Page Range | 61129-61442 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 61431 - Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay | |
82 FR 61413 - To Take Certain Actions Under the African Growth and Opportunity Act and for Other Purposes | |
82 FR 61338 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science Board | |
82 FR 61304 - Implementation of Pathogen Reduction Technology in the Manufacture of Blood Components in Blood Establishments: Questions and Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
82 FR 61129 - Blended Retirement System; Correction | |
82 FR 61334 - Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation; Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 61145 - Agency Reorganization; Correction | |
82 FR 61306 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions Received | |
82 FR 61320 - Allocations, Common Application, Waivers, and Alternative Requirements for Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Grantees; State of Texas Allocation | |
82 FR 61340 - Comment Request for Review of a Revised Information Collection: Customer Satisfaction Surveys | |
82 FR 61338 - Comment Request for Review of a Revised Information Collection: Organizational Assessment Surveys | |
82 FR 61339 - Comment Request for Review of a Revised Information Collection: Leadership Assessment Surveys | |
82 FR 61338 - Submission for Review: It's Time To Sign Up for Direct Deposit or Direct Express, RI 38-128 | |
82 FR 61230 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Yangtze Sturgeon as an Endangered Species | |
82 FR 61341 - Submission for Review: Alternative Annuity Election, RI 20-80 | |
82 FR 61276 - Intent To Prepare a Draft Integrated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the New Jersey Back Bays (NJBB) Coastal Storm Risk Management (CSRM) Feasibility Study | |
82 FR 61293 - Human Studies Review Board; Notification of Public Meetings | |
82 FR 61203 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District | |
82 FR 61184 - Medicare Program: Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems and Quality Reporting Programs; Correction | |
82 FR 61293 - Notice of Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for the Eastern Portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the Gulf of Mexico (GEG460000); Availability of Finding of No Significant Impact | |
82 FR 61205 - Proposed Rule; Renewable Fuel Standard Program; Grain Sorghum Oil Pathway | |
82 FR 61172 - Minimum Technical Standards for Class II Gaming Systems and Equipment | |
82 FR 61294 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
82 FR 61251 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Montana Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 61251 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meetings of the South Dakota Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 61309 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 61310 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 61308 - National Institute on Aging Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 61243 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Nontrawl Lead Level 2 Observers | |
82 FR 61241 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Vermilion Snapper Management Measures; Amendment 47 | |
82 FR 61200 - Statutory Cable, Satellite, and DART License Reporting Practices | |
82 FR 61364 - Fifty Fourth RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary | |
82 FR 61362 - New Orleans Public Belt Railroad Corporation-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-Public Belt Railroad Commission of the City of New Orleans | |
82 FR 61266 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 61268 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 61365 - Proposed Collection of Information: Subscription for Purchase and Issue of U.S. Treasury Securities, State and Local Government Series | |
82 FR 61300 - Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. and CrossAmerica Partners LP; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
82 FR 61178 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Columbia River, Vancouver, WA | |
82 FR 61326 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Records and Supporting Data: Importation, Receipt, Storage, and Disposition by Explosives Importers, Manufacturers, Dealers, and Users | |
82 FR 61361 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Jasper Johns: `Something Resembling Truth' ” Exhibition | |
82 FR 61284 - Steel Reef Pipelines US LLC; Notice of Application for Section 3 Authorization and Presidential Permit | |
82 FR 61282 - Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary Permit | |
82 FR 61283 - Goodyear Lake Hydro, LLC; Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments | |
82 FR 61286 - Swan Lake North Hydro LLC; Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions | |
82 FR 61280 - Jason and Carol Victoria Presley; Notice of Intent To File Subsequent License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Request to use the Traditional Licensing Process, and Request To Waive Pre-Filing Requirements | |
82 FR 61290 - PacifiCorp; Notice of Draft License Application (DLA) and Draft Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) and Request for Preliminary Terms a nd Conditions | |
82 FR 61282 - Brookfield Energy Marketing LP v. Green Mountain Power Corporation; Notice of Complaint | |
82 FR 61292 - Notice of Application; Texas Eastern Transmission, LP | |
82 FR 61292 - City of Colton, California; Notice of Filing | |
82 FR 61283 - City of Riverside, California; Notice of Filing | |
82 FR 61289 - Notice of Filing; City of Azusa, California | |
82 FR 61283 - Notice of Filing; City of Pasadena, California | |
82 FR 61281 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; States Edge Wind I Holding LLC | |
82 FR 61288 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; States Edge Wind I LLC | |
82 FR 61282 - Notice of Filing; City of Banning, California | |
82 FR 61282 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator and Foreign Utility Company Status | |
82 FR 61288 - Notice of Filing; Western Area Power Administration | |
82 FR 61281 - Notice of Filing; Western Area Power Administration | |
82 FR 61291 - Notice of Application; Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC | |
82 FR 61285 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
82 FR 61147 - Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) Adjustment to Asset-Size Exemption Threshold | |
82 FR 61335 - Applied Sciences Advisory Committee; Meeting. | |
82 FR 61129 - Common Crop Insurance Regulations; California Avocado Crop Insurance Provisions | |
82 FR 61134 - Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Cultivated Clam Crop Insurance Provisions | |
82 FR 61258 - National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) Server Certificate Management Building Block | |
82 FR 61265 - NIST Special Publication 2000-02: Conformity Assessment Considerations for Federal Agencies | |
82 FR 61265 - NIST Special Publication 2000-01: ABC's of Conformity Assessment | |
82 FR 61261 - National Conference on Weights and Measures Interim Meeting | |
82 FR 61260 - Notice of Localization and Tracking System Testing Consortium | |
82 FR 61310 - Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 61327 - Notice of Request for Certification of Texas Capital Counsel Mechanism | |
82 FR 61252 - Approval of Subzone Status; R.W. Smith & Co/TriMark USA, LLC; Lewisville, Texas | |
82 FR 61252 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 122-Corpus Christi, Texas; Authorization of Production Activity, Voestalpine Texas, LLC, Subzone 122T (Hot Briquetted Iron and By-Products) Portland, Texas | |
82 FR 61252 - Approval of Subzone Status; North American Hoganas Company Johnstown, Hollsopple and St. Mary's, Pennsylvania | |
82 FR 61279 - Notice of 229 Boundary for the Fort Saint Vrain Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation | |
82 FR 61145 - Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C) Adjustment to Asset-Size Exemption Threshold | |
82 FR 61278 - Agency Information Collection Extension/Revision | |
82 FR 61279 - Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics; Request for Information: Impacts From and to Quantum Information Science in High Energy Physics | |
82 FR 61252 - 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft From Canada: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination | |
82 FR 61255 - 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft From Canada: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
82 FR 61190 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
82 FR 61269 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
82 FR 61368 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple Fiscal Service Information Collection Requests | |
82 FR 61263 - National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) Mitigating Internet of Things (IoT) Based Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) Building Block | |
82 FR 61257 - National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) Privileged Account Management for the Financial Services Sector | |
82 FR 61302 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 61329 - Notice of Request for Certification of Arizona Capital Counsel Mechanism OLP Docket No. 166 | |
82 FR 61255 - Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness: Notice of Public Meetings | |
82 FR 61199 - Exclusion of Foreign Currency Gain or Loss Related to Business Needs From Foreign Personal Holding Company Income; Mark-to-Market Method of Accounting for Section 988 Transactions; Correction | |
82 FR 61335 - Notice of Solicitation of Proposals for Calendar Year 2018 Basic Field Grant Awards | |
82 FR 61177 - Treatment of Transactions in Which Federal Financial Assistance Is Provided; Correction | |
82 FR 61276 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and approval; Comment Request; DC School Choice Incentive Program | |
82 FR 61277 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; State Educational Agency and Local Educational Agency-School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA, Title I, Part A | |
82 FR 61311 - Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee; Vacancies | |
82 FR 61308 - Agency Information Collection Request. 30-Day Public Comment Request | |
82 FR 61170 - Medical Devices; Radiology Devices; Classification of the Rectal Balloon for Prostate Immobilization | |
82 FR 61163 - Medical Devices; Hematology and Pathology Devices; Classification of the Flow Cytometric Test System for Hematopoietic Neoplasms | |
82 FR 61168 - Medical Devices; Neurological Devices; Classification of the External Vagal Nerve Stimulator for Headache | |
82 FR 61162 - Medical Devices; Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices; Classification of the Reagents for Molecular Diagnostic Instrument Test Systems | |
82 FR 61330 - Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
82 FR 61332 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards | |
82 FR 61326 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
82 FR 61360 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program | |
82 FR 61325 - Global Digital Trade 2: The Business-to-Business Market, Key Foreign Trade Restrictions, and U.S. Competitiveness; and Global Digital Trade 3: The Business-to-Consumer Market, Key Foreign Trade Restrictions, and U.S. Competitiveness; Submission of Questionnaire for OMB Review | |
82 FR 61365 - Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group; Solicitation of Application for Membership | |
82 FR 61325 - Hardwood Plywood From China | |
82 FR 61166 - Medical Devices; Neurological Devices; Classification of the Computerized Behavioral Therapy Device for Psychiatric Disorders | |
82 FR 61274 - Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
82 FR 61271 - Arms Sales Notification | |
82 FR 61192 - Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB; Filing of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use); Reopening of the Comment Period | |
82 FR 61274 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 61273 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 61271 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 61289 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
82 FR 61287 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
82 FR 61289 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
82 FR 61354 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Advance Notice Concerning Proposed Changes to The Options Clearing Corporation's Margin Methodology | |
82 FR 61351 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot Program | |
82 FR 61337 - Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 61323 - Invasive Species Advisory Committee; Request for Nominations | |
82 FR 61368 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection Requests | |
82 FR 61199 - Withdrawal of Proposed Rule for Dog Management at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, California | |
82 FR 61324 - Termination Notice for the Dog Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, California | |
82 FR 61341 - TCG BDC, Inc., et al. | |
82 FR 61317 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
82 FR 61318 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Application for Premium Processing Service | |
82 FR 61269 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 61267 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
82 FR 61268 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings and Hearings | |
82 FR 61366 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
82 FR 61178 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions; Anti-Idling Regulations | |
82 FR 61328 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act | |
82 FR 61328 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
82 FR 61143 - Community Reinvestment Act Regulations | |
82 FR 61319 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Collection of Qualitative Feedback through Focus Groups | |
82 FR 61140 - Civil Monetary Penalties Annual Inflation Adjustments | |
82 FR 61353 - The Hartford Mutual Funds, Inc., et al. | |
82 FR 61336 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments | |
82 FR 61304 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From the Regenstrief Center for Healthcare Engineering at Purdue University Patient Safety Organization (RCHE Purdue PSO) | |
82 FR 61180 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle Refrigerant | |
82 FR 61363 - Request for Comments and Notice of a Public Hearing Regarding the 2018 Special 301 Review | |
82 FR 61151 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Corporation Turbofan Engines | |
82 FR 61329 - Large Residential Washers (LRWs) | |
82 FR 61193 - Indian Electric Power Utilities | |
82 FR 61213 - Water Quality Standards for the State of Missouri's Lakes and Reservoirs | |
82 FR 61153 - Revisions, Clarifications, and Technical Corrections to the Export Administration Regulations | |
82 FR 61270 - US Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 61372 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Testing and Training Activities Conducted in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range in the Gulf of Mexico | |
82 FR 61200 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Revisions to the Regulatory Definition of Volatile Organic Compound | |
82 FR 61312 - Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Personnel Surety Program | |
82 FR 61229 - Solicitation of New Safe Harbors and Special Fraud Alerts |
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Park Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Federal Aviation Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Fiscal Service
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
Final rule; correction.
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (“FRTIB”) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
This rule is effective January 1, 2018.
Brandon Ford, Attorney-Advisor, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Office of General Counsel, 77 K Street NE, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20002, 202-864-8734,
In FR Doc. 17-27304 appearing on page 60102 in the
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Final rule with request for comments.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) amends the Common Crop Insurance Regulations to provide California Avocado insurance. The provisions will be used in conjunction with the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions (Basic Provisions), which contain standard terms and conditions common to most crop programs. The intended effect of this action is to convert the California Avocado pilot crop insurance program to a regulatory insurance program for the 2020 and succeeding crop years.
FCIC prefers that comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. FCIC-17-0002, by any of the following methods:
•
•
FCIC will post all comments received, including those received by mail, without change to
Ron Lundine, Director, Product Management, Actuarial and Product Design Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, telephone (816) 926-3854.
FCIC offered an actual production history pilot crop insurance program for California grown avocados beginning with the 2010 crop year. The pilot program is offered in six California counties. In 2013, the FCIC's Board of Directors approved continuation and expansion until such time the program
The FCIC is issuing this final rule without opportunity for prior notice and comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exempts rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” from the statutory requirement for prior notice and opportunity for public comment (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). A Federal crop insurance policy is a contract and is thus exempt from APA notice-and-comment procedures.
Previously, changes made to the Federal crop insurance policies codified in the Code of Federal Regulations were required to be implemented through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Such action was not required by the APA, which exempts contracts. Rather, the requirement originated with a notice USDA published in the
However, FCIC is providing a 30-day comment period and invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments. FCIC may consider the comments received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 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 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” established a federal policy to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American people. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule. The rule is not subject to Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.”
Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053.
FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.
FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the indemnity amount for an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1,000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA) authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See 2 CFR part 415, subpart C.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or action by FCIC directing the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.
This action is not expected to have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
Crop insurance, California avocado, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR part 457 applicable for the 2020 and succeeding crop years as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o).
The California avocado crop provisions for the 2020 and succeeding crop years are as follows:
FCIC policies:
CDFA. The California Department of Food and Agriculture.
(a) Unless limited by the Special Provisions, a basic unit as defined in section 1 of the Basic Provisions may be divided into optional units if, for each optional unit, you meet the following:
(1) All optional units you select for the crop year are identified on the acreage report for that crop year (Units will be determined when the acreage is reported but may be adjusted or combined to reflect the actual unit structure when adjusting a loss. No further unit division may be made after the acreage reporting date for any reason);
(2) You have records that are acceptable to us for at least the most recently completed crop year for all optional units that you will report in the current crop year (You may be required to produce the records for all optional units for the most recently completed crop year);
(3) You have records of marketed or stored production from each optional unit maintained in such a manner that permits us to verify the production from each optional unit, or the production from each optional unit is kept separate until loss adjustment is completed by us.
(b) Each optional unit must meet one or more of the following conditions, unless otherwise specified in the Special Provisions:
(1) Be of a different type; or
(2) Consist of acreage located on non-contiguous land.
(c) Subsections (a) and (c) of section 34 of the Basic Provisions do not apply to these Crop Provisions.
In addition to the requirements of section 3 of the Basic Provisions:
(a) You may select only one coverage level for all the avocados in the county insured under this policy.
(b) You must report, on or before the production reporting date designated in section 3 of the Basic Provisions, by unit:
(1) Any damage, stumping (including the year or years that the stumping was performed), or removal of trees; change in orchard practices; or any other circumstance that may reduce the expected yield per acre to less than the approved yield and the number of affected acres and trees;
(2) The number of trees on insurable and uninsurable acreage;
(3) The age of the trees;
(4) Any acreage excluded under section 6 of these Crop Provisions; and
(5) For acreage interplanted with another crop:
(i) The age of the interplanted crop, and type if applicable;
(ii) The planting pattern; and
(iii) Any other information we request to establish your approved yield per acre.
(c) We will reduce the approved yield whenever we determine any one or more of the factors specified in this section are likely to have a negative impact upon that average yield. If you fail to provide complete and accurate information required by this section, and pursuant to the definition of approved yield, we will reduce that yield as necessary at any time we become aware of any such omission.
(d) In the event the avocado trees are damaged to the extent that we determine the APH history you certified no longer is representative of the potential production of the unit, we will reduce your approved yield to a level consistent with that reduced potential. Such reduction will not occur for a crop year for which insurance already has attached if the damage is due to a cause of loss that is insurable for the avocado fruit.
(e) In lieu of that specific provision in section 3(f) of the Basic Provisions, you are required to report the production for the crop year that ended on the October 31 immediately preceding the cancellation date. For example, you must report your production for the 2008 crop year by the production reporting date for the 2010 crop year. All other provisions of section 3(f) apply.
(f) When you initially apply for insurance:
(1) You must certify your production records for at least the most recently completed crop year;
(2) If you do not certify your production records for any one or more of the three crop years immediately prior to the most recently completed crop year, you will be assigned a percentage of the transitional yield included in the actuarial documents for that crop year. The percentages will be those described in 7 CFR part 400 subpart G. All other provisions of 7 CFR part 400 subpart G apply.
In accordance with section 4 of the Basic Provisions, the contract change date is the August 31 that precedes the cancellation date.
In accordance with section 2 of the Basic Provisions, the cancellation and termination dates are the November 30 immediately prior to the first day of the crop year.
(a) In accordance with section 8 of the Basic Provisions, the crop insured will be all the avocados in the county grown on insurable acreage, and for which premium rates are provided:
(1) In which you have a share;
(2) That is grown for harvest as avocado fruit for commercial sale;
(3) That is a type identified in the actuarial documents;
(4) That is irrigated; and
(5) That is grown on trees that, if inspected, are considered acceptable to us.
(b) In addition to the provisions of section 8 of the Basic Provisions that identify an uninsurable crop, we do not insure any avocados produced on trees that have not reached the sixth growing season after set out unless the unit has produced an average of at least 2,000 pounds of avocados per acre in one of the most recent three crop years or as otherwise specified in the Special Provisions.
(c) Avocado trees that have been stumped are not insurable for three calendar years after the year stumping was performed. The calendar year stumping occurred will be considered to be the actual calendar year if performed between January 1 and June 30 of that year. It will be considered to be the following calendar year if performed between July 1 and December 31.
(a) In lieu of that part of section 9 of the Basic Provisions that prohibits insurance attaching to a crop planted with another crop, avocados interplanted with another perennial crop are insurable unless we inspect the acreage and determine it does not meet the requirements of insurability contained in these Crop Provisions.
(b) In addition to the acreage designated as not insurable in section 9 of the Basic Provisions, we will not insure avocados produced on any acreage infected with Phytophthora root rot unless you follow good orchard management practices as recommended by agricultural experts.
(a) In accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Basic Provisions:
(1) Coverage begins on December 1st of the crop year.
(2) The calendar date for the end of the insurance period is the second October 31st of the crop year.
(b) In addition to the provisions of section 11 of the Basic Provisions:
(1) If you acquire an insurable share in any insurable acreage on or before the acreage reporting date of any crop year, and if we inspect and consider the acreage acceptable, insurance will be considered to have attached to such acreage on the calendar date for the beginning of the insurance period.
(2) If you relinquish your insurable interest on any acreage of avocados on or before the acreage reporting date of any crop year, insurance will not be considered to have attached to such acreage for that crop year unless:
(i) A transfer of right to an indemnity or a similar form approved by us is completed by all affected parties;
(ii) We are notified by you or the transferee in writing of such transfer on or before the acreage reporting date; and
(iii) The transferee is eligible for crop insurance.
No premium will be due or indemnity paid unless a properly executed transfer of right to an indemnity has been filed with us.
(a) In accordance with section 12 of the Basic Provisions, insurance is provided against unavoidable loss of production due to the following causes of loss occurring within the insurance period:
(1) Adverse weather conditions;
(2) Fire, unless weeds and other forms of undergrowth have not been controlled or pruning debris has not been removed from the orchard;
(3) Insects and disease, but not damage due to insufficient or improper application of control measures;
(4) Wildlife;
(5) Earthquake;
(6) Volcanic eruption; or
(7) Failure of the irrigation water supply due to an insured cause of loss specified in sections 9(a)(1) through (6).
