
(2)
(i) Searching is not feasible to the extent that, as a practical matter, it is thwarted by legal or practical lack of access to records, and
(ii) Searching is not affordable to the extent that the cost of searching (including the value of labor) is more than a reasonable fraction of the benefit of the distributee being searched for. In no event would searching need to be pursued beyond the point where the cost equals the value of the benefit.
(d)
(a)
(1) The benefit transfer amount for the missing distributee;
(2) If the benefit transfer amount is paid more than 90 days after the benefit determination date, interest on the benefit transfer amount computed at the missing participants interest rate for the period beginning on the 90th day after the benefit determination date and ending on the date the benefit transfer amount is paid to PBGC; and
(3) Any fee provided for in the missing participants forms and instructions.
(b)
(c)
(2) For rules about permissible methods of filing with PBGC under this subpart, see subpart A of part 4000 of this chapter.
(3) For rules about the date that a submission under this subpart was filed with PBGC, see subpart C of part 4000 of this chapter.
(4) For rules about any time period for filing under this subpart, see subpart D of part 4000 of this chapter.
(d)
(e)
(a)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(3)
(e)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(3)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(1)
(i) The date when the participant would have reached age 55, if the participant died before that date, or
(ii) The participant's date of death, if the participant died between age 55 and the normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later), or
(iii) The normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later), if the participant died after that date.
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(j)
(1)
(2)
(k)
(
(1) The date the participant receives or begins to receive a benefit, or
(2) The date the participant dies.
PBGC may in appropriate circumstances extend deadlines, excuse noncompliance, and grant waivers with regard to any provision of this subpart to promote the purposes of the missing participants program and title IV of ERISA. Like circumstances will be treated in like manner under this section.
Issued in Washington, DC.
| 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 |