(b) In addition to the causes of loss excluded in section 12 of the Basic Provisions, we will not insure against damage or loss of production due to:
(1) Theft;
(2) Phytophthora root rot, if you do not maintain cultural practices to minimize the potential for damage due to this pathogen; or
(3) Inability to market the avocados for any reason other than actual physical damage from an insurable cause specified in this section. For example, we will not pay you an indemnity if you are unable to market any avocado fruit due to quarantine,
In addition to the requirements of section 14 of the Basic Provisions:
(a) You must notify us at least 15 days before any production from any unit will be sold by direct marketing. We will conduct an inspection and appraisal, if needed, that will be used to determine your production to count for such production. If damage occurs after this inspection, we will conduct one or more additional inspections as needed. These inspections, and any acceptable records provided by you, will be used to determine your production to count. Failure to give timely notice as required will result in production to count determined as described in section 11(c) if we are not able to determine the amount of such production;
(b) If you intend to claim an indemnity on any unit, you must notify us immediately so we may inspect the unit. You must not sell or otherwise dispose of any damaged production until we have given you written consent to do so, or 15 days, whichever is earlier. If you fail to meet the requirements of this subsection all such production will be considered undamaged and included as production to count;
(c) We will not perform any appraisals of potential production earlier than the July that follows the bloom for the crop year; and
(d) You must notify us immediately if you intend to stump 10 percent or more of the trees on a unit after insurance has attached for the crop year.
(a) We will determine your loss separately for each unit you defined on your acreage report or that we find to exist in accordance with section 2 of these Crop Provisions. If you do not or cannot provide acceptable records of production for the crop year for:
(1) Any optional unit, we will combine all optional units for which such records were not provided; or
(2) Any basic unit, we will allocate commingled production to each basic unit in proportion to our liability on the harvested acreage for each unit.
(b) In the event of loss or damage covered by this policy, we will settle your claim by:
(1) Multiplying the insured acreage by the production guarantee;
(2) Subtracting from the result of section 11(b)(1) the total production to count (see section 11(c);
(3) Multiplying the result in section 11(b)(2) by the price election, by the price election factor, and by your share.
(c) The total production to count from all insurable acreage on the unit will include the value of all appraised and harvested production, as follows:
(1) Appraised production to be counted will include:
(i) Not less than the production guarantee per acre for acreage:
(A) That is abandoned;
(B) That is sold or otherwise disposed by direct marketing if you failed to provide the notice required by section 10 and we were not able to determine the amount of such production;
(C) That is damaged solely by uninsured causes; or
(D) For which you fail to provide production records that are acceptable to us;
(ii) Potential production lost due to uninsured causes;
(iii) Unharvested marketable production (the quantity of such production may be reduced as described in section 11(d));
(iv) Potential production on insured acreage you intend to put to another use or abandon, if you agree to our appraisal of such production. Upon such agreement, the insurance period for that acreage will end when you put the acreage to another use or abandon the crop. If agreement on the appraised production is not reached:
(A) If you do not elect to continue to care for the crop, we may give you consent to put the acreage to another use if you agree to leave intact, and provide sufficient care for, representative samples of the crop in locations acceptable to us. The production to count for such acreage will be based on the greater of the harvested production or our appraisal in accordance with Section 15(b) of the Basic Provisions from the samples at the time harvest should have occurred. If you do not leave the required samples intact, or fail to provide sufficient care for the samples, our appraisal made prior to giving you consent to put the acreage to another use will be used to determine the production to count; or
(B) If you elect to continue to care for the crop, the production to count for the acreage will be based on the greater of harvested production or our reappraisal in accordance with section 15(b) of the Basic Provisions if additional damage occurs and the crop is not harvested; and
(2) All marketable harvested production (the quantity of such production may be reduced as described in section 11(d)). Any production that is not marketable due to an insured cause of loss will not be included in the production to count.
(d) The quantity of appraised and harvested marketable production may be reduced if the production is considered to be a No. 2 avocado and the price of such marketable production is less than 75 percent of the maximum price election. The quantity of such production will be multiplied by an adjustment factor equal to the lesser of 1.00 or the price of the damaged avocados divided by the maximum price election.
Sections 16 and 17 of the Basic Provisions do not apply to these Crop Provisions.
Section 18 of the Basic Provisions does not apply to these Crop Provisions.
You certify production records that support the yields per acre shown below:
AVERAGE (APPROVED) Yield = 4,417 lbs.
Assume you selected the 65 percent coverage level. The unit contains 10 acres. The production guarantee per acre is:
The production guarantee for the unit is:
Assume further that the price election is $0.90 per lb. The liability (amount of insurance) for the unit is equal to:
Assume the unit produced 15,000 lbs. Your share is 100 percent.
The indemnity is calculated as follows:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Final rule with request for comments.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) amends the Common Crop Insurance Regulations to provide Cultivated Clam insurance. The provisions will be used in conjunction with the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions (Basic Provisions), which contain standard terms and conditions common to most crop programs. The intended effect of this action is to convert the Cultivated Clam pilot crop insurance program to a regulatory insurance program for the 2019 and succeeding crop years.
FCIC prefers that comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. You may submit comments, identified by Docket
ID No. FCIC-17-0003, by any of the following methods:
•
•
FCIC will post all comments received, including those received by mail, without change to
Ron Lundine, Director, Product Management, Actuarial and Product Design Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, telephone (816) 926-3854.
FCIC offered a pilot crop insurance program for cultivated clams beginning with the 1999 crop year. The program is offered in nine counties in Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Virginia. After a program evaluation, in 2014 the FCIC's Board of Directors authorized the Cultivated Clam Pilot Crop Insurance Program to be converted from a pilot to a permanent program in Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Virginia. For the 2016 crop year, 42 policies were sold and 352,563,049 clams were insured in Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Virginia. This rule will add the Cultivated Clam Program to the Code of Federal Regulations.
The FCIC is issuing this final rule without opportunity for prior notice and comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exempts rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” from the statutory requirement for prior notice and opportunity for public comment (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). A Federal crop insurance policy is a contract and is thus exempt from APA notice-and-comment procedures. Previously, changes made to the Federal crop insurance policies codified in the Code of Federal Regulations were required to be implemented through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Such action was not required by the APA, which exempts contracts. Rather, the requirement originated with a notice USDA published in the
However, FCIC is providing a 30-day comment period and invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments. FCIC may consider the comments received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 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 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” established a federal policy to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American people. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule. The rule is not subject to Executive Order 13771,
Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053.
FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.
FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the indemnity amount for an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA) authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See 2 CFR part 415, subpart C.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or action by FCIC directing the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.
This action is not expected to have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
Crop insurance, Cultivated clam, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR part 457, applicable for the 2019 and succeeding crop years, as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o).
The cultivated clam crop provisions for the 2019 and succeeding crop years are as follows:
FCIC policies:
(a) This deductible allows a smaller deductible than the crop year deductible to be used when:
(1) Inventory values are less than the reported basic unit value; or
(2) You have elected optional units, if applicable.
(b) The occurrence deductible is the lesser of:
(1) The deductible percentage multiplied by the unit value before loss multiplied by the under-report factor; or
(2) The crop year deductible.
(a) For clams placed in a field nursery or a nursery bag—a clam that is a minimum of 5 millimeters, measured at the longest shell distance that is parallel to the hinge.
(b) For all others—a clam which is a minimum of 10 millimeters, measured at the longest shell distance that is parallel to the hinge.
(a) In addition to the definition of basic unit contained in section 1 of the Basic
Provisions, a basic unit may be divided into optional units in accordance with section 2(b). Note that even if you elect optional unit coverage, amount of insurance, crop year deductible, under-report factor, premium, and the total amount of indemnity payable under this policy will be controlled by the basic unit value before loss.
(b) If you elect the additional level of coverage, for an additional premium, inventory that would otherwise be a basic unit may, unless limited by the Special Provisions, be divided into optional units by non-contiguous lease parcels. Additional optional units may also be authorized in the Special Provisions. If you elect optional units, you must provide separate inventory reports for each unit and keep all records of seeding, harvest, and uninsured losses separately by unit.
(c) Failure to keep or report separate records will result in all optional unit inventories under a basic unit being combined in a basic unit at loss time.
(d) If you elect optional units, your amount of insurance will be divided among optional units in relation to unit value before loss of clams in each optional unit. If, at the time of loss, the aggregate value of the clams in your optional units exceeds your basic unit inventory value, you will be subject to the under-report factor provisions.
(a) In addition to the requirements of section 3 of the Basic Provisions, you may only select one coverage level percentage for all clams, regardless of their stage, insured under this policy.
(b) Your amount of insurance will be reduced by the amount of any indemnity paid under this policy.
(c) For an additional premium, you may increase your amount of insurance in accordance with section 6(d).
(d) The production reporting requirements contained in section 3 of the Basic Provisions are not applicable.
(e) For seeded clams, the amount of insurance is the product of the reference maximum dollar amount of insurance and the fraction of the maximum value associated with the applicable stage multiplied by the coverage level selected multiplied by your share.
In accordance with section 4 of the Basic Provisions, the contract change date is August 31 of each year, or as specified in the actuarial documents.
In accordance with section 2 of the Basic Provisions, the cancellation and termination dates are November 30, or as specified in the actuarial documents.
In lieu of section 6 of the Basic Provisions:
(a) For insurance to attach for the crop year, you must submit an inventory value report to us with your application and for each subsequent crop year, not later than November 30 preceding the crop year, or by the date specified in the Special Provisions.
(b) The inventory value report must be submitted yearly and include, for each basic or optional unit all growing locations, the stages of the clams and the stage values, and your share by growing location.
(1) The inventory value must also reflect the stages as shown in the Special Provisions.
(2) At our option and at any time, you may be required to provide documentation in support of any of your reports, including, but not limited to, a detailed listing of growing locations, unit values, the numbers and the sizes of clams seeded or placed for grow-out; your share, sales of clams and purchases of seed clams for the 3 previous crop years, and of your ability to properly obtain and maintain clams.
(3) For catastrophic level policies only, you must report your clam sales for the previous crop year on the clam inventory value report. You may be
(c) Your inventory value report, including any revised report, will be used to determine your premium and amount of insurance.
(d) If allowed for in the Special Provisions you may revise your inventory value report to increase the reported inventory value. We may inspect the inventory. Your revised inventory value report, if allowed by the Special Provisions, will be considered accepted by us and coverage will begin on any proposed increase in inventory value at the later of December 1, the date shown in the Special Provisions, or 30 days after your written request is received by us, unless we reject the proposed increase in your inventory value in writing. We will reject any requested increase if a loss occurs before the later of December 1, the date shown in the Special Provisions, or within 30 days of the date the request is made.
(e) Failure to report the full value of your stage value will result in the reduction of any claim in accordance with section 14(d).
(f) For catastrophic insurance coverage only: Your inventory value report for all clams cannot exceed the lesser of the value from section 6(b) or the percent shown on the actuarial documents of your previous year's sales of clams unless you provide acceptable records to prove your actual inventory value.
(g) Your inventory value report must reflect your insurable clam inventory according to the prices contained in the actuarial documents. In no instance will we be liable for values greater than those contained in the actuarial documents.
(h) You must report all clams on the unit including any clams owned or subleased by other individuals or entities.
(i) No application or inventory value reports, except revisions, will be accepted after November 30, unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions.
(a) In lieu of section 7(c) of the Basic Provisions, we will determine your premium by multiplying the amount of insurance by the appropriate premium rate and by the premium adjustment factors listed on the actuarial documents.
(b) Additional premium from an increase in the inventory value report is due and payable when we accept the revised inventory value report.
(c) In addition to the provisions in section 7 of the Basic Provisions, the premium will be adjusted for partial crop years for the year of seeding and for clam leases you acquire. Premium will be charged for the entire month, as shown in the actuarial documents, for any month during which any amount of coverage is provided.
In lieu of the provisions of section 8 and section 9 of the Basic Provisions, the insured crop is all the clams in the county that:
(a) Meet all the requirements for insurability and for which prices are provided in the actuarial documents;
(b) Are acceptable to us;
(c) Are grown by a person, who in at least three of the five previous crop years:
(1) Grew clams for commercial sale; and
(2) Participated in the management of a clam farming operation by at least exercising decision-making authority over all operational aspects of the farm.
(d) Are grown in a county for which a premium rate is provided in the actuarial documents;
(e) Are in a growing location acceptable to us and for which you provided GPS coordinates with your clam inventory value report in accordance with the Special Provisions; and
(f) Use a practice that fixes the insurable clams to the land within the growing location.
(a) In accordance with section 11 of the Basic Provisions, coverage begins the later of:
(1) The date the pre-acceptance inspection, if applicable, is complete unless we notify you that your inventory is not insurable; or
(2) If your inventory is insurable:
(i) On December 1 for new applications, when the application and the inventory value report are submitted by October 30;
(ii) On the 31st day following the date of submission for new applications, when the application and the inventory value report are submitted between November 1 and 30;
(iii) On December 1 for policies continued from the prior year if the inventory value report is submitted by October 30;
(iv) On the 31st day following the date of submission of the inventory value report for policies continued from the prior year when the inventory value report is submitted between November 1 and 30; and
(v) However, you acquire a financial interest in any insurable clams after coverage begins, but after December 1 of the crop year, and our inspection determines that the clams are acceptable, insurance will be considered to have attached to such clams 30 days after a revised inventory report is accepted by us indicating the stage value of the acquired clams; or
(vi) On the date contained in the Special Provisions.
(b) Insurance ends at the earliest of:
(1) The date of final adjustment of a loss when the total indemnities due equal the amount of insurance;
(2) November 30; or
(3) A date specified in the Special Provisions. (c) Insurance ceases immediately on any clams removed from the unit.
(a) In accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Basic Provisions, insurance is provided for the death of clams caused only by the following causes of loss that occur within the insurance period unless otherwise limited by the Special Provisions:
(1) Oxygen depletion due to vegetation, microbial activity, harmful algae bloom, or high water temperature unless otherwise limited by the Special Provisions;
(2) Disease, if medication does not exist for control of the disease;
(3) Freeze;
(4) Hurricane;
(5) Decrease in salinity associated with a weather event verified by National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or United States Geologic Survey (USGS) or as otherwise defined in the Special Provisions;
(6) Tidal wave;
(7) Storm surge that is associated with a local weather event and verified by NOAA or USGS; or
(8) Ice floe.
(b) In addition to the causes of loss excluded in section 12 of the Basic Provisions, we do not insure against any loss caused by:
(1) Your inability to market clams as a direct result of quarantine, shellfish harvest ban, boycott, or refusal of a buyer to accept production;
(2) Collapse or failure of buildings or structures;
(3) Loss of market value;
(4) Vandalism;
(5) Theft;
(6) Pollution;
(7) Predation (unless allowed by the Special Provisions);
(8) Dredging;
(9) Any cause of loss that occurred prior to or after the insurance period;
(10) Any unexplained shortages or disappearance of inventory; or
(11) Failure of the clam to grow to a marketable size.
Unless otherwise stated in the Special Provisions:
(a) In accordance with the provisions contained in section 13 of the Basic Provisions, a replanting payment is allowed for insurable clams if death of the clams was due to an insurable cause of loss.
(b) The maximum amount of the replanting payment will be the lesser of your actual cost of replanting or the result obtained by multiplying the replanting payment amount contained in the Special Provisions by your insured share.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 13 of the Basic Provisions, only one replanting payment will be made per lease parcel planted within the crop year.
(d) You may not collect a replant payment and an indemnity for the same loss.
In addition to your duties contained in section 14 of the Basic Provisions,
(a) You must obtain our written consent prior to changing or discontinuing your normal practices with respect to care and maintenance of the insured clams. Failure to obtain our written consent will result in the denial of your claim.
(b) If you are claiming disease as the cause of loss, you must prove at your own expense that the death of the clams was due to disease by isolating a sample of the clams and identifying the disease following histological or pathological examination conducted by a veterinarian who is a certified fish pathologist or a person approved by us.
In addition to the requirements of section 21 of the Basic Provisions, you must permit us to inspect the insurable clams at any time and take samples of damaged and undamaged clams for inspection, testing, and analysis, and examine and make copies of your records.
We will determine indemnities for any unit as follows:
(a) Determine the under-report factor for the basic unit;
(b) Determine the occurrence deductible;
(c) Subtract unit value after loss from unit value before loss;
(d) Multiply the result of 14(c) by the under-report factor;
(e) Subtract the occurrence deductible from the result in section 14(d); and
(f) If the result of section 14(e) is greater than zero, and subject to the limit of section 14(g);
(1) For other than catastrophic risk protection coverage, your indemnity equals the result of section 14(e), multiplied by your share.
(2) For catastrophic risk protection coverage, your indemnity equals the result of section 14(e) multiplied by 55 percent, multiplied by your share.
(g) The total of all indemnities for the crop year will not exceed the amount of insurance.
The written agreement provisions in the Basic Provisions do not apply.
Provisions of section 16 of the Basic Provisions do not apply.
Provisions of section 17 of the Basic Provisions do not apply.
Assume you have a 100 percent share, the inventory value reported by you is $100,000, and your coverage level is 75 percent. Your amount of insurance is $75,000 ($100,000 × .75). At the time of loss, unit value before loss is $95,000, unit value after loss is $30,000 and basic unit value before loss is $100,000. The deductible percentage is 25 percent (100−75), the crop year deductible is $25,000 (.25 × $100,000). Your indemnity would be calculated as follows:
Step (1) Determine the under-report factor; $100,000 ÷ $95,000 = 1.000;
Step (2) Determine the occurrence deductible; .25 × $95,000 × 1.000 = $23,750;
Step (3) Calculate the difference between unit value before loss and unit value after loss; $95,000−$30,000 = $65,000;
Step (4) Result of step 3 multiplied by the underreport factor (step 1); $65,000 × 1.000 = $65,000;
Step (5) Result of step 4 minus the occurrence deductible; $65,000−$23,750 = $41,250;
Step (6) Result of step 5 multiplied by your share; $41,250 × 1.000 = $41,250 indemnity payment.
Assume you have a 100 percent share, the inventory value reported by you is $100,000, and your coverage level is 75 percent. You have two optional units, unit 1 and unit 2. Your amount of insurance is $75,000 ($100,000 × .75). You have a loss on unit 1 and no loss on unit 2. At the time of loss, unit value before loss on unit 1 is $60,000, unit value after loss on unit 1 is $18,000 and basic unit value before loss is $125,000. The deductible percentage is 25 percent (100−75), the crop year deductible is $25,000 (.25 × $100,000). Your indemnity would be calculated as follows:
Step (1) Determine the under-report factor; $100,000 ÷ $125,000 = .80;
Step (2) Determine the occurrence deductible; .25 × $60,000 × .80 = $12,000;
Step (3) Calculate the difference between unit value before loss and unit value after loss; $60,000−$18,000 = $42,000;
Step (4) Result of step 3 multiplied by the underreport factor (step 1); $42,000 × .80 = $33,600;
Step (5) Result of step 4 minus the occurrence deductible; $33,600−$12,000 = $21,600;
Step (6) Result of step 5 multiplied by your share; $21,600 × 1.000 = $21,600 indemnity payment.
Your crop year deductible is reduced to $13,000 ($25,000−$12,000). Your amount of insurance is reduced to $53,400 ($75,000−$21,600). You do not restock unit 1 after the first loss. Values on unit 2 do not change from those measured at the time of the loss on unit 1. Assume you have a loss later in the crop year on unit 2. Unit value before loss on unit 2 is $65,000, unit value after loss on unit 2 is $0.00 and basic unit value before loss on the basic unit is $83,000. Your loss would be determined as follows:
Step (1) Determine the remaining amount of insurance; $100,000−$33,600 = $66,400;
Step (2) Determine the under-report factor; $66,400 ÷ $83,000 = .800;
Step (3) Determine the occurrence deductible; $25,000−$12,000 = $13,000;
Step (4) Calculate the difference between unit value before loss and unit value after loss; $65,000−$0.00 = $65,000;
Step (5) Result of step 4 multiplied by the underreport factor (step 2); $65,000 × .800 = $52,000;
Step (6) Result of step 5 minus the occurrence deductible; $52,000−$13,000 = $39,000;
Step (7) Result of step 6 multiplied by your share; $39,000 × 1.000 = $39,000 indemnity payment.
Federal Election Commission.
Final rule.
As required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, the Federal Election Commission is adjusting for inflation the civil monetary penalties established under the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act. The civil monetary penalties being adjusted are those negotiated by the Commission or imposed by a court for certain statutory violations, and those imposed by the Commission for late filing of or failure to file certain reports required by the Federal Election Campaign Act. The adjusted civil monetary penalties are calculated according to a statutory formula and the adjusted amounts will apply to penalties assessed after the effective date of these rules.
This final rule is effective on December 27, 2017.
Mr. Neven F. Stipanovic, Acting Assistant General Counsel, or Mr. Eugene J. Lynch, Paralegal, Office of General Counsel, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the “Inflation Adjustment Act”),
The Inflation Adjustment Act requires federal agencies to adjust their civil penalties annually, and the adjustments must take effect no later than January 15 of every year.
The Commission must adjust for inflation its civil monetary penalties “notwithstanding Section 553” of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”).
Furthermore, because the inflation adjustments made through these final rules are required by Congress and involve no Commission discretion or policy judgments, these rules do not need to be submitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President of the Senate under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
The new penalty amounts will apply to civil monetary penalties that are assessed after the date the increase takes effect, even if the associated violation predated the increase.
The Inflation Adjustment Act requires the Commission to annually adjust its civil monetary penalties for inflation by applying a cost-of-living-adjustment (“COLA”) ratio.
The Commission assesses two types of civil monetary penalties that must be adjusted for inflation. First are penalties that are either negotiated by the Commission or imposed by a court for violations of FECA, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, or the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act. These civil monetary penalties are set forth at 11 CFR 111.24. Second are the civil monetary penalties assessed through the Commission's Administrative Fines Program for late filing or non-filing of certain reports required by FECA.
FECA establishes the civil monetary penalties for violations of FECA and the other statutes within the Commission's jurisdiction.
The actual adjustment to each civil monetary penalty is shown in the chart below.
FECA authorizes the Commission to assess civil monetary penalties for violations of the reporting requirements of 52 U.S.C. 30104(a) according to the penalty schedules “established and published by the Commission.” 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(4)(C)(i). The Commission has established two such schedules: The schedule in 11 CFR 111.43(a) applies to reports that are not election sensitive, and the schedule in 11 CFR 111.43(b) applies to reports that are election sensitive.
To determine the adjusted civil monetary penalty amount for each level of activity, the Commission multiplies the most recent penalty amount by the COLA ratio and rounds that figure to the nearest dollar. The new civil monetary penalties are shown in the schedules in the rule text, below.
Administrative practice and procedures, Elections, Law enforcement, Penalties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Election Commission amends subchapter A of chapter I of title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
52 U.S.C. 30102(i), 30109, 30107(a), 30111(a)(8); 28 U.S.C. 2461 nt.
In the table below, for each section indicated in the left column, remove the number indicated in the middle column, and add in its place the number indicated in the right column.
(a) The civil money penalty for all reports that are filed late or not filed, except election sensitive reports and pre-election reports under 11 CFR 104.5, shall be calculated in accordance with the following schedule of penalties:
(b) The civil money penalty for election sensitive reports that are filed late or not filed shall be calculated in accordance with the following schedule of penalties:
(c) If the respondent fails to file a required report and the Commission cannot calculate the level of activity under paragraph (d) of this section, then the civil money penalty shall be $7,797.
On behalf of the Commission.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Joint final rule; technical amendment.
The OCC, the Board, and the FDIC (collectively, the Agencies) are amending their Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations to adjust the asset-size thresholds used to define “small bank” or “small savings association” and “intermediate small bank” or “intermediate small savings association.” As required by the CRA regulations, the adjustment to the threshold amount is based on the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). The FDIC is also amending its definition of “consumer loan” to correct a typographical error included in a CRA final rule issued on November 24, 2017.
The Agencies' CRA regulations establish CRA performance standards for small and intermediate small banks and savings associations. The CRA regulations define small and intermediate small banks and savings associations by reference to asset-size criteria expressed in dollar amounts, and they further require the Agencies to publish annual adjustments to these dollar figures based on the year-to-year change in the average of the CPI-W, not seasonally adjusted, for each 12-month period ending in November, with rounding to the nearest million. 12 CFR 25.12(u)(2), 195.12(u)(2), 228.12(u)(2), and 345.12(u)(2). This adjustment formula was first adopted for CRA purposes by the OCC, the Board, and the FDIC on August 2, 2005, effective September 1, 2005. 70 FR 44256 (Aug. 2, 2005). The Agencies noted that the CPI-W is also used in connection with other federal laws, such as the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act),
The threshold for small banks and small savings associations was revised most recently in December 2016 and became effective January 18, 2017. 82 FR 5354 (Jan. 18, 2017). The current CRA regulations provide that banks and savings associations that, as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years, had assets of less than $1.226 billion are small banks or small savings associations. Small banks and small savings associations with assets of at least $307 million as of December 31 of both of the prior two calendar years and less than $1.226 billion as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years are intermediate small banks or intermediate small savings associations. 12 CFR 25.12(u)(1), 195.12(u)(1), 228.12(u)(1), and 345.12(u)(1). This joint final rule revises these thresholds.
During the 12-month period ending November 2017, the CPI-W increased by 2.11 percent. As a result, the Agencies are revising 12 CFR 25.12(u)(1), 195.12(u)(1), 228.12(u)(1), and 345.12(u)(1) to make this annual adjustment. Beginning January 1, 2018, banks and savings associations that, as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years, had assets of less than $1.252 billion are small banks or small savings associations. Small banks and small savings associations with assets of at least $313 million as of December 31 of both of the prior two calendar years and less than $1.252 billion as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years are intermediate small banks or intermediate small savings
Additionally, on November 24, 2017, the Agencies amended their collective CRA regulations (82 FR 55734) to be consistent with prior amendments to Regulation C by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Section 345.12(j) of the FDIC's CRA regulation, which provides for the definition of “consumer loan,” contained a typographical error in the
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency may, for good cause, find (and incorporate the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
The amendments to the regulations to adjust the asset-size thresholds for small and intermediate small banks and savings associations result from the application of a formula established by a provision in the respective CRA regulations that the Agencies previously published for comment.
Accordingly, the Agencies' rules provide no discretion as to the computation or timing of the revisions to the asset-size criteria. Furthermore, amending the FDIC's definition of “consumer loan” to correct a typographical error is a technical and non-substantive revision. For these reasons, the Agencies have determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary.
The effective date of this joint final rule is January 1, 2018. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the APA, the required publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except, among other things, as provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. Because this rule adjusts asset-size thresholds consistent with the procedural requirements of the CRA rules, the Agencies conclude that it is not substantive within the meaning of the APA's delayed effective date provision. Moreover, the Agencies find that there is good cause for dispensing with the delayed effective date requirement, even if it applied, because their current rules already provide notice that the small and intermediate small asset-size thresholds will be adjusted as of December 31 based on 12-month data as of the end of November each year.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking when a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. As noted previously, the Agencies have determined that it is unnecessary to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this joint final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) states that no agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is the respondent required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Agencies have determined that this final rule does not create any new, or revise any existing, collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Consequently, no information collection request will be submitted to the OMB for review.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires the OCC to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published. As discussed above, the OCC has determined that the publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking is unnecessary. Accordingly, this joint final rule is not subject to section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.
Community development, Credit, Investments, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Community development, Credit, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Banks, Banking, Community development, Credit, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Banks, Banking, Community development, Credit, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the
12 U.S.C. 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 36, 93a, 161, 215, 215a, 481, 1814, 1816, 1828(c), 1835a, 2901 through 2908, and 3101 through 3111.
(u)
12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1814, 1816, 1828(c), 2901 through 2908, and 5412(b)(2)(B).
(u)
For the reasons set forth in the
12 U.S.C. 321, 325, 1828(c), 1842, 1843, 1844, and 2901
(u)
For the reasons set forth in the
12 U.S.C. 1814-1817, 1819-1820, 1828, 1831u and 2901-2908, 3103-3104, and 3108(a).
(u)
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Secretary of the Board under delegated authority.
By order of the Board of Directors.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Final rule; correction.
The NCUA is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
This correction is effective January 6, 2018.
Elizabeth Wirick, Senior Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 or telephone (703) 518-6540.
In FR Doc. 2017-27411, appearing on page 60290 in the
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule; official commentary.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing a final rule amending the official commentary that interprets the requirements of the Bureau's Regulation C (Home Mortgage Disclosure) to reflect the asset-size exemption threshold for banks, savings associations, and credit unions based on the annual percentage change in the average of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Based on the 2.1 percent increase in the average of the CPI-W for the 12-month period ending in November 2017, the exemption threshold is adjusted to increase to $45 million from $44 million. Therefore, banks, savings associations, and credit unions with assets of $45 million or less as of December 31, 2017, are exempt from collecting data in 2018.
This final rule is effective January 1, 2018.
Monique Chenault, Paralegal Specialist, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA) (12 U.S.C. 2801-2810) requires most mortgage lenders located in metropolitan areas to collect data about their housing related lending activity. Annually, lenders must report their data to the appropriate Federal agencies and make the data available to the public. The Bureau's Regulation C (12 CFR part 1003) implements HMDA.
Prior to 1997, HMDA exempted certain depository institutions as defined in HMDA (
The definition of “financial institution” in § 1003.2(g) provides that the Bureau will adjust the asset threshold based on the year-to-year change in the average of the CPI-W, not seasonally adjusted, for each 12-month period ending in November, rounded to the nearest $1 million. For 2017, the threshold was $44 million. During the 12-month period ending in November 2017, the average of the CPI-W increased by 2.1 percent. As a result, the exemption threshold is increased to $45 million. Thus, banks, savings associations, and credit unions with assets of $45 million or less as of December 31, 2017, are exempt from collecting data in 2018. An institution's exemption from collecting data in 2018 does not affect its responsibility to report data it was required to collect in 2017.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Pursuant to this final rule, comment 2(g)-2 in Regulation C, supplement I, is amended to update the exemption threshold. The amendment in this final rule is technical and non-discretionary, and it merely applies the formula established by Regulation C for determining any adjustments to the exemption threshold. For these reasons, the Bureau has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendment is adopted in final form.
Section 553(d) of the APA generally requires publication of a final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). At a minimum, the Bureau believes the amendments fall under the third exception to section 553(d). The Bureau finds that there is good cause to make the amendments effective on January 1, 2018. The amendment in this final rule is technical and non-discretionary, and it applies the method previously established in the agency's regulations for determining adjustments to the threshold.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320), the agency reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Banking, Banks, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2803, 2804, 2805, 5512, 5581.
1.
2.
3.
4.
i. Two institutions that are not covered merge. The surviving or newly formed institution meets all of the requirements necessary to be a covered institution. No data collection is required for the calendar year of the merger (even though the merger creates an institution that meets all of the requirements necessary to be a covered institution). When a branch office of an institution that is not covered is acquired by another institution that is not covered, and the acquisition results in a covered institution, no data collection is required for the calendar year of the acquisition.
ii. A covered institution and an institution that is not covered merge. The covered institution is the surviving institution, or a new covered institution is formed. For the calendar year of the merger, data collection is required for covered loans and applications handled in the offices of the merged institution that was previously covered and is optional for covered loans and applications handled in offices of the merged institution that was previously not covered. When a covered institution acquires a branch office of an institution that is not covered, data collection is optional for covered loans and applications handled by the acquired branch office for the calendar year of the acquisition.
iii. A covered institution and an institution that is not covered merge. The institution that is not covered is the surviving institution, or a new institution that is not covered is formed. For the calendar year of the merger, data collection is required for covered loans and applications handled in offices of the previously covered institution that took place prior to the merger. After the merger date, data collection is optional for covered loans and applications handled in the offices of the institution that was previously covered. When an institution remains not covered after acquiring a branch office of a covered institution, data collection is required for transactions of the acquired branch office that take place prior to the acquisition. Data collection by the acquired branch office is optional for transactions taking place in the remainder of the calendar year after the acquisition.
iv. Two covered institutions merge. The surviving or newly formed institution is a covered institution. Data collection is required for the entire calendar year of the merger. The surviving or newly formed institution files either a consolidated submission or separate submissions for that calendar year. When a covered institution acquires a branch office of a covered institution, data collection is required for the entire calendar year of the merger. Data for the acquired branch office may be submitted by either institution.
5.
6.
7.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule; official interpretation.
The Bureau is amending the official commentary that interprets the requirements of the Bureau's Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) to reflect a change in the asset-size threshold for certain creditors to qualify for an exemption to the requirement to establish an escrow account for a higher-priced mortgage loan based on the annual percentage change in the average of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the 12-month period ending in November. The exemption threshold is adjusted to increase to $2.112 billion from $2.069 billion. The adjustment is based on the 2.1 percent increase in the average of the CPI-W for the 12-month period ending in November 2017. Therefore, creditors with assets of less than $2.112 billion (including assets of certain affiliates) as of December 31, 2017, are exempt, if other requirements of Regulation Z also are met, from establishing escrow accounts for higher-priced mortgage loans in 2018. This asset limit will also apply during a grace period, in certain circumstances, with respect to transactions with applications received before April 1 of 2019. The adjustment to the escrows asset-size exemption threshold will also increase a similar threshold for small-creditor portfolio and balloon-payment qualified mortgages. Balloon-payment qualified mortgages that satisfy all applicable
This final rule is effective January 1, 2018.
Monique Chenault, Paralegal Specialist, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552, at (202) 435-7700.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) amended TILA to add section 129D(a), which contains a general requirement that an escrow account be established by a creditor to pay for property taxes and insurance premiums for certain first-lien higher-priced mortgage loan transactions. TILA section 129D also generally permits an exemption from the higher-priced mortgage loan escrow requirement for a creditor that meets certain requirements, including any asset-size threshold the Bureau may establish.
In the 2013 Escrows Final Rule,
During the 12-month period ending in November 2017, the average of the CPI-W increased by 2.1 percent. As a result, the exemption threshold is increased to $2.112 billion for 2018. Thus, if the creditor's assets together with the assets of its affiliates that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions during calendar year 2017 are less than $2.112 billion on December 31, 2017, and it meets the other requirements of § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii), it will be exempt in 2018 from the escrow-accounts requirement for higher-priced mortgage loans and will also be exempt from the escrow-accounts requirement for higher-priced mortgage loans for purposes of any loan consummated in 2019 for which the application was received before April 1, 2019. The adjustment to the escrows asset-size exemption threshold will also increase the threshold for small-creditor portfolio and balloon-payment qualified mortgages under Regulation Z. The requirements for small-creditor portfolio qualified mortgages at § 1026.43(e)(5)(i)(D) reference the asset threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C). Likewise, the requirements for balloon-payment qualified mortgages at § 1026.43(f)(1)(vi) reference the asset threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C). Under § 1026.32(d)(1)(ii)(C), balloon-payment qualified mortgages that satisfy all applicable criteria in § 1026.43(f)(1)(i) through (vi) and (f)(2), including being made by creditors that have (together with certain affiliates) total assets below the threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C), are also excepted from the prohibition on balloon payments for high-cost mortgages.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Pursuant to this final rule, comment 35(b)(2)(iii)-1 in Regulation Z is amended to update the exemption threshold. The amendment in this final rule is technical and merely applies the formula previously established in Regulation Z for determining any adjustments to the exemption threshold. For these reasons, the Bureau has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendment is adopted in final form.
Section 553(d) of the APA generally requires publication of a final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). At a minimum, the Bureau believes the amendments fall under the third exception to section 553(d). The Bureau finds that there is good cause to make the amendments effective on January 1, 2018. The amendment in this document is technical and applies the method previously established in the agency's regulations for automatic adjustments to the threshold.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320), the agency reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Advertising, Appraisal, Appraiser, Banking, Banks, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Mortgages,
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603-2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 3353, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601
1.
i. During the preceding calendar year, or during either of the two preceding calendar years if the application for the loan was received before April 1 of the current calendar year, a creditor extended a first-lien covered transaction, as defined in § 1026.43(b)(1), secured by a property located in an area that is either “rural” or “underserved,” as set forth in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iv).
A. In general, whether the rural-or-underserved test is satisfied depends on the creditor's activity during the preceding calendar year. However, if the application for the loan in question was received before April 1 of the current calendar year, the creditor may instead meet the rural-or-underserved test based on its activity during the next-to-last calendar year. This provides creditors with a grace period if their activity meets the rural-or-underserved test (in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(A)) in one calendar year but fails to meet it in the next calendar year.
B. A creditor meets the rural-or-underserved test for any higher-priced mortgage loan consummated during a calendar year if it extended a first-lien covered transaction in the preceding calendar year secured by a property located in a rural-or-underserved area. If the creditor does not meet the rural-or-underserved test in the preceding calendar year, the creditor meets this condition for a higher-priced mortgage loan consummated during the current calendar year only if the application for the loan was received before April 1 of the current calendar year and the creditor extended a first-lien covered transaction during the next-to-last calendar year that is secured by a property located in a rural or underserved area. The following examples are illustrative:
ii. The creditor and its affiliates together extended no more than 2,000 covered transactions, as defined in § 1026.43(b)(1), secured by first liens, that were sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred by the creditor or its affiliates to another person, or that were subject at the time of consummation to a commitment to be acquired by another person, during the preceding calendar year or during either of the two preceding calendar years if the application for the loan was received before April 1 of the current calendar year. For purposes of § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(B), a transfer of a first-lien covered transaction to “another person” includes a transfer by a creditor to its affiliate.
A. In general, whether this condition is satisfied depends on the creditor's activity during the preceding calendar year. However, if the application for the loan in question is received before April 1 of the current calendar year, the creditor may instead meet this condition based on activity during the next-to-last calendar year. This provides creditors with a grace period if their activity falls at or below the threshold in one calendar year but exceeds it in the next calendar year.
B. For example, assume that in 2015 a creditor and its affiliates together extended 1,500 loans that were sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred by the creditor or its affiliates to another person, or that were subject at the time of consummation to a commitment to be acquired by another person, and 2,500 such loans in 2016. Because the 2016 transaction activity exceeds the threshold but the 2015 transaction activity does not, the creditor satisfies this condition for exemption for a higher-priced mortgage loan consummated during 2017 if the creditor received the application for the loan before April 1, 2017, but does not satisfy this condition for a higher-priced mortgage loan consummated during 2017 if the application for the loan was received on or after April 1, 2017.
C. For purposes of § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(B), extensions of first-lien covered transactions, during the applicable time period, by all of a creditor's affiliates, as “affiliate” is defined in § 1026.32(b)(5), are counted toward the threshold in this section. “Affiliate” is defined in § 1026.32(b)(5) as “any company that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another company, as set forth in the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
iii. As of the end of the preceding calendar year, or as of the end of either of the two preceding calendar years if the application for the loan was received before April 1 of the current calendar year, the creditor and its affiliates that regularly extended covered transactions secured by first liens, together, had total assets that are less than the applicable annual asset threshold.
A. For purposes of § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C), in addition to the creditor's assets, only the assets of a creditor's “affiliate” (as defined by § 1026.32(b)(5)) that regularly extended covered transactions (as defined by § 1026.43(b)(1)) secured by first liens, are counted toward the applicable annual asset threshold.
B. Only the assets of a creditor's affiliate that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions during the applicable period are included in calculating the creditor's assets. The meaning of “regularly extended” is based on the number of times a person extends consumer credit for purposes of the definition of “creditor” in § 1026.2(a)(17). Because covered transactions are “transactions secured by a dwelling,” consistent with § 1026.2(a)(17)(v), an affiliate regularly extended covered transactions if it extended more than five covered transactions in a calendar year. Also consistent with § 1026.2(a)(17)(v), because a covered transaction may be a high-cost mortgage subject to § 1026.32, an affiliate regularly extends covered transactions if, in any 12-month period, it extends more than one covered transaction that is subject to the requirements of § 1026.32 or one or more such transactions through a mortgage broker. Thus, if a creditor's affiliate regularly extended first-lien covered transactions during the preceding calendar year, the creditor's assets as of the end of the preceding calendar year, for purposes of the asset limit, take into account the assets of that affiliate. If the creditor, together with its affiliates that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions, exceeded the asset limit in the preceding calendar year—to be eligible to operate as a small creditor for transactions with applications received before April 1 of the current calendar year—the assets of the creditor's affiliates that regularly extended covered transactions in the year before the preceding calendar year are included in calculating the creditor's assets.
C. If multiple creditors share ownership of a company that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions, the assets of the company count toward the asset limit for a co-owner creditor if the company is an “affiliate,” as defined in § 1026.32(b)(5), of the co-owner creditor. Assuming the company is not an affiliate of the co-owner creditor by virtue of any other aspect of the definition (such as by the company and co-owner creditor being under common control), the company's assets are included toward the asset limit of the co-owner creditor only if the company is controlled by the co-owner creditor, “as set forth in the Bank Holding Company Act.” If the co-owner creditor and the company are affiliates (by virtue of any aspect of the definition), the co-owner creditor counts all of the company's assets toward the asset limit, regardless of the co-owner creditor's ownership share. Further, because the co-owner and the company are mutual affiliates the company also would count all of the co-owner's assets towards its own asset limit.
D. A creditor satisfies the criterion in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C) for purposes of any higher-priced mortgage loan consummated during 2016, for example, if the creditor (together with its affiliates that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions) had total assets of less than the applicable asset threshold on December 31, 2015. A creditor that (together with its affiliates that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions) did not meet the applicable asset threshold on December 31, 2015 satisfies this criterion for a higher-priced mortgage loan consummated during 2016 if the application for the loan was received before April 1, 2016 and the creditor (together with its affiliates that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions) had total assets of less than the applicable asset threshold on December 31, 2014.
E. Under § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C), the $2,000,000,000 asset threshold adjusts automatically each year based on the year-to-year change in the average of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, not seasonally adjusted, for each 12-month period ending in November, with rounding to the nearest million dollars. The Bureau will publish notice of the asset threshold each year by amending this comment. For calendar year 2018, the asset threshold is $2,112,000,000. A creditor that together with the assets of its affiliates that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions during calendar year 2017 has total assets of less than $2,112,000,000 on December 31, 2017, satisfies this criterion for purposes of any loan consummated in 2018 and for purposes of any loan consummated in 2019 for which the application was received before April 1, 2019. For historical purposes:
iv. The creditor and its affiliates do not maintain an escrow account for any mortgage transaction being serviced by the creditor or its affiliate at the time the transaction is consummated, except as
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) AE 3007A and AE 3007C model turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by an updated analysis that lowered the life limit of fan wheels installed on the affected engines. This AD requires removal of the affected fan wheel at new, lower life limits. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 31, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 31, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Rolls-Royce Corporation, 450 South Meridian Street, Mail Code NB-02-05, Indianapolis, IN 46225; phone: 317-230-3774; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kyri Zaroyiannis, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago ACO Branch, FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone: 847-294-7836; fax: 847-294-7834; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain RRC AE 3007A and AE 3007C model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association supported the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed RRC Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) AE 3007A-A-72-424/ASB AE 3007C-A-72-327 (one document), Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017. The ASB provides updated life limits for the affected fan wheels. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 341 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective January 30, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) AE 3007A, AE 3007A1, AE 3007A1/1, AE 3007A1/2, AE 3007A1/3, AE 3007A1P, AE 3007A1E, AE 3007A3, AE 3007C and 3007C1 turbofan engines with a fan wheel, part number (P/N) 23061670, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine/turboprop Engine, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by an updated analysis that lowered the life limit of fan wheels installed on the affected engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fan wheel. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the fan wheel, uncontained release of the fan wheel, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For all AE 3007A, AE 3007A1, AE 3007A1/1, AE 3007A1/2, AE 3007A1/3, AE 3007A1P, AE 3007A1E, AE 3007A3, AE 3007C and 3007C1 engines with an installed fan wheel, P/N 23061670, after the effective date of this AD, remove the affected fan wheel before exceeding the new life limits identified in Planning Information, paragraph 1.F., of RRC Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) AE 3007A-A-72-424/ASB AE 3007C-A-72-327 (one document), Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, do not return to service any engine with a fan wheel, P/N 23061670, with a fan wheel life that exceeds the new life limits identified in Planning Information, paragraph 1.C., of RRC ASB AE 3007A-A-72-424/ASB AE 3007C-A-72-327 (one document), Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017.
(1) The Manager, Chicago ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the Chicago ACO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Kyri Zaroyiannis, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago ACO Branch, FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave. Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone: 847-294-7836; fax: 847-294-7834; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) Alert Service Bulletin AE 3007A-A-72-424/ASB AE 3007C-A-72-327 (one document), Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For RRC service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce Corporation, 450 South Meridian Street, Mail Code NB-02-05, Indianapolis, IN 46225; phone: 317-230-3774; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule; correcting amendments.
In this final rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security corrects certain provisions in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to provide accurate references and fix typographical errors, and amend several Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) to enhance consistency with the other ECCNs on the Commerce Control List (CCL). The corrections are editorial in nature and do not affect license requirements.
This rule is effective December 27, 2017.
Ivan Mogensen, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, by telephone: (202) 482-2440 or email:
This final rule updates six parts of the EAR to correct typographical errors, clarify inaccurate or unclear internal references, and correct inconsistencies in certain entries on the Commerce Control List (CCL).
Section 732.4(b) discusses steps to be taken when reviewing license exceptions for exports and reexports. In § 732.4(b)(7)(ii), there is a reference to § 740.20(g) listing ECCNs that may be eligible for subsequent export or reexport under license exception STA, following submission of a license application. However, only ECCN 9A610.a is listed in § 732.4(b)(7)(ii), while ECCNs 0A606.a, 8A609.a, 8A620.a, 8A620.b, “spacecraft” in ECCN subparagraphs 9A515.a.1, a.2, a.3, a.4, 9A515.g, and 9E515.b, .d, .e, and .f (which also now appear in § 740.20(g)), are inadvertently omitted. This correction adds the omitted items listed in § 740.20(g) to § 732.4(b)(7)(ii). Additionally, because these items include both commodities and technology, the term “aircraft” in the reference to 9A610.a is replaced with “item.”
This rule also clarifies and corrects the
Section 734.18 was created in the rule
In § 738.2(d)(1),
Additionally, in § 738.2, this final rule makes a correction in § 738.2(d)(2)(iv)(C)(
Section 740.20(g)(1) lists 9x515 and “600 series” ECCNs that are eligible for license exception Strategic Trade Authorization. This includes ECCNs 9A515.a.1, .a.2, .a.3, .a.4, and .g, 9A610.a, and technology ECCNs 9E515.b, .d, .e, and .f. In the final rule
This rule amends § 746.9(a) by removing an outdated reference to § 734.2(b) for the definitions of “deemed export” and “deemed reexport,” as that section is currently reserved, and replacing it with references to §§ 734.13(b) and 734.14(b), because the relevant definitions for deemed “export” and deemed “reexport” has been found in those two sections of the EAR since the publication of the final rule
This rule makes corrections to six ECCNs in supplement No. 1 to part 774, “Commerce Control List,” by correcting misspellings and creating conforming changes. The corrections are as follows:
Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, has been in lapse. However, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017) has continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule does not impose any regulatory burden on the public and is consistent with the goals of Executive Order 13563. This rule has been designated not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
2. This final rule does not contain information collections subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. The Department of Commerce finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act otherwise requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because they are unnecessary. The revisions made by this rule are administrative in nature and do not affect the privileges and obligations of the public. Additionally, it is important that the edits and clarifications are added as soon as possible to prevent improper interpretation of the EAR. The Department also finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring notice and comment because these changes are limited to providing guidance on existing interpretations of current EAR provisions. Because these revisions are not substantive changes to the EAR, the
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Inventions and patents, Research, Science and technology
Exports
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, parts 732, 734, 738, 740, 746, and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) are amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4601
(b) * * *
(7) * * *
(ii) If you are going to file a license application with BIS for the export, reexport, or in-country transfer for aircraft or military vessels controlled under ECCNs 0A606.a, 8A609.a, 8A620.a, 8A620.b, certain “spacecraft” controlled under ECCN subparagraphs 9A515.a.1, a.2, a.3, a.4 or 9A515.g, ECCN 9A610.a, or technology under ECCNs 9E515.b, .d, .e, or .f, § 740.20(g) permits you to request in the application that subsequent exports of the type of aircraft, spacecraft, military vessels, or technology at issue be eligible for export under License Exception STA. The types of “items” controlled under ECCNs 0A606.a, 8A609.a, 8A620.a, 8A620.b, certain spacecraft controlled under ECCN subparagraphs 9A515.a.1, a.2, a.3, a.4 or 9A515.g, ECCN 9A610.a, and technology ECCNs 9E515.b, .d, .e, or .f, that have been determined to be eligible for License Exception STA pursuant to § 740.20(g) are identified in the License Exceptions paragraphs of ECCNs 0A606, 8A609, 8A620, 9A610, 9A515, and 9E515. Supplement No. 2 to part 748, paragraph (w) (License Exception STA eligibility requests), contains the instructions for such applications.
If you intend to use License Exception STA, return to paragraphs (a) and then (b) of this section to review the Steps regarding the use of license exceptions.
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Since Reasons for Control are not mutually exclusive, numbers are assigned in order of precedence. As an
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(C) * * *
(
50 U.S.C. 4601
(g) * * *
(1)
50 U.S.C. 4601
(a)
50 U.S.C. 4601
For purposes of paragraph .a, “ground vehicles” include (i) tanks and armored vehicles manufactured prior to 1956 that have not been modified since 1955 and that do not contain a functional weapon or a weapon capable of becoming functional through repair; (ii) military railway trains except those that are armed or are “specially designed” to launch missiles; (iii) unarmored military recovery and other support vehicles; (iv) unarmored, unarmed vehicles with mounts or hard points for firearms of .50 caliber or less; and (v) trailers “specially designed” for use with other ground vehicles enumerated in USML Category VII or ECCN 0A606.a, and not
A ground vehicle's being “specially designed” for military use for purposes of determining controls under paragraph .a. entails a structural, electrical or mechanical feature involving one or more “components” that are “specially designed” for military use. Such “components” include:
a. Pneumatic tire casings of a kind “specially designed” to be bullet-proof;
b. Armored protection of vital “parts” (e.g., fuel tanks or vehicle cabs);
c. Special reinforcements or mountings for weapons;
d. Black-out lighting.
b. Other ground vehicles, “parts” and “components,” as follows:
b.1. Unarmed vehicles that are derived from civilian vehicles and that have all of the following:
b.1.a. Manufactured or fitted with materials or “components” other than reactive or electromagnetic armor to provide ballistic protection to level III (National Institute of Justice standard 0108.01, September 1985) or better;
b.1.b. A transmission to provide drive to both front and rear wheels simultaneously, including those vehicles having additional wheels for load bearing purposes whether driven or not;
b.1.c. Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 4,500 kg; and
b.1.d. Designed or modified for off-road use.
b.2. “Parts” and “components” having all of the following:
b.2.a. “Specially designed” for vehicles specified in paragraph .b.1 of this entry; and
b.2.b. Providing ballistic protection to level III (National Institute of Justice standard 0108.01, September 1985) or better.
Ground vehicles otherwise controlled by 0A606.b.1 that contain reactive or electromagnetic armor are subject to the controls of USML Category VII.
ECCN 0A606.b.1 does not control civilian vehicles “specially designed” for transporting money or valuables.
“Unarmed” means not having installed weapons, installed mountings for weapons, or special reinforcements for mounts for weapons.
c. Air-cooled diesel engines and engine blocks for armored vehicles that weigh more than 40 tons.
d. Fully automatic continuously variable transmissions for tracked combat vehicles.
e. Deep water fording kits “specially designed” for ground vehicles controlled by ECCN 0A606.a or USML Category VII.
f. Self-launching bridge “components” not enumerated in USML Category VII(g) “specially designed” for deployment by ground vehicles enumerated in USML Category VII or this ECCN.
g. through w. [RESERVED]
x. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” that are “specially designed” for a commodity enumerated or otherwise described in ECCN 0A606 (other than 0A606.b or 0A606.y) or a defense article enumerated in USML Category VII and not elsewhere specified on the USML or in 0A606.y.
Forgings, castings, and other unfinished products, such as extrusions and machined bodies, that have reached a stage in manufacture where they are clearly identifiable by mechanical properties, material composition, geometry, or function as commodities controlled by ECCN 0A606.x are controlled by ECCN 0A606.x.
“Parts,” “components,” “accessories” and “attachments” enumerated in USML paragraph VII(g) are subject to the controls of that paragraph. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories” and “attachments” described in ECCN 0A606.y are subject to the controls of that paragraph.
y. Specific “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” for a commodity enumerated or otherwise described in this ECCN (other than ECCN 0A606.b) or for a defense article in USML Category VII and not elsewhere specified on the USML or the CCL, as follows, and “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” therefor:
y.1. Brake discs, rotors, drums, calipers, cylinders, pads, shoes, lines, hoses, vacuum boosters, and parts therefor;
y.2. Alternators and generators;
y.3. Axles;
y.4. Batteries;
y.5. Bearings (
y.6. Cables, cable assembles, and connectors;
y.7. Cooling system hoses;
y.8. Hydraulic, fuel, oil, and air filters, other than those controlled by ECCN 1A004;
y.9. Gaskets and o-rings;
y.10. Hydraulic system hoses, fittings, couplings, adapters, and valves;
y.11. Latches and hinges;
y.12. Lighting systems, fuses, and “components;”
y.13. Pneumatic hoses, fittings, adapters, couplings, and valves;
y.14. Seats, seat assemblies, seat supports, and harnesses;
y.15. Tires, except run flat; and
y.16. Windows, except those for armored vehicles.
a. “Software” “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of commodities controlled by ECCNs 0A606 (except for ECCNs 0A606.b or 0A606.y), 0B606, or 0C606.
b. [RESERVED]
a. “Technology” “required” for the “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of commodities enumerated or otherwise described in ECCN 0A606 (except for ECCNs 0A606.b or 0A606.y), 0B606, or 0C606.
b. [RESERVED]
a. Containment facilities and related equipment, as follows:
a.1. Complete containment facilities at P3 or P4 containment level.
P3 or P4 (BL3, BL4, L3, L4) containment levels are as specified in the WHO Laboratory Biosafety Manual (3rd edition, Geneva, 2004).
a.2. Equipment designed for fixed installation in containment facilities specified in paragraph a.1 of this ECCN, as follows:
a.2.a. Double-door pass-through decontamination autoclaves;
a.2.b. Breathing air suit decontamination showers;
a.2.c. Mechanical-seal or inflatable-seal walkthrough doors.
b. Fermenters and components as follows:
b.1. Fermenters capable of cultivation of micro-organisms or of live cells for the production of viruses or toxins, without the propagation of aerosols, having a capacity of 20 liters or greater.
b.2. Components designed for such fermenters, as follows:
b.2.a. Cultivation chambers designed to be sterilized or disinfected in situ;
b.2.b. Cultivation chamber holding devices;
b.2.c. Process control units capable of simultaneously monitoring and controlling two or more fermentation system parameters (
Fermenters include bioreactors (including single-use (disposable) bioreactors), chemostats and continuous-flow systems.
c. Centrifugal separators capable of the continuous separation of pathogenic microorganisms, without the propagation of aerosols, and having all of the following characteristics:
c.1. One or more sealing joints within the steam containment area;
c.2. A flow rate greater than 100 liters per hour;
c.3. “Parts” or “components” of polished stainless steel or titanium; and
c.4. Capable of in-situ steam sterilization in a closed state.
Technical Note: Centrifugal separators include decanters.
d. Cross (tangential) flow filtration equipment and “accessories,” as follows:
d.1. Cross (tangential) flow filtration equipment capable of separation of microorganisms, viruses, toxins or cell cultures having all of the following characteristics:
d.1.a. A total filtration area equal to or greater than 1 square meter (1 m2); and
d.1.b. Having any of the following characteristics:
d.1.b.1. Capable of being sterilized or disinfected in-situ; or
d.1.b.2. Using disposable or single-use filtration “parts” or “components”.
d.2. Cross (tangential) flow filtration “parts” or “components” (
In this ECCN, “sterilized” denotes the elimination of all viable microbes from the equipment through the use of either physical (e.g., steam) or chemical agents. “Disinfected” denotes the destruction of potential microbial infectivity in the equipment through the use of chemical agents with a germicidal effect. “Disinfection” and “sterilization” are distinct from “sanitization”, the latter referring to cleaning procedures designed to lower the microbial content of equipment without necessarily achieving elimination of all microbial infectivity or viability.
e. Steam, gas or vapor sterilizable freeze-drying equipment with a condenser capacity of 10 kg of ice or greater in 24 hours (10 liters of water or greater in 24 hours) and less than 1000 kg of ice in 24 hours (less than 1,000 liters of water in 24 hours).
f. Spray-drying equipment capable of drying toxins or pathogenic microorganisms having all of the following characteristics:
f.1. A water evaporation capacity of ≥ 0.4 kg/h and ≤ 400 kg/h;
f.2. The ability to generate a typical mean product particle size of ≤ 10 micrometers with existing fittings or by minimal modification of the spray-dryer with atomization nozzles enabling generation of the required particle size;
f.3. Capable of being sterilized or disinfected in situ.
g. Protective and containment equipment, as follows:
g.1. Protective full or half suits, or hoods dependent upon a tethered external air supply and operating under positive pressure;
g.2. Biocontainment chambers, isolators, or biological safety cabinets having all of the following characteristics, for normal operation:
g.2.a. Fully enclosed workspace where the operator is separated from the work by a physical barrier;
g.2.b. Able to operate at negative pressure;
g.2.c. Means to safely manipulate items in the workspace; and
g.2.d. Supply and exhaust air to and from the workspace is high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtered.
2B352.g.2 controls class III biosafety cabinets, as specified in the WHO Laboratory Biosafety Manual (3rd edition, Geneva, 2004) or constructed in accordance with national standards, regulations or guidance.
2B352.g.2 does not control isolators “specially designed” for barrier nursing or transportation of infected patients.
h. Aerosol inhalation equipment designed for aerosol challenge testing with microorganisms, viruses or toxins, as follows:
h.1. Whole-body exposure chambers having a capacity of 1 cubic meter or greater.
h.2. Nose-only exposure apparatus utilizing directed aerosol flow and having a capacity for the exposure of 12 or more rodents, or two or more animals other than rodents, and closed animal restraint tubes designed for use with such apparatus.
i. Spraying or fogging systems and “parts” and “components” therefor, as follows:
i.1. Complete spraying or fogging systems, “specially designed” or modified for fitting to “aircraft,” “lighter than air vehicles,” or “UAVs,” capable of delivering, from a liquid suspension, an initial droplet `VMD' of less than 50 microns at a flow rate of greater than 2 liters per minute;
i.2. Spray booms or arrays of `aerosol generating units', “specially designed” or
i.3. `Aerosol generating units' “specially designed” for fitting to the systems specified in paragraphs i.1 or i.2 of this ECCN.
1. `Aerosol generating units' are devices “specially designed” or modified for fitting to “aircraft” and include nozzles, rotary drum atomizers and similar devices.
2. This ECCN does not control spraying or fogging systems, “parts” and “components,” as specified in 2B352.i, that are demonstrated not to be capable of delivering biological agents in the form of infectious aerosols.
3. Volume Median Diameter `VMD' for droplets produced by spray equipment or nozzles “specially designed” for use on “aircraft” or “UAVs” should be measured using either of the following methods (pending the adoption of internationally accepted standards):
a. Doppler “laser” method,
b. Forward “laser” diffraction method.
a. Surface vessels of war “specially designed” for a military use and not enumerated or otherwise described in the USML.
8A609.a includes: (i) Underway replenishment ships; (ii) surface vessel and submarine tender and repair ships, except vessels that are “specially designed” to support naval nuclear propulsion plants; (iii) non-submersible submarine rescue ships; (iv) other auxiliaries (e.g., AGDS, AGF, AGM, AGOR, AGOS, AH, AP, ARL, AVB, AVM, and AVT); (v) amphibious warfare craft, except those that are armed; and (vi) unarmored and unarmed coastal, patrol, roadstead, and Coast Guard and other patrol craft with mounts or hard points for firearms of .50 caliber or less.
For purposes of paragraph .a, surface vessels of war includes vessels “specially designed” for military use that are not identified in paragraph (a) of ITAR § 121.15, including any demilitarized vessels, regardless of origin or designation, manufactured prior to 1950 and that have not been modified since 1949. For purposes of this note, the term modified does not include incorporation of safety features required by law, cosmetic changes (e.g., different paint), or the addition of “parts” or “components” available prior to 1950.
b. Non-magnetic diesel engines with a power output of 50 hp or more and either of the following:
b.1. Non-magnetic content exceeding 25% of total weight; or
b.2. Non-magnetic parts other than crankcase, block, head, pistons, covers, end plates, valve facings, gaskets, and fuel, lubrication and other supply lines.
c. through w. [RESERVED]
x. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories” and “attachments” that are “specially designed” for a commodity enumerated or otherwise described in ECCN 8A609 (except for 8A609.y) or a defense article enumerated or otherwise described in USML Category VI and not specified elsewhere on the USML, in 8A609.y or 3A611.y.
Forgings, castings, and other unfinished products, such as extrusions and machined bodies, that have reached a stage in manufacturing where they are clearly identifiable by mechanical properties, material composition, geometry, or function as commodities controlled by ECCN 8A609.x are controlled by ECCN 8A609.x.
“Parts,” “components,” “accessories” and “attachments” specified in USML subcategory VI(f) are subject to the controls of that paragraph. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” specified in ECCN 8A609.y are subject to the controls of that paragraph.
y. Specific “parts,” “components,” “accessories” and “attachments” “specially designed” for a commodity subject to control in this ECCN or for a defense article in USML Category VI and not elsewhere specified in the USML, as follows, and “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” therefor:
y.1. Public address (PA) systems;
y.2. Filters and filter assemblies, hoses, lines, fittings, couplings, and brackets for pneumatic, hydraulic, oil and fuel systems;
y.3. Galleys;
y.4. Lavatories;
y.5. Magnetic compass, magnetic azimuth detector;
y.6. Medical facilities;
y.7. Potable water tanks, filters, valves, hoses, lines, fittings, couplings, and brackets;
y.8. Panel knobs, indicators, switches, buttons, and dials whether unfiltered or filtered for use with night vision imaging systems;
y.9. Emergency lighting;
y.10. Gauges and indicators;
y.11. Audio selector panels.
a. `Military Aircraft' “specially designed” for a military use that are not enumerated in USML paragraph VIII(a).
For purposes of paragraph .a the term `military aircraft' means the LM-100J aircraft and any aircraft “specially designed” for a military use that are not enumerated in USML paragraph VIII(a). The term includes: Trainer aircraft; cargo aircraft; utility fixed wing aircraft; military helicopters; observation aircraft; military non-expansive balloons and other lighter than air aircraft; and unarmed military aircraft, regardless of origin or designation. Aircraft with modifications made to incorporate safety of flight features or other FAA or NTSB modifications such as transponders and air data recorders are “unmodified” for the purposes of this paragraph .a.
a. Were first manufactured before 1946;
b. Do not incorporate defense articles enumerated or otherwise described on the U.S. Munitions List, unless the items are required to meet safety or airworthiness standards of a Wassenaar Arrangement Participating State; and
c. Do not incorporate weapons enumerated or otherwise described on the U.S. Munitions List, unless inoperable and incapable of being returned to operation.
b. L-100 aircraft manufactured prior to 2013.
c.-d. [Reserved]
e. Mobile aircraft arresting and engagement runway systems for aircraft controlled by either USML Category VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a.
f. Pressure refueling equipment and equipment that facilitates operations in confined areas, “specially designed” for aircraft controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a.
g. Aircrew life support equipment, aircrew safety equipment and other devices for emergency escape from aircraft controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a.
h. Parachutes, paragliders, complete parachute canopies, harnesses, platforms, electronic release mechanisms, “specially designed” for use with aircraft controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a, and “equipment” “specially designed” for military high altitude parachutists, such as suits, special helmets, breathing systems, and navigation equipment.
i. Controlled opening equipment or automatic piloting systems, designed for parachuted loads.
j. Ground effect machines (GEMS), including surface effect machines and air cushion vehicles, “specially designed” for use by a military.
k. through s. [Reserved]
t. Composite structures, laminates, and manufactures thereof “specially designed” for unmanned aerial vehicles controlled under USML Category VIII(a) with a range equal to or greater than 300 km.
Composite structures, laminates, and manufactures thereof “specially designed” for unmanned aerial vehicles controlled under USML Category VIII(a) with a maximum range less than 300 km are controlled in paragraph .x of this entry.
u. Apparatus and devices “specially designed” for the handling, control, activation and non-ship-based launching of UAVs or drones controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a, and capable of a range equal to or greater than 300 km.
Apparatus and devices “specially designed” for the handling, control, activation and non-ship-based launching of UAVs or drones controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a with a maximum range less than 300 km are controlled in paragraph .x of this entry.
v. Radar altimeters designed or modified for use in UAVs or drones controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a., and capable of delivering at least 500 kilograms payload to a range of at least 300 km.
Radar altimeters designed or modified for use in UAVs or drones controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a. that are not capable of delivering at least 500 kilograms payload to a range of at least 300 km are controlled in paragraph .x of this entry.
w. Pneumatic hydraulic, mechanical, electro-optical, or electromechanical flight control systems (including fly-by-wire and fly-by-light systems) and attitude control equipment designed or modified for UAVs or drones controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a., and capable of delivering at least 500 kilograms payload to a range of at least 300 km.
Pneumatic, hydraulic, mechanical, electro-optical, or electromechanical flight control systems (including fly-by-wire and fly-by-light systems) and attitude control equipment designed or modified for UAVs or drones controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a., not capable of delivering at least 500 kilograms payload to a range of at least 300 km are controlled in paragraph .x of this entry.
x. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” that are “specially designed” for a commodity enumerated or otherwise described in ECCN 9A610 (except for 9A610.y) or a defense article enumerated or otherwise described in USML Category VIII and not elsewhere specified on the USML or in 9A610.y, 9A619.y, or 3A611.y.
y. Specific “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” for a commodity subject to control in this entry, ECCN 9A619, or for a defense article in USML Categories VIII or XIX and not elsewhere specified in the USML or the CCL, and other aircraft commodities “specially designed” for a military use, as follows, and “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments” “specially designed” therefor:
y.1. Aircraft tires;
y.2. Analog gauges and indicators;
y.3. Audio selector panels;
y.4. Check valves for hydraulic and pneumatic systems;
y.5. Crew rest equipment;
y.6. Ejection seat mounted survival aids;
y.7. Energy dissipating pads for cargo (for pads made from paper or cardboard);
y.8. Fluid filters and filter assemblies;
y.9. Galleys;
y.10. Fluid hoses, straight and unbent lines (for a commodity subject to control in this entry or defense article in USML Category VIII), and fittings, couplings, clamps (for a commodity subject to control in this entry or defense article in USML Category VIII) and brackets therefor;
y.11. Lavatories;
y.12. Life rafts;
y.13. Magnetic compass, magnetic azimuth detector;
y.14. Medical litter provisions;
y.15. Cockpit or cabin mirrors;
y.16. Passenger seats including palletized seats;
y.17. Potable water storage systems;
y.18. Public address (PA) systems;
y.19. Steel brake wear pads (does not include sintered mix or carbon/carbon materials);
y.20. Underwater locator beacons;
y.21. Urine collection bags/pads/cups/pumps;
y.22. Windshield washer and wiper systems;
y.23. Filtered and unfiltered panel knobs, indicators, switches, buttons, and dials;
y.24. Lead-acid and Nickel-Cadmium batteries;
y.25. Propellers, propeller systems, and propeller blades used with reciprocating engines;
y.26. Fire extinguishers;
y.27. Flame and smoke/CO2 detectors;
y.28. Map cases;
y.29. `Military Aircraft' that were first manufactured from 1946 to 1955 that do not incorporate defense articles enumerated or otherwise described on the U.S. Munitions List, unless the items are required to meet safety or airworthiness standards of a Wassenaar Arrangement Participating State; and do not incorporate weapons enumerated or otherwise described on the U.S. Munitions List, unless inoperable and incapable of being returned to operation;
y.30. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories,” and “attachments,” other than electronic items or navigation equipment, for use in or with a commodity controlled by ECCN 9A610.h;
y.31. Identification plates and nameplates; and
y.32. Fluid manifolds.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the reagents for molecular diagnostic instrument test systems into class I (general controls). We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class I (general controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective December 27, 2017. The classification was applicable on November 19, 2013.
Steven Tjoe, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4550, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5866,
Upon request, FDA has classified the reagents for molecular diagnostic instrument test systems as class I (general controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On October 4, 2013, Illumina, Inc., submitted a request for De Novo classification of the MiSeqDx Universal Kit 1.0. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class I if general controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(A)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class I. FDA has determined that general controls will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on November 19, 2013, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class I. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 862.3800. We have named the generic type of device reagents for molecular diagnostic instrument test systems, and it is identified as reagents other than analyte specific reagents used as part of molecular diagnostic test systems, such as polymerases, nucleotides and nucleotide mixes, master mixes in which individual reagents are optimized to be used together, and labeled nucleic acid molecules.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device in table 1.
Section 510(
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order refers to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820, regarding current good manufacturing practices, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 862 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the flow cytometric test system for hematopoietic neoplasms into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the flow cytometric test system for hematopoietic neoplasms' classification. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective December 27, 2017. The classification was applicable on June 29, 2017.
Ryan Lubert, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4545, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-6357,
Upon request, FDA has classified the flow cytometric test system for hematopoietic neoplasms as class II (special controls), which we have
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and part 807 (21 U.S.C. 360(k) and 21 CFR part 807, respectively).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On October 3, 2016, Beckman Coulter submitted a request for De Novo classification of the ClearLLab Reagents (T1, T2, B1, B2, M). FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on June 29, 2017, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 864.7010. We have named the generic type of device flow cytometric test system for hematopoietic neoplasms, and it is identified as a device that consists of reagents for immunophenotyping of human cells in relation to the level of expression, antigen density, and distribution of specific cellular markers. These reagents are used as an aid in the differential diagnosis or monitoring of hematologically abnormal patients having or suspected of having hematopoietic neoplasms. The results should be interpreted by a pathologist or equivalent professional in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Blood, Medical devices, Packaging and containers.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 864 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(a)
(b)
(1) Premarket notification submissions must include the following information:
(i) The indications for use must indicate the clinical hematopoietic neoplasms for which the assay was designed and validated, for example, chronic leukemia or lymphoma.
(ii) A detailed device description including the following:
(A) A detailed description of all test components, all required reagents, and all instrumentation and equipment, including illustrations or photographs of nonstandard equipment or methods.
(B) Detailed documentation of the device software including, but not limited to, standalone software applications and hardware-based devices that incorporate software.
(C) A detailed description of methodology and assay procedure.
(D) A description of appropriate internal and external quality control materials that are recommended or provided. The description must identify those control elements that are incorporated into the testing procedure, if applicable.
(E) Detailed specifications for sample collection, processing, and storage.
(F) Detailed specification of the criteria for test results interpretation and reporting including pre-established templates.
(G) If applicable, based on the output of the results, a description of the specific number of events to collect, result outputs, and analytical sensitivity of the assay that will be reported.
(iii) Information that demonstrates the performance characteristics of the test, including:
(A) Device performance data from either a method comparison study comparing the specific lymphocyte cell markers to a predicate device or data collected through a clinical study demonstrating clinical validity using well-characterized clinical specimens. Samples must be representative of the intended use population of the device including hematologic neoplasms and the specific sample types for which the test is indicated for use.
(B) If applicable, device performance data from a clinical study demonstrating clinical validity for parameters not established in a predicate device of this generic type using well-characterized prospectively obtained clinical specimens including all hematologic neoplasms and the specific sample types for which the device is indicated for use.
(C) Device precision data using clinical samples to evaluate the within-lot, between-lot, within-run, between run, site-to-site and total variation using a minimum of three sites, of which at least two sites must be external sites. Results shall be reported as the standard deviation and percentage coefficient of variation for each level tested.
(D) Reproducibility data generated using a minimum of three lots of reagents to evaluate mean fluorescence intensity and variability of the recovery of the different markers and/or cell populations.
(E) Data from specimen and reagent carryover testing performed using well-established methods (
(F) Specimen and prepared sample stability data established for each specimen matrix in the anticoagulant combinations and storage/use conditions that will be indicated.
(G) A study testing anticoagulant equivalency in all claimed specimen type/anticoagulant combinations using clinical specimens that are representative of the intended use population of the device.
(H) Analytic sensitivity data using a dilution panel created from clinical samples.
(I) Analytical specificity data, including interference and cross-contamination.
(J) Device stability data, including real-time stability of reagents under various storage times and temperatures.
(K) For devices that include polyclonal antibodies, Fluorescence Minus One (FMO) studies to evaluate non-specific binding for all polyclonal antibodies. Each FMO tube is compared to reagent reference to demonstrate that no additional population appears when one marker is absent. Pre-specified acceptance criteria must be provided and followed.
(L) For devices indicated for use as a semi-quantitative test, linearity data using a dilution panel created from clinical samples.
(M) For devices indicated for use as a semi-quantitative test, clinically relevant analytical sensitivity data,
(iv) Identification of risk mitigation elements used by the device, including a detailed description of all additional procedures, methods, and practices incorporated into the instructions for use that mitigate risks associated with testing the device.
(2) The 21 CFR 809.10 compliant labeling must include the following:
(i) The intended use statement in the 21 CFR 809.10(a)(2) and (b)(2) compliant labeling must include a statement that the results should be interpreted by a pathologist or equivalent professional in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings. The intended use statement must also include information on what the device detects and measures, whether the device is qualitative, semi-quantitative, and/or quantitative, the clinical indications for which the device is to be used, and the specific population(s) for which the device is intended.
(ii) A detailed description of the performance studies conducted to comply with paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section and a summary of the results.
(3) As part of the risk management activities performed under 21 CFR 820.30 design controls, product labeling and instruction manuals must include clear examples of all expected phenotypic patterns and gating strategies using well-defined clinical samples representative of both abnormal and normal cellular populations. These samples must be selected based upon the indications described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the computerized behavioral therapy device for psychiatric disorders into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the computerized behavioral therapy device for psychiatric disorders' classification. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective December 27, 2017. The classification was applicable on September 14, 2017.
Patrick Antkowiak, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2663, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-3705,
Upon request, FDA has classified the computerized behavioral therapy device for psychiatric disorders as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and part 807 (21 U.S.C. 360(k) and 21 CFR part 807, respectively).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On May 16, 2016, Pear Therapeutics, Inc., submitted a request for De Novo classification of the reSET. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on September 14, 2017, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 882.5801. We have named the generic type of device computerized behavioral therapy device for psychiatric disorders, and it is identified as a prescription only device intended to provide a computerized version of condition-specific behavioral therapy as an adjunct to clinician supervised outpatient treatment to patients with psychiatric conditions. The digital therapy is intended to provide patients access to therapy tools used during treatment sessions to improve recognized treatment outcomes.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
At the time of classification, computerized behavioral therapy devices for psychiatric disorders are for prescription use only. Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) and 21 CFR 801.5, as long as the conditions of 21 CFR 801.109 are met (referring to 21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)).
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices, Neurological devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 882 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(a)
(b)
(1) Clinical data must be provided to fulfill the following:
(i) Describe a validated model of behavioral therapy for the psychiatric disorder; and
(ii) Validate the model of behavioral therapy as implemented by the device.
(2) Software must be described in detail in the software requirements specification (SRS) and software design specification (SDS). Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed. Software documentation must demonstrate that the device effectively implements the behavioral therapy model.
(3) The following labeling must be provided:
(i) Patient and physician labeling must include instructions for use, including images that demonstrate how to interact with the device.
(ii) Patient and physician labeling must list compatible devices.
(iii) Patient and physician labeling must include a warning that the device is not intended for use as a standalone therapy.
(iv) Patient and physician labeling must include a warning that the device does not represent a substitution for the patient's medication.
(v) Physician labeling must include a summary of the clinical testing with the device.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the external vagal nerve stimulator for headache into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the external vagal nerve stimulator for headache's classification. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective December 27, 2017. The classification was applicable on April 14, 2017.
William Heetderks, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2682, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-5360,
Upon request, FDA has classified the external vagal nerve stimulator for headache as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On October 16, 2015, electroCore, LLC, submitted a request for De Novo classification of the gammaCore Non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulator. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on April 14, 2017, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 882.5892. We have named the generic type of device external vagal nerve stimulator for headache, and it is identified as a prescription device used to apply an electrical current to a patient's vagus nerve through electrodes placed on the skin for the treatment of headache.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
At the time of classification, external vagal nerve stimulators for headache are for prescription use only. Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) and 21 CFR 801.5, as long as the conditions of 21 CFR 801.109 are met (referring to 21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)).
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices, Neurological devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 882 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(a)
(b)
(1) The technical parameters of the device, including waveform, output modes, maximum output voltage and current (with 500, 2,000, and 10,000 ohm loads), pulse duration, frequency, net charge (μC) per pulse, maximum phase charge at 500 ohms, maximum current density (mA/cm
(2) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis shall be performed.
(3) Biocompatibility evaluation of the patient-contacting components of the device shall be performed.
(4) The device shall be tested for electrical, thermal, and mechanical safety, and for electromagnetic compatibility (EMC).
(5) The labeling must include:
(i) Instructions for proper use of the device, including placement of the device on the patient; and
(ii) Instructions on care and cleaning of the device.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the rectal balloon for prostate immobilization into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the rectal balloon for prostate immobilization's classification. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective December 27, 2017. The classification was applicable on January 28, 2014.
Steven Tjoe, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4550, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5866,
Upon request, FDA has classified the rectal balloon for prostate immobilization as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s. As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or PMA in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On July 15, 2013, RadiaDyne, LLC submitted a request for De Novo classification of the prostate immobilizer rectal balloon. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on January 28, 2014, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 892.5720. We have named the generic type of device rectal balloon for prostate immobilization, and it is identified as a single use, inflatable, non-powered positioning device placed in the rectum to immobilize the prostate in patients undergoing radiation therapy. The device is intended to be used during all the phases of radiation therapy, including treatment planning, image verification, and radiotherapy delivery.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k).
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices, Radiation protection, X-rays.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 892 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(a)
(b)
(1) The premarket notification submission must include methodology and results of the following non-clinical and clinical performance testing:
(i) Biocompatibility testing of the final finished device;
(ii) If provided sterile, sterilization validation;
(iii) If not provided sterile, bioburden testing of the final finished device;
(iv) Shelf life and expiration date validation; and
(v) Performance testing including but not limited to:
(A) Venting mechanism (if device has a vent mechanism);
(B) Safety mechanism(s) to prevent advancement beyond its intended safe placement; and
(C) Structural integrity testing (
(2) Labeling that includes:
(i) Appropriate warnings and contraindications, including, but not limited to the following statements:
(A) “Do not transport the patient with the rectal balloon inserted. The balloon should be removed prior to transport.”;
(B) “Failure to perform the standard imaging position verification protocol may cause the device to not perform as intended.”;
(C) “Reduce the rectal balloon fill volume if the patient experiences discomfort due to the rectal balloon inflation.”; and
(D) “Do not apply excessive pressure/force on the shaft or tubing of the rectal balloon.”
(ii) Adequate instructions for use on the proper insertion procedure, positioning, and inflation of the rectal balloon;
(iii) Whether the device is sterile or non-sterile; and
(iv) An expiration date.
National Indian Gaming Commission.
Final rule.
The National Indian Gaming Commission is amending its minimum technical standards for Class II gaming systems and equipment. The rule amends the regulations that describe how tribal governments, tribal gaming regulatory authorities, and tribal gaming operations comply with the minimum technical standards.
Austin Badger, National Indian Gaming Commission; 1849 C Street NW, MS 1621, Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: 202-632-7003.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or Act), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
When implemented in 2008, the part 547 minimum technical standards introduced several new requirements for Class II gaming systems designed to protect the security and integrity of Class II gaming systems and tribal operations. The Commission understood, however, that some existing Class II gaming systems might not meet all of the requirements of the minimum technical standards. Therefore, to avoid any potentially significant economic and practical consequences of requiring immediate compliance, the Commission implemented a five-year sunset provision which allowed eligible gaming systems manufactured before November 10, 2008 (2008 Systems) to remain on the gaming floor. The Commission believed that a five-year period was sufficient for market forces to move systems toward compliance with the standards applicable to systems manufactured on or after November 10, 2008.
On September 21, 2012, the NIGC published a final rule in the
Now, with the November 10, 2018, sunset for 2008 Systems approaching, the Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of Indian gaming to amend the regulations that describe how tribal governments, tribal gaming regulatory authorities, and tribal gaming operations comply with the minimum technical standards. The amendments include removal of the sunset provision, providing for additional annual review of 2008 Systems by TGRAs, and requiring all modifications of Class II gaming systems to be subject to a uniform independent laboratory testing and TGRA approval process. The Commission has determined that the amended rule continues to fulfill the rule's ultimate goal of assisting tribes in ensuring the security and integrity of Class II games played with technologic aids, the auditability of the gaming revenue that those games earn, and accounting and allowing for evolving and new technology.
The development of the rule formally began with the Commission's notice to tribal leaders by letter dated November 22, 2016, of the topic's inclusion in the Commission's 2017 tribal consultation series. Thereafter, on March 23, 2017, in Tulsa, OK, and April 12, 2017, in San Diego, CA, the NIGC consulted on the 2008 Systems and associated sunset provision of the minimum technical standards. The Commission also solicited written comments through May 31, 2017. In addition, NIGC staff attended meetings with the National Indian Gaming Association Class II Subcommittee, as well as other representatives from the gaming industry. The consultations and meetings, combined with the written comments, proved invaluable in the development of a discussion draft issued on June 14, 2017, which, among other proposed amendments, proposed removing the November 10, 2018, sunset for 2008 Systems. Additional written comments responsive to the discussion draft were solicited through July 15, 2017.
The Commission subsequently published a proposed rule in the
In response to the proposed rule the Commission received the following comments.
First and foremost, the Commission's minimum technical standards are just that—minimums. The standards implemented by tribes applicable to gaming operations within their lands are not required nor intended to be uniform. Each tribe is empowered and encouraged to implement additional or more stringent tribal standards applicable to Class II gaming systems operating within their lands. IGRA and the Commission recognize that tribes have the primary responsibility for regulating Class II gaming within their lands. A stated purpose of IGRA is to promote tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and self-government. 25 U.S.C. 2702(1). The minimum technical standards are therefore designed to give TGRAs the primary role in approving Class II gaming systems and modifications.
The Commission's minimum technical standards represent the standards that, in the Commission's judgment, are best able to assist TGRAs with ensuring the integrity and security of Class II gaming, ensuring the accountability of Class II gaming revenue, and providing guidance to equipment manufacturers and distributors of Class II gaming systems. Importantly, the minimum technical standards are one component of a regulatory framework that includes the Commission's minimum internal control standards (MICS). 25 CFR part 543. The Commission endeavored to place all minimum requirements for the design, construction, and implementation of Class II gaming systems into the minimum technical standards and all minimum requirements for the operation of such systems, and the authorization, recognition, and recordation of gaming and gaming-related transactions into the MICS. The MICS apply uniformly to the operation of all Class II gaming, irrespective of Class II gaming system manufacture date.
The Commission's minimum technical standards and MICS make meaningful the Commission's monitoring, inspection, and examination authority. 25 U.S.C. 2706(b). Without such minimums, the Commission would be required to independently evaluate, at significant expense, the technical standards and internal controls implemented by each tribe to determine whether each tribe's technical standards and internal controls adequately protected the security and integrity of Indian gaming. With such minimums, the Commission can efficiently evaluate a tribal gaming operation by verifying that the operation adheres to standards and controls that meet or exceed Commission minimums. Thus, the Commission has long maintained that it has a regulatory interest in a uniform set of minimum standards—an interest that includes the efficient administration of its monitoring, inspection, and examination authority.
In 2008, 2012, and now, the Commission has sought to balance its interest in a uniform set of minimum standards against the economic impact of applying those standards to systems manufactured before the standards were in place. The Commission recognizes that despite being initially certified to a subset of the standards applicable to newer systems, 2008 Systems have continued to operate within the overall regulatory framework in a manner that protects the security and integrity of Indian gaming. The Commission credits tribes, TGRAs and manufacturers for, as the Commission acknowledged in 2012, the relatively few problems to the patron or the gaming operations attributable to 2008 Systems. In balance, the Commission has determined that the continued operation of 2008 Systems is in the best interest of Indian gaming provided that such systems are subject to additional annual review by TGRAs. The Commission is fully prepared, however, to revisit the minimum technical standards, including those applicable to 2008 Systems, if necessary to address any threat to the integrity of Class II gaming systems and equipment.
Finally, the Commission acknowledges that it has previously expressed concern regarding risks that potentially increase as technology advances and 2008 Systems remain static. The Commission now recognizes, however, that 2008 Systems have generally not remained static, but instead have been modified over time in compliance with existing regulations. Repair and replacement of individual components of Class II gaming systems have been and continue to be permitted. Modification of components of 2008 Systems also continue to be permitted provided the TGRA determines that the modification either maintains compliance with the requirements for 2008 Systems or increases compliance with the requirements for newer systems. The rule seeks to continue to facilitate the on-going modification of 2008 Systems as needed to respond to developments in technology with the goal of increased compliance with the requirements for newer systems.
The Commission also recognizes that the economic health of the Indian gaming industry as a whole, which includes both Class II and Class III gaming, is not representative of the economic health of individual Indian gaming operations that may be affected by the sunset provision. Indian gaming operations vary in size and measures of economic success. The Commission and staff engaged extensively with the tribal gaming industry on the continued use of 2008 Systems and heard the costs of complying with the sunset provision would fall primarily on the tribes least able to afford it. Additionally, the Commission received many comments asserting that failing to remove the sunset provision would cause significant economic harm to tribes.
In addition, the minimum technical standards are not intended to render any particular Class II gaming system technology “obsolete.” The minimum technical standards require the implementation of certain features which may be implemented by a wide array of technology. The minimum technical standards are intended to provide all manufacturers with the flexibility to implement technologies unforeseen and undeveloped when the rule was first promulgated. Importantly, the minimum technical standards allow Class II gaming systems to be modified over time as manufacturers innovate new implementations of the required features. Tribes and tribal gaming regulatory authorities may also add additional or more stringent requirements for manufacturers to implement. Finally, to the extent that a specific technical standard potentially impedes innovation, TGRAs and gaming operations are able to submit to the NIGC Chairman for approval an alternate minimum standard that accomplishes the same purpose.
Second, the Commission does not believe that the annual review requirement is redundant. Existing 2008 System requirements require TGRAs to maintain records of all modifications so long as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the modification remains available to the public for play. The rule adds as an additional requirement that TGRAs review the existing modification records annually to determine whether the 2008 Systems, as currently modified, may be approved pursuant to the provisions for newer systems. The required finding by the TGRA is based on its review of existing documentation and does not require TGRAs to obtain new testing laboratory reports. Components for which existing laboratory reports show that the component does not meet the standards for newer systems, as well as components for which laboratory reports have not been maintained, would be included in the required finding as components preventing approval of the system under the standards for newer systems. To further assist TGRAs in conducting the required review and developing the findings, the Commission intends to issue guidance specific to the annual review requirement for 2008 Systems.
The National Indian Gaming Commission is committed to fulfilling its tribal consultation obligations—whether directed by statute or administrative action such as Executive Order (EO) 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments)—by adhering to the consultation framework described in its Consultation Policy published July 15, 2013. The NIGC's consultation policy specifies that it will consult with tribes on Commission Action with Tribal Implications, which is defined as: Any Commission regulation, rulemaking, policy, guidance, legislative proposal, or operational activity that may have a substantial direct effect on an Indian tribe on matters including, but not limited to the ability of an Indian tribe to regulate its Indian gaming; an Indian Tribe's formal relationship with the Commission; or the consideration of the Commission's trust responsibilities to Indian tribes. As discussed above, the NIGC engaged in extensive consultation on this topic and received and considered comments in developing this rule.
The rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local government agencies or geographic regions. Nor will the rule have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the enterprises, to compete with foreign based enterprises.
The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 2 U.S.C. 658(1).
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
The Commission has determined that the rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321,
The information collection requirements contained in this rule were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 44 U.S.C. 3501
Gambling, Indian—lands, Indian—tribal government, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, for reasons stated in the preamble, 25 CFR part 547 is amended as follows:
25 U.S.C. 2706(b).
(a)
(i) The Class II gaming system software that affects the play of the Class II game, together with the signature verification required by § 547.8(f) was submitted to a testing laboratory within 120 days after November 10, 2008, or October 22, 2012;
(ii) The testing laboratory tested the submission to the standards established by § 547.8(b), § 547.8(f), and § 547.14;
(iii) The testing laboratory provided the TGRA with a formal written report setting forth and certifying to the findings and conclusions of the test;
(iv) The TGRA made a finding, in the form of a certificate provided to the supplier or manufacturer of the Class II gaming system, that the Class II gaming system is compliant with § 547.8(b), § 547.8(f), and § 547.14;
(v) The Class II gaming system is only used as approved by the TGRA and the TGRA transmitted its notice of that approval, identifying the Class II gaming system and its components, to the Commission;
(vi) Remote communications with the Class II gaming system are only allowed if authorized by the TGRA; and
(vii) Player interfaces of the Class II gaming system exhibit information consistent with § 547.7(d) and any other information required by the TGRA.
(2) For so long as a Class II gaming system is made available for use at any tribal gaming operation pursuant to this paragraph (a) the TGRA shall:
(i) Retain copies of the testing laboratory's report, the TGRA's compliance certificate, and the TGRA's approval of the use of the Class II gaming system;
(ii) Maintain records identifying the Class II gaming system and its current components; and
(iii) Annually review the testing laboratory reports associated with the Class II gaming system and its current components to determine whether the Class II gaming system may be approved pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section. The TGRA shall make a finding identifying the Class II gaming systems reviewed, the Class II gaming systems subsequently approved pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(v), and, for Class II gaming systems that cannot be approved pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(v), the components of the Class II gaming system preventing such approval.
(3) If the Class II gaming system is subsequently approved by the TGRA pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(v) as compliant with paragraph (b) of this section, this paragraph (a) no longer applies.
(b)
(i) The Class II gaming system has been submitted to a testing laboratory;
(ii) The testing laboratory tests the submission to the standards established by:
(A) This part;
(B) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and
(C) The TGRA;
(iii) The testing laboratory provides a formal written report to the party making the submission, setting forth and certifying its findings and conclusions, and noting compliance with any standard established by the TGRA pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section;
(iv) The testing laboratory's written report confirms that the operation of a player interface prototype has been certified that it will not be compromised or affected by electrostatic discharge, liquid spills, electromagnetic interference, or any other tests required by the TGRA;
(v) Following receipt of the testing laboratory's report, the TGRA makes a finding that the Class II gaming system conforms to the standards established by:
(A) This part;
(B) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and
(C) The TGRA.
(2) For so long as a Class II gaming system is made available for use at any tribal gaming operation pursuant to this paragraph (b) the TGRA shall:
(i) Retain a copy of the testing laboratory's report; and
(ii) Maintain records identifying the Class II gaming system and its current components.
(c)
(2) A TGRA may not permit the modification of any Class II gaming system in a tribal gaming operation unless:
(i) The Class II gaming system modification has been submitted to a testing laboratory;
(ii) The testing laboratory tests the submission to the standards established by:
(A) This part;
(B) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and
(C) The TGRA;
(iii) The testing laboratory provides a formal written report to the party making the submission, setting forth and certifying its findings and conclusions, and noting compliance with any standard established by the TGRA pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(C) of this section;
(iv) Following receipt of the testing laboratory's report, the TGRA makes a finding that the:
(A) The modification will maintain or advance the Class II gaming system's compliance with this part and any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter; and
(B) The modification will not detract from, compromise or prejudice the proper functioning, security, or integrity of the Class II gaming system;
(3) If a TGRA authorizes a component modification under this paragraph, it must maintain a record of the modification and a copy of the testing laboratory report so long as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the modification remains available to the public for play.
(d)
(i) Necessary to correct a problem affecting the fairness, security, or integrity of a game or accounting system or any cashless system, or voucher system; or
(ii) Unrelated to game play, an accounting system, a cashless system, or a voucher system.
(2) If a TGRA authorizes modified components to be made available for play or use without prior testing laboratory review, the TGRA must thereafter require the hardware or software manufacturer to:
(i) Immediately advise other users of the same components of the importance and availability of the update;
(ii) Immediately submit the new or modified components to a testing laboratory for testing and verification of compliance with this part and any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and
(iii) Immediately provide the TGRA with a software signature verification tool meeting the requirements of § 547.8(f) for any new or modified software component.
(3) If a TGRA authorizes a component modification under this paragraph, it must maintain a record of the modification and a copy of the testing laboratory report so long as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the modification remains available to the public for play.
(e)
(1) The tribal government determines that the organization sponsoring the gaming operation is a charitable organization;
(2) All proceeds of the charitable gaming operation are for the benefit of the charitable organization;
(3) The TGRA permits the charitable organization to be exempt from this part;
(4) The charitable gaming operation is operated wholly by the charitable organization's employees or volunteers; and
(5) The annual gross gaming revenue of the charitable gaming operation does not exceed $3,000,000.
(f)
(i) It demonstrates its integrity, independence and financial stability to the TGRA.
(ii) It demonstrates its technical skill and capability to the TGRA.
(iii) If the testing laboratory is owned or operated by, or affiliated with, a tribe, it must be independent from the manufacturer and gaming operator for whom it is providing the testing, evaluating, and reporting functions required by this section.
(iv) The TGRA:
(A) Makes a suitability determination of the testing laboratory based upon standards no less stringent than those set out in § 533.6(b)(1)(ii) through (v) of this chapter and based upon no less information than that required by § 537.1 of this chapter, or
(B) Accepts, in its discretion, a determination of suitability for the testing laboratory made by any other gaming regulatory authority in the United States.
(v) After reviewing the suitability determination and the information provided by the testing laboratory, the TGRA determines that the testing laboratory is qualified to test and evaluate Class II gaming systems.
(2) The TGRA must:
(i) Maintain a record of all determinations made pursuant to
(ii) Place the testing laboratory under a continuing obligation to notify it of any adverse regulatory action in any jurisdiction where the testing laboratory conducts business.
(iii) Require the testing laboratory to provide notice of any material changes to the information provided to the TGRA.
(g)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations; correction.
This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9825) that were published in the
This correction is effective on
Russell G. Jones at (202) 317-5357, or Ken Cohen at (202) 317-5367 (not toll-free numbers).
The final regulations (TD 9825) that are the subject of this correction are issued under section 597 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the final regulation (TD 9825) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Accordingly, the final regulations (TD 9825) that are the subject of FR Doc. 2017-21129 appearing on page 48618 in the
On page 48619, in the second column, in the preamble, under the caption “Special Analyses”, in the fifth line, the language “Executive Order 13653. Therefore, a” is corrected to read “Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a”.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9825) that were published in the
This correction is effective on
Russell G. Jones at (202) 317-5357, or Ken Cohen at (202) 317-5367 (not toll-free numbers).
The final regulations (TD 9825) that are the subject of this correction are issued under section 597 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the final regulations (TD 9825) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(f) * * *
* * * The fair market value of the loans is their Expected Value, $800,000 (the sum of the $500,000 Third-Party Price and the $300,000 that the Agency would pay if N sold the loans for $500,000). The fair market value of each foreclosed property is its Expected Value, $80,000 (the sum of the $50,000 Third-Party Price and the $30,000 that the Agency would pay if N sold the
* * *
(ii) At the end of 2018, the Third-Party Price for the loans drops to $400,000, and the Third-Party Price for each of the foreclosed properties remains at $50,000. The fair market value of the loans at the end of Year 2 is their Expected Value, $600,000 ($400,000 Third-Party Price + $200,000 (the amount of the loss if the loans were disposed of for the Third-Party Price × 33.33%) (the Average Reimbursement Rate does not change)). * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, at Vancouver, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate replacement gears, shafts and bearings. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during maintenance activities.
This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on December 27, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-1109 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
BNSF requested that the BNSF Swing Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, remain closed to marine vessel traffic to install new swing gears, shafts and bearings. During this installation period, the swing span of the bridge will be in the closed-to-navigation position. The BNSF Swing Bridge, mile 105.6, provides 39 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the closed position.
The subject bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5. This deviation allows the swing span of the BNSF Railway Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open for maritime traffic from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on December 27, 2017. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.5 at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of the Columbia River includes vessels ranging from large ships to commercial tug and tow vessels to recreational pleasure craft including cabin cruisers and sailing vessels. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies during this closure period, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen (NO
This rule will be effective on January 26, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0383. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4152,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On September 29, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve subsections (c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(B) of Title 13 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2485, “Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling” (collectively, “Idling Restrictions”). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted Section 2485 on September 1, 2006, and submitted the Idling Restrictions and other portions of Section 2485 to the EPA on December 9, 2011.
We proposed to approve these provisions because we determined that they comply with relevant CAA
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received 10 comments. All comments received were either supportive of or not specific to this action and thus are not addressed here.
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving this rule into the California SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the portions of 13 CCR 2485 described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 26, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
On September 28, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a direct final rule and an accompanying notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle Refrigerant.” Because EPA received adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule through a separate notice. In this action, EPA is finalizing its proposal to correct the editing oversight that led to a potential conflict in a prior rulemaking as to whether or not containers holding two pounds or less of non-exempt substitute refrigerants for use in motor vehicle air conditioning that are not equipped with a self-sealing valve can be sold to persons that are not certified technicians, provided those small cans were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018. This action clarifies that those small cans manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018 may continue to be sold to persons that are not certified as technicians under sections 608 or 609 of the Clean Air Act.
This final rule is effective December 27, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0213. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Sara Kemme by regular mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; by telephone: (202) 566-0511; or by email:
On September 28, 2017, EPA published a Direct Final Rule (82 FR 45202) to make a minor change to resolve a potential conflict in regulatory text at 40 CFR 82.154(c)(1)(x) to ensure that it conforms to the EPA's intention. We stated in that direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by October 30, 2017, we would publish a timely withdrawal in the
To accompany the direct final rule, EPA also published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on September 28, 2017 entitled “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle Refrigerant” (82 FR 45253). That notice proposed to make the same change in the regulatory text as in the direct final rule. This action addresses the relevant comments received and finalizes the revisions in the proposal.
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include entities that distribute or sell small cans of refrigerant for use in motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) systems. Regulated entities include, but are not limited to, importers, manufacturers, and distributors of small cans of refrigerant (NAICS codes 325120, 441310, 447110) such as automotive parts and accessories stores and industrial gas manufacturers. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, or organization could be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by February 26, 2018. This final action is a nationally applicable regulation and has nationwide scope and effect because it makes revisions to the EPA's regulations for the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program found at 40 CFR part
Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d), generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than 30 days after they are published in the
Section 608 of the CAA bears the title “National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program.” Under the structure of section 608, this program has three main components. First, section 608(a) requires EPA to establish standards and requirements regarding use and disposal of class I and II substances,
EPA first issued regulations under section 608 of the CAA on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), to establish the national refrigerant management program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration appliances. These regulations were intended to substantially reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. EPA revised these regulations through subsequent rulemakings published on August 19, 1994 (59 FR 42950), November 9, 1994 (59 FR 55912), August 8, 1995 (60 FR 40420), July 24, 2003 (68 FR 43786), March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11946), January 11, 2005 (70 FR 1972), May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29682), and April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19453). For a more detailed summary of the history of EPA's Refrigerant Management Program see the discussion in the most recent update to these regulations at 81 FR 82272, 82275 (Nov. 18, 2016).
On November 9, 2015, EPA proposed updates to the refrigerant management regulations under section 608 of the CAA (80 FR 69458). Among other things, EPA proposed to extend the sales restriction to non-exempt substitute refrigerants with an exception for small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC. That is, the proposed revisions would have restricted the sale of non-exempt substitute refrigerants to certified technicians, with an exception for small cans (two pounds or less) of non-exempt substitute refrigerant for the servicing of MVACs
For manufacture and import of small cans of refrigerant for MVAC servicing, EPA is proposing a compliance date of one year from publication of the final rule. EPA is also proposing to allow small cans manufactured and placed into initial inventory or imported before that date to be sold for one additional year. For example, if the rule is published on July 1, 2016, small can manufacturers would have until July 1, 2017, to transition their manufacturing lines to add self-sealing valves. Manufacturers, distributors, and auto parts stores would be able to sell all small cans manufactured and placed into initial inventory or imported prior to July 1, 2017, until July 1, 2018. EPA seeks comments on this proposed implementation timeline. [80 FR 69509]
On November 18, 2016, EPA published a rule finalizing the proposed restriction that non-exempt substitute refrigerants may only be sold to technicians certified under sections 608 or 609 of the CAA. (81 FR 82280). In the case of refrigerant for use in MVAC, EPA finalized the exemption for the sale of certain small cans of non-ozone-depleting substitutes with a self-sealing valve to allow the do-it-yourself community to continue servicing their personal vehicles.
With regards to small cans of MVAC refrigerant, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of automotive refrigerant supported the proposed “manufacture-by” date of one year from publication of the final rule, but commented that they oppose a sell-through date for small cans that do not have self-sealing valves. They commented that such a
EPA described its intention to allow the continued sale of small cans without self-sealing valves that were manufactured or imported before the January 1, 2018, compliance date as follows:
In response to the comments received on EPA's proposal to allow small cans manufactured and placed into initial inventory or imported before that date to be sold for one additional year, EPA is not finalizing the sell-through requirement and is finalizing only a date by which small cans must be manufactured or imported with a self-sealing valve. EPA agrees that this is the least-burdensome option and that it avoids the potential for any unintended consequences of a “sell-by” date. [81 FR 82342]
These intentions were also expressed in the regulatory text at 40 CFR 82.154(c)(2), which was revised in the November 2016 rule. However, because of an editing error, another provision, 40 CFR 82.154(c)(1)(ix), contains text that could be construed as contradicting the Agency's clearly expressed intent to allow non-technicians to purchase, and retailers to sell, small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC that were manufactured or imported before the January 1, 2018, compliance date irrespective of whether they have a self-sealing valve.
The Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute and the Auto Care Association inquired about whether the language in 40 CFR 82.154(c)(1)(ix) effectively negates the provision in 40 CFR 82.154(c)(2) and the preamble discussion showing EPA's intention to allow small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC manufactured or imported before January 1, 2018, to continue to be sold without self-sealing valves. EPA published a direct final rule and an accompanying notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the regulatory text, so that persons in possession of small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC without self-sealing valves that were manufactured or imported before January 1, 2018, can be assured that they will be able to sell off their existing inventories without disruption.
The public comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking that accompanied the direct final rule closed on October 30, 2017. EPA received adverse comment on the direct final rule and accordingly is publishing a notice withdrawing the direct final rule. EPA is now finalizing the regulatory revisions based on the accompanying proposal, “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerant Management Regulations for Small Cans of Motor Vehicle Refrigerant” (82 FR 45253). The regulatory text being finalized in this action is the same as the revised text in the direct final rule.
In the direct final rule, which is being withdrawn, EPA explained that the action would eliminate burden associated with regulatory uncertainty in this area. The Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute and the Auto Care Association informed EPA that the lack of clarity surrounding the status of small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC without self-sealing valves that were manufactured or imported before the compliance date created confusion for their members. Unless resolved, this lack of clarity could unnecessarily influence sales of automotive refrigerant during 2017. This is because retailers may not want to stock large numbers of these small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC unless they are given some assurance that they will be able to sell off any remaining inventory after January 1, 2018. There is also the concern that if clarity is not provided by January 1, 2018, retailers may feel compelled to manually pull cans without self-sealing valves from their shelves and return the cans to their supplier(s). This rule eliminates the cost of that stranded inventory and also eliminates other non-quantified burdens associated with the removal of such cans from the market, such as the labor involved in segregating small cans with self-sealing valves from those without self-sealing valves and physically pulling those from shelves.
EPA received several comments on the direct final rule, some of which were adverse at least in part. EPA is addressing those comments, as relevant, in this final rule. Consistent with the statements in the direct final rule and the parallel proposed rule, EPA did not initiate a second comment period on this action.
One commenter asked why it is that the sell through provision proposed in 2015 was not finalized, if the intent was to protect ozone.
EPA responds that it disagrees that the first commenter's suggestion would have a greater benefit for the general welfare, for reasons explained in its response to comments on the 2016 final rule.
EPA received one comment that EPA should require self-sealing valves for all refrigerants in order to prevent inadvertent release of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). This comment is outside of the scope of this rulemaking, which clarifies the status of small cans of non-exempt substitute refrigerant for use in MVACs that were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018. The exemption at issue in this rule does not apply to any container that contains ODS. Further, there are no ODS that are allowed to be sold in small cans for MVAC use. All ODS refrigerants are subject to a sales restriction that places restrictions on the sale of such substances to people who are certified technicians (40 CFR 82.154(c)). Given there are no ODS MVAC refrigerants currently sold in small cans and given that all ODS refrigerants are subject to the sales restriction, EPA did not propose to require self-sealing valves on small cans of ODS MVAC refrigerant and is not finalizing such a requirement.
EPA received one comment that the agency should not allow the sale of small cans of MVAC refrigerants because instead of taking corrective measures and replacing leaking refrigeration system components, business owners are purchasing these small cans at automotive stores and recharging commercial equipment themselves. This comment is likewise outside the scope of this action. EPA did not propose to eliminate or revise the aspects of the provision at 40 CFR 82.154(c)(1)(ix) that allows the continued sale of small cans of MVAC refrigerants to people who are not certified technicians subject to certain conditions (for example, that they have a self-sealing valve) and is not finalizing such a provision.
One comment asked whether self-sealing valves are required for small containers of R-134a, a non-exempt substitute refrigerant used in MVACs, if they are sold only to certified technicians. EPA responds that the self-sealing valve specifications at 40 CFR 82.154(c)(2) establish eligibility for the exception from the sales restriction at 40 CFR 82.154(c)(1)(ix). If the buyer is a certified technician, then adherence to 40 CFR 82.154(c)(2) would not be required, but the seller would be responsible for the recordkeeping at 40 CFR 82.154(c)(3).
EPA also received a comment suggesting that EPA consider a future regulatory action to require that small cans of MVAC refrigerant be labeled with the date of manufacture. EPA appreciates the suggestion. As noted by the commenter, however, this comment is outside the scope of this current rulemaking. In the direct final rule EPA specifically noted that “EPA is not making, and is not seeking comment on, any changes to the regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F other than the revision discussed in this notice.” (82 FR 45202). EPA did not propose to require labeling of small cans of MVAC refrigerant. In addition, while EPA recognizes labels may bring increased transparency, the costs and benefits associated with this suggested revision have not been assessed. Thus, EPA is not finalizing the commenter's suggested changes at this time.
After considering all of the comments received, EPA concludes that it is appropriate to finalize the revisions as proposed and is doing so in this final action.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. EPA described the potential cost savings of this action in the direct final rule. (82 FR 45202).
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. The regulatory revisions finalized in this action do 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. This rule does not impose any new regulatory requirements. It is deregulatory in that it clarifies that small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC may be sold to persons who are not certified technicians even if they are not equipped with a self-sealing valve, so long as those small cans are manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule does not impose any new regulatory requirements. It is deregulatory in that it corrects a potential conflict in the refrigerant management regulations as to whether or not small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC could be sold to non-technicians if they were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018, and do not have a self-sealing valve. 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.
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 that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action corrects a potential conflict in the refrigerant management regulations as to whether or not small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC could be sold to non-technicians if the cans were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2018, and do not have a self-sealing valve. This action clarifies that those small cans of refrigerant for use in MVAC may be sold to persons who are not certified technicians.
This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 82 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) The non-exempt substitute refrigerant is intended for use in an MVAC and is sold in a container designed to hold two pounds or less of refrigerant, has a unique fitting, and, if manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2018, has a self-sealing valve that complies with the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects technical errors that appeared in the final rule with comment period published in the
Lela Strong (410) 786-3213.
In FR Doc. R1-2017-23932 of December 14, 2017 (82 FR 59216), titled “Medicare Program: Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems and Quality Reporting Programs” (hereinafter referred to as the CY 2018 OPPS/ASC final rule), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section below. The provisions in this correction document are effective as if they had been included in the document published December 14, 2017. Accordingly, the corrections are effective January 1, 2018.
We note that the CY 2018 OPPS/ASC final rule was originally published on pages 52356 through 52637 in the issue of Monday, November 13, 2017. In that publication, a section of the document was omitted due to a printing error. Therefore, on December 14, 2017, the CY 2018 OPPS/ASC final rule was republished in its entirety. Accordingly, any corrections made in this document are made to the December 14, 2017 republished version.
On page 59256, we are correcting the OPPS weight scalar based on the conforming policy correction to the Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) assignment of Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code 93880 in APC 5522 (Level 2 Imaging without Contrast) to APC 5523 (Level 3 Imaging without Contrast).
On page 59262, we are correcting language related to hospital-specific Cost-to-Charge Ratios (CCRs) and their application on payments for pass-through devices.
On pages 59269 through 59271, we use the payment rates available in Addenda A and B to display calculation of adjusted payment and copayment. Due to the correction of OPPS payment rates as a result of the corrected OPPS weight scalar, we are also correcting the payment and copayment numbers used in the example.
On page 59277, due to the corrected OPPS APC geometric mean cost as a result of the conforming policy correction to the imaging without contrast APCs, we are correcting the list of APCs excepted from the 2 times rule for calendar year (CY) 2018. Specifically, we are revising Table 14 to
On page 59295, we inadvertently excluded a summary of a comment and our response to that comment. We are revising the discussion to include the comment and response.
On page 59311, due to the correction in OPPS APC geometric mean cost as a result of the conforming policy correction to the imaging without contrast APCs in Addendum A and Addendum B, we are also correcting the CY 2018 APC geometric mean cost for APC 5522 (Level 2 Imaging without Contrast) and APC 5523 (Level 3 Imaging without Contrast) in Table 54 as well as in the OPPS Addenda A and B.
On page 59323, we incorrectly listed the HCPCS code that describes Lung biopsy plug with delivery system as C2623 instead of C2613.
On page 59369, we inadvertently omitted vaccines assigned to OPPS status indicator “F” from the 340B payment adjustment exclusion. Specifically, we stated in the preamble that “We remind readers that our 340B payment policy applies to only OPPS separately payable drugs (status indicator “K”) and does not apply to vaccines (status indicator “L” or “M”), or drugs with transitional pass-through payment status (status indicator “G”).” We are correcting this statement to read “We remind readers that our 340B payment policy applies to only OPPS separately payable drugs (status indicator “K”) and does not apply to vaccines (status indicator “F”, “L” or “M”), or drugs with transitional pass-through payment status (status indicator “G”).” In addition, we are also correcting the statement on page 59369 that reads “Part B drugs or biologicals excluded from the 340B payment adjustment include vaccines (assigned status indicator “L” or “M”) and drugs with OPPS transitional pass-through payment status (assigned status indicator “G”)” to correctly state our final policy that “Part B drugs or biologicals excluded from the 340B payment adjustment include vaccines (assigned status indicator “F”, “L” or “M”) and drugs with OPPS transitional pass-through payment status (assigned status indicator “G”).”
On pages 59412 through 59413, we are correcting a typographical error in the title of Table 87.
On pages 59482 through 59483, we are correcting the count of excepted Rural Sole Community Hospitals as well as the count of other providers that were listed in regards to the 340B Program.
On pages 59486 through 59488, we provided and described Table 88—Estimated Impact of the CY 2018 Changes for the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System, based on rates which applied an incorrect scalar. We have updated Table 88 and the description of the table to reflect the corrections to the scalar as a result of the corrections to geometric mean costs in APCs 5522 and 5523.
On page 59413, the discussion of ASC Payment for Covered Ancillary Services for CY 2018 was inadvertently omitted. We are including that discussion in this correcting document.
On page 59422, we inadvertently published an incorrect ASC conversion factor of $44.663 for ASCs that do not meet the quality reporting requirements. With the correct application of our established policy, the corrected 2018 ASC conversion factor for ASCs that do not meet the quality reporting requirements is $44.674.
On page 59375, the text states: “We proposed to apply our established methodologies in developing the CY 2018 geometric mean per diem costs and payment rates, including the application of a ±2 standard deviation trim on costs per day for CMHCs and a CCR≤5 hospital service day trim for hospital-based PHP providers.” The less than or equal to sign that appears in this sentence is incorrect and misstates our trim policy. Therefore, we are correcting “CCR≤5” to read “CCR>5.”
The payment and copayment rates in Addendum A (Final OPPS APCs for CY 2018), Addendum B (Final OPPS Payment by HCPCS Code for CY 2018), Addendum C (Final HCPCS Codes Payable Under the 2018 OPPS by APC), and the payment rates in the 2018 OPPS APC Offset File and the 2018 OPPS HCPCS Device Offset File that were published on the CMS website in conjunction with the CY 2018 OPPS/ASC final rule are corrected to reflect the corrected assignment of HCPCS code 93880 to APC 5522 (Level 2 Imaging without Contrast) and APC 5523 (Level 3 Imaging without Contrast).
In addition, in Addendum B, 17 HCPCS codes were incorrectly assigned to OPPS status indicator “Q4” when they should have been assigned to status indicator “A.” We are correcting the mistake by assigning status indicator “A” to these codes as shown in the chart that follows.
In Addendum M, we inadvertently excluded Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 71045 (Radiologic examination, chest; single view) and 71046 (Radiologic examination, chest; 2 views). The revised Addendum M includes these codes. CPT codes 71045 and 71046 replaced CPT codes 71010 (Radiologic examination, chest; single view, frontal) and 71020 (Radiologic examination, chest, 2 views, frontal and lateral; with apical lordotic procedure) effective January 1, 2018. Since the predecessor codes were assigned to composite APC 5041 (Critical Care) and APC 5045 (Trauma Response with Critical Care) before January 1, 2018, the replacement codes are assigned to the same composite APCs effective January 1, 2018.
In Addendum P, we inadvertently excluded the following 7 CPT codes:
• 0409T (Insertion or replacement of permanent cardiac contractility modulation system, including contractility evaluation when performed, and programming of sensing and therapeutic parameters; pulse generator only);
• 0410T (Insertion or replacement of permanent cardiac contractility modulation system, including contractility evaluation when performed, and programming of sensing and therapeutic parameters; atrial electrode only);
• 0411T (Insertion or replacement of permanent cardiac contractility modulation system, including contractility evaluation when performed, and programming of sensing and therapeutic parameters; ventricular electrode only);
• 0414T (Removal and replacement of permanent cardiac contractility modulation system pulse generator only);
• 0446T (Creation of subcutaneous pocket with insertion of implantable interstitial glucose sensor, including system activation and patient training);
• 0449T (Insertion of aqueous drainage device, without extraocular reservoir, internal approach, into the subconjunctival space; initial device); and
• 28291 (Hallux rigidus correction with cheilectomy, debridement and capsular release of the first metatarsophalangeal joint; with implant).
CPT codes 0409T, 0410T, 0411T, 0414T, 0446T, 0449T represent procedures requiring the implantation of medical devices that do not have yet have associated claims data and therefore have been granted device-intensive status with a default device offset percentage of 41 percent, per our current policy outlined in the CY 2017 OPPS/ASC final rule with comment (81 FR 79658). CPT code 28291 replaced CPT code 28293 (Correction, hallux valgus (bunion), with or without sesamoidectomy; resection of joint with implant) which previously held the device-intensive designation with a device offset percentage of 43.78 percent. Since the predecessor code was device-intensive, CPT code 28291 is also device-intensive status and a device offset percentage of 43.78 percent based on the offset from the predecessor code.
To view the corrected CY 2018 OPPS status indicator, payment and copayment rates, that result from these technical corrections as well as CPT codes that were inadvertently excluded, we refer readers to the Addenda and supporting files that are posted on the CMS website at:
As a result of the technical corrections described in Section II.A. and II.B.1. of this correction notice, we have updated Addenda AA and BB to reflect the final corrected payment rates and indicators for CY 2018 for ASC covered surgical procedures and covered ancillary services. In addition, in addendum BB, we inadvertently included HCPCS code Q2040 (Tisagenlecleucel, up to 250 million car-positive viable t cells, including leukapheresis and dose preparation procedures, per infusion) as a separately payable drug when furnished in the ASC setting. Because the complement of services required to furnish the drug described by HCPCS code Q2040 are not all covered ASC surgical procedures, we are correcting the error by removing HCPCS code Q2040 from Addendum BB.
To view the corrected final CY 2018 ASC payment rates and indicators that result from these technical corrections, we refer readers to the Addenda and supporting files on the CMS website at:
In addition, we inadvertently excluded the below nine codes from the file labeled “CY 2018 ASC Procedures to which the No Cost/Full Credit and Partial Credit Device Adjustment Policy Applies”. These nine codes were included as ASC device-intensive procedures to which the no cost/full credit and partial credit device adjustment policy applies in the CY 2017 final rule, and we did not intend any changes to them for CY 2018.
• 0409T (Insertion or replacement of permanent cardiac contractility modulation system, including contractility evaluation when performed, and programming of sensing and therapeutic parameters; pulse generator only);
• 0410T (Insertion or replacement of permanent cardiac contractility modulation system, including contractility evaluation when performed, and programming of sensing and therapeutic parameters; atrial electrode only);
• 0411T (Insertion or replacement of permanent cardiac contractility modulation system, including contractility evaluation when performed, and programming of sensing and therapeutic parameters; ventricular electrode only);
• 0414T (Removal and replacement of permanent cardiac contractility modulation system pulse generator only);
• 0446T (Creation of subcutaneous pocket with insertion of implantable interstitial glucose sensor, including system activation and patient training);
• 0449T (Insertion of aqueous drainage device, without extraocular reservoir, internal approach, into the subconjunctival space; initial device);
• 22867 (Insertion of interlaminar/interspinous process stabilization/distraction device, without fusion, including image guidance when performed, with open decompression, lumbar; single level);
• 22869 (Insertion of interlaminar/interspinous process stabilization/distraction device, without open decompression or fusion, including image guidance when performed, lumbar; single level); and
• 28291 (Hallux rigidus correction with cheilectomy, debridement and capsular release of the first metatarsophalangeal joint; with implant).
To view the revised version of the “CY 2018 ASC Procedures to which the No Cost/Full Credit and Partial Credit Device Adjustment Policy Applies,” we refer readers to the CMS website at:
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the
We believe that this correcting document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to these requirements. This correcting document corrects technical and typographic errors in the preamble, addenda, payment rates, tables, and appendices included or referenced in the CY 2018 OPPS/ASC final rule but does not make substantive changes to the policies or payment methodologies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, the corrections made through this correcting document are intended to ensure that the information in the CY 2018 OPPS/ASC final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that rule.
In addition, even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive appropriate payments in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the CY 2018 OPPS/ASC final rule accurately reflects our policies as of the date they take effect and are applicable.
Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our payment methodologies or policies, but rather, we are simply correctly implementing the policies that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the CY 2018 OPPS/ASC final rule accurately reflects these payment methodologies and policies. For these reasons, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.
In FR Doc. R1-2017-23932 of December 14, 2017 (82 FR 59216), make the following corrections:
1. On page 59256, third column, first paragraph, in line 11, correct “1.4457” to read “1.4458”.
2. On page 59262, second column, second full paragraph, in line 7, add the parenthetical phrase “(in cases where we are unable to use the implantable device CCR)” after the words “pass-through devices”.
3. On page 59269,
a. Third column, last full paragraph,
(1) In line 17, correct “$572.81” to read “$575.85.”
(2) In line 21, correct “$561.35” to read “$561.39.”
b. Third column, last partial paragraph,
(1) In lines 5 and 6, correct “$442.53 (.60 * $572.81 * 1.2876).” to read “$442.56 (.60 * $575.85 * 1.2876).”
(2) In line 9, correct “$443.68 (.60 * $561.35 * 1.2876).” to read “$443.70 (.60 * $561.39 * 1.2876).”
(3) In line 12, correct “$229.12 (.40 * $572.81).” to read “$229.14 (.40 * $575.85).”
4. On page 59270, first column, first partial paragraph,
a. In line 2, correct “$224.54 (.40 * $561.35).” to read “$224.56 (.40 * $561.39).”
b. In lines 6 and 7, correct “$671.65 ($442.53 + $229.12).” to read “$671.70 ($442.56 + $229.14).”
c. In lines 9 and 10, correct “$658.22 ($433.68 + $224.54).” to read “$658.26 ($443.70 + $224.56).”
5. On page 59271, first column, second full paragraph, under “Step 1,” in line 8, correct “$572.81” to read “$575.85.”
6. On page 59277, Table 14—APC Exceptions to the 2 Times Rule for CY 2018, is corrected to read as follows:
7. On page 59295, third column,
a. After the first partial paragraph, add the following comment and response:
b. First full paragraph, in line 2, correct “comment” to read “comments”.
8. On page 59311, Table 54—Comparison of CY 2017 and CY 2018 Geometric Mean Costs For The Imaging APCs, is corrected to read as follows:
9. On page 59323, second column, second full paragraph, in line 4, correct “C2623” to read “C2613”.
10. On page 59369,
a. Second column, second full paragraph, in line 5, correct “status indicator “L” or “M”” to read “status indicator “F”, “L”, or “M””.
b. Third column, first full paragraph, in line 19, correct “status indicator “L” or “M”” to read “status indicator “F”, “L”, or “M””.
11. On page 59375, second column, third full paragraph, in line 7, correct “CCR ≤5” to read “CCR>5”.
12. On pages 59412 and 59413, in the title for Table 87, correct “ASDC” to read “ASC”.
13. On page 59413, second column, after the second full paragraph, add the following paragraphs before the section titled, “D. ASC Payment for Covered Surgical Procedures and Covered Ancillary Services”:
Consistent with the established ASC payment system policy, in the CY 2018 OPPS/ASC proposed rule (82 FR 33662) we proposed to update the ASC list of covered ancillary services to reflect the payment status for the services under the CY 2018 OPPS. We noted that maintaining consistency with the OPPS may result in proposed changes to ASC payment indicators for some covered ancillary services because of changes that are being finalized under the OPPS for CY 2018. For example, a covered ancillary service that was separately paid under the ASC payment system in CY 2017 may be proposed for packaged status under the CY 2018 OPPS and, therefore, also under the ASC payment system for CY 2018.
To maintain consistency with the OPPS, we proposed to continue this reconciliation of packaged status for the ASC payment system for CY 2018. Comment indicator “CH,” discussed in section XII.F. of the proposed rule, was used in Addendum BB to the proposed rule (which is available via the internet on the CMS website) to indicate covered ancillary services for which we proposed a change in the ASC payment indicator to reflect a proposed change in the OPPS treatment of the service for CY 2018.
We included all ASC covered ancillary services and their proposed payment indicators for CY 2018 in Addendum BB to the proposed rule. We invited public comments on this proposal.
We did not receive any public comments on these proposals. Therefore, we are finalizing, without modification, our proposal to update the ASC list of covered ancillary services to reflect the payment status for the services under the OPPS. All CY 2018 ASC covered ancillary services and their final payment indicators are included in Addendum BB to this final rule (which is available via the internet on the CMS website).”
14. On page 59422, first column, first partial paragraph, in line 1, correct “44.663” to read “44.674”.
15. On page 59482, third column, second partial paragraph, in line 43, correct “270” to read “247”.
16. On page 59483, first column, third partial paragraph, in line 29, correct “$199” to read “$169”.
17. On page 59486,
a. First column, first full paragraph, in line 16, correct “0.5” to read “0.6”.
b. Third column, first full paragraph, in line 6, correct “1.2” to read “1.3”.
18. On page 59487 through 59488, Table 88—Estimated Impact of the CY 2018 Changes for the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System, is corrected to read as follows:
19. On page 59488, bottom third of the page,
a. Second column, first partial paragraph, in line 6, correct “17.2” to read “17.9”.
b. Third column, first partial paragraph, in line 10, correct “17.2” to read “17.9”.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amount of Pacific cod from catcher vessels equal to or greater than 60 feet (18.3 meters) length overall (LOA) using pot gear to catcher/processors (C/Ps) using pot gear, catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear, and C/Ps using hook-and-line gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. This action is necessary to allow the 2017 total allowable catch of Pacific cod to be harvested.
Effective December 21, 2017, through 2400 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2017.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2017 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) specified for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet LOA using pot gear in the BSAI is 15,389 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) and reallocation (82 FR 47162, October 11, 2017).
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet LOA using pot gear will not be able to harvest 1,500 mt of the remaining 2017 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(
The harvest specifications for Pacific cod included in the final 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) and reallocations (FR 57162, December 4, 2017; 82 FR 43503, September 18, 2017; 82 FR 41899, September 5, 2017; and 82 FR 8905, February 1, 2017; 82) are revised as follows: 13,889 mt for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot gear, 4,999 mt for C/Ps using pot gear, 9,271 mt for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear, and 107,589 mt for C/Ps using hook-and-line gear.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification; petition for rulemaking; reopening of the comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is reopening the comment period for the notice of petition that appeared in the
FDA is reopening the comment period on the notice of petition published in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 26, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Chelsea Trull, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-224), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6729,
In the
Interested persons were originally given until October 23, 2017, to comment on the petitioner's environmental assessment.
The environmental assessment was not placed on public display until October 13, 2017. On our own initiative, we are reopening the comment period to allow potential respondents to thoroughly evaluate and address pertinent environmental issues. The Agency believes that a 30-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying rulemaking on this important issue.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule revises regulations addressing electric power utilities of the Colorado River, Flathead, and San Carlos Indian irrigation projects to use plain language, update definitions, lengthen a regulatory deadline, and make other minor changes.
Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs; telephone (202) 273-4680,
Various statutes provide the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) with authority to issue this regulation and for administering electric power utilities for the Colorado River, Flathead (Mission Valley Power), and San Carlos Indian irrigation projects. For example, see 5 U.S.C. 301; 25 U.S.C. 13; 25 U.S.C. 385c; 43 Stat. 475-76; 45 Stat. 210-13; 49 Stat. 1039-40; 49 Stat. 1822-23; 54 Stat. 422; 62 Stat. 269-73; 65 Stat. 254; 99 Stat. 319-20. Each of these power projects provides energy, transmission, and distribution of electrical services to customers in their respective service areas. BIA (or the contracting/compacting Indian Tribe) provides oversight and limited technical assistance for power projects and conducts operations and maintenance of the distribution systems.
The regulations addressing BIA's administration of the power utilities are at 25 CFR part 175, Indian Electric Power Utilities. These regulations were last updated in 1991.
The revisions being proposed today are intended to make the regulations more user-friendly through plain language. The proposed rule would also update definitions, lengthen the time by which BIA must issue a decision on an appeal from 30 days to 60 days (by referring to 25 CFR 2.19(a)), and require publication of rate adjustments in the
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
This document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions;
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consult with Indian Tribes and recognize their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 for substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have consulted with those Tribes served by the electric power utilities subject to this rule. We hosted two in-person Tribal consultation sessions in the vicinity of Tribes served by the electric power utilities: one on April 14, 2016, in Pablo, Montana, and one on April 19, 2016, in Phoenix, Arizona. One Tribe submitted comments on the draft regulation, to which we have responded by letter because the comments are primarily unique to the local utility. If any Tribe would like additional consultation opportunities on these regulatory changes, please contact the person listed in the
The information collection requirements contained in 25 CFR part 175 are authorized by OMB Control
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. This rule is excluded from the requirement to prepare a detailed statement because it is a regulation of an administrative nature. (For further information, see 43 CFR 46.210(i).) We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Indians-lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons given in the preamble, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior proposes to amend chapter 1 of title 25 Code of Federal Regulations by revising part 175 to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 25 U.S.C. 13; 25 U.S.C. 385c; 43 Stat. 475-76; 45 Stat. 210-13; 49 Stat. 1039-40; 49 Stat. 1822-23; 54 Stat. 422; 62 Stat. 269-73; 65 Stat. 254; 99 Stat. 319-20.
The purpose of this part is to establish the regulations for administering BIA electric power utilities.
This part applies to you if we provide you service or if you request service from us.
We promote efficient administration, operation, maintenance, and construction of our utilities by following and enforcing:
(a) Applicable statutes, regulations, Executive Orders, Indian Affairs manuals, Operations Manuals;
(b) Applicable written policies, procedures, directives, safety codes; and
(c) Utility industry standards.
(a) We maintain an Operations Manual for each of our utilities. Each utility's Operations Manual is available at the utility.
(b) The Operations Manual sets forth the requirements for the administration, management, policies, and responsibilities of that utility and its customers.
(c) We update our Operations Manual for each utility to reflect changing requirements to administer, operate, or maintain that utility.
(d) When we determine it necessary to revise an Operations Manual, we will:
(1) Provide public notice of the proposed revision;
(2) State the effective date of the proposed revision;
(3) State how and when to submit your comments on our proposed revision;
(4) Provide 30 days from the date of the notice to submit your comments; and
(5) Consider your comments and provide notice of our final decision.
(a) If you need electrical service in an area where we provide service, you must contact our utility in that service area.
(b) To receive service, you must enter into an Agreement with that utility after it has determined that you have met its requirements.
At a minimum, you must provide the utility with the following information when you request service:
(a) Your full legal name or the legal name of the entity needing service;
(b) Your taxpayer identification number;
(c) Your billing address;
(d) Your service address; and
(e) Any additional information required by the utility.
We are collecting this information so we can:
(a) Provide you with service;
(b) Bill you for the service we provide; and
(c) Account for monies you pay us, including any deposits as outlined in the Operations Manual.
We are required to collect your taxpayer identification number under the authority of, and as prescribed in, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134 (110 Stat. 1321-364).
(a) You may appeal a decision in accordance with the procedures set out in 25 CFR part 2, unless otherwise prohibited by law.
(b) If the appeal involves the discontinuation of service, the utility is not required to resume the service during the appeal process unless the customer meets the utility's requirements.
(c) If you appeal your bill, you must pay your bill in accordance with this part to continue to receive service from us.
(1) If the appeal involves the amount of your bill, the bill will be considered paid under protest until the final decision has been rendered on appeal.
(2) If you appeal your bill but do not pay the bill in full, you may not continue to receive service from us. If the final decision rendered in the appeal requires payment of the bill, the bill will be handled as a delinquent account and the amount of the bill may be subject to interest, penalties, and administrative costs pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 31 CFR 901.9.
(3) If the appeal involves an electric power rate, the rate will be applied and remain in effect subject to the final decision on the appeal.
(a) The revenue we collect from you and the other customers is authorized by 25 U.S.C. 385c (60 Stat. 895, as amended by 65 Stat. 254).
(b) The revenue we collect may be used to:
(1) Pay for operation and maintenance of the utility; and
(2) Maintain Reserve Funds to:
(i) Make repairs and replacements to the utility;
(ii) Defray emergency expenses;
(iii) Ensure the continuous operation of the power system; and
(iv) Pay other allowable expenses and obligations to the extent required or permitted by law.
We review our rates and fees at least annually to:
(a) Determine if our financial requirements are being met to ensure the reliable operation of the utility serving you; and
(b) Determine if revenues are sufficient to meet the statutory requirements.
If, based on our annual review, we determine our service fees need to be adjusted:
(a) We will notify you at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the adjustment; and
(b) We will publish a schedule of the adjusted service fees in a local newspaper(s) and post them in the local utility office serving you.
Except for purchased power costs, if we determine electric power rates need to be adjusted, we will:
(a) Hold public meetings and notify you of their respective time, date, and location by newspaper notice and a notice posted in the utility office serving you;
(b) Provide you notice at least 15 days prior to the meeting;
(c) Provide you a description of the proposed rate adjustment;
(d) Provide you information on how, where, and when to submit comments on our proposed rate adjustment;
(e) Make a final determination on the proposed rate adjustment after all comments have been received, reviewed, and evaluated; and
(f) Publish the proposed rate adjustment and the final rate in the
These adjustments remain in effect until we conduct a review and determine adjustments are necessary.
The
(a) Visiting
(b) Writing to the GPO at Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954; or
(c) Calling the GPO at (202) 512-1800.
Changes to purchased power costs are not included in the procedure for adjusting electric power rates because unforeseen increases in the cost of purchased power are:
(a) Not under our control;
(b) Determined by current market rates; and
(c) Subject to market fluctuations that can occur at an undetermined time and frequency.
When our cost of purchased power changes:
(a) We determine the effect of the change;
(b) We adjust the purchased power component of your bill accordingly;
(c) We add the purchased power adjustment to the existing electric power rate and put it into effect immediately;
(d) The purchased power adjustment remains in effect until we determine future adjustments are necessary;
(e) We must publish in the local newspaper and post at our office a notice of the purchase power adjustment and the basis for the adjustment; and
(f) Our decision to make a purchased power adjustment must be final.
(a) We calculate your electric power bill based on the:
(1) Current rate schedule for your type service; and
(2) Applicable service fees for your type service.
(b) If you have a metered service we must:
(1) Read your meter monthly;
(2) Calculate your bill based on your metered energy consumption; and
(3) Issue your bill monthly, unless otherwise provided in a Special Agreement.
(c) If we are unable to calculate your metered energy consumption, we must make a reasonable estimate based on one of the following reasons:
(1) Your meter has failed;
(2) Your meter has been tampered with; or
(3) Our utility personnel are unable to read your meter.
(d) If you have an unmetered service, we calculate your bill in accordance with your Special Agreement.
The due date is provided on your bill.
You may pay your bill by any of the following methods:
(a) In person at our utility office;
(b) Mail your payment to the address stated on your bill; or
(c) As further provided by the electric utility that serves you.
(a) If you do not pay your bill prior to the close of business on the due date, your bill will be past due.
(b) If your bill is past due we may:
(1) Disconnect your service; and
(2) Not reconnect your service until your bill, including any applicable fees, is paid in full.
(c) Specific regulations regarding non-payment can be found in 25 CFR 143.5(c).
(a) If your service has been disconnected and you still have an outstanding balance, we will assess you interest, penalties, and administrative costs in accordance with 31 CFR 901.9.
(b) We must forward your delinquent balance to the United States Treasury if it is not paid within 180 days after the original due date in accordance with 31 CFR 901.1.
The utility may extend or upgrade its electric system to serve new or increased loads. Contact your electric power utility providing service in your area for further information on new or increased loads.
Contact your electric power utility providing service in your area for further information on rights-of-way.
The collection of information contained in this part have been approved by the Office of Management
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.
This document contains corrections to the proposed regulations (REG-119514-15) that were published in the
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing, for the notice of proposed rulemaking at 82 FR 60135, December 19, 2017, are still being accepted and must be received by March 19, 2018.
Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-119514-15), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-119514-15), Courier's desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Jeffery G. Mitchell, (202) 317-6934 (not a toll-free number).
The proposed regulations that are the subject of this correction are under sections 446, 954 and 988 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the proposed regulations contain errors which may prove to be misleading and need to be clarified.
Accordingly, the proposed regulations (REG-119514-15) that are the subject of FR Doc. 2017-27320 are corrected as follows:
On page 60138, in the preamble, first column, the first full paragraph is corrected to read:
“Although the borrowing and lending in the same nonfunctional currency are economically offsetting, section 475 creates the potential for a mismatch of gains and losses for a treasury center CFC. If the treasury center CFC qualifies as a dealer under section 475, for example because it regularly purchases debt from related CFCs in the ordinary course of a trade or business, the treasury center CFC generally must use a mark-to-market method of accounting for its securities.
National Park Service, Interior.
Withdrawal of proposed rule.
The National Park Service (NPS) no longer intends to prepare a final rule or issue a Golden Gate National Recreation Area dog management plan. The NPS has terminated the rulemaking process.
The proposed rule is withdrawn as of December 27, 2017.
Dana Polk, Public Affairs Office, Park Headquarters, Fort Mason, Building 201, San Francisco, CA 94123; phone 415-561-4728.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508 and 43 CFR part 46), the NPS published a proposed rule for dog management on February 24, 2016 (81 FR 9139). The NPS has now cancelled that planning process and terminated the associated NEPA and rulemaking processes. No final rule will be issued.
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
The United States Copyright Office is extending the deadlines for the submission of written comments in response to its December 1, 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the royalty reporting practices of cable operators under section 111 and proposed revisions to the Statement of Account forms, and on proposed amendments to the Statement of Account filing requirements.
The comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking, published on December 1, 2017 (82 FR 56926), is extended. Initial written comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on March 16, 2018. Written reply comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on April 6, 2018.
For reasons of government efficiency, the Copyright Office is using the
Sarang V. Damle, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at
On December 1, 2017, the Office issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) on proposed rules governing the royalty reporting practices of cable operators under section 111 and proposed revisions to the Statement of Account forms, and on proposed amendments to the Statement of Account filing requirements.
On December 13, 2017, NCTA—The Internet & Television Association submitted a motion seeking to extend the initial comment period until March 16, 2018, with written comments due by April 2, 2018.
To ensure that commenters have sufficient time to respond to the NPRM, the Office is extending the deadline for the submission of initial written comments to 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on March 16, 2018. Written reply comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on April 6, 2018.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve two state implementation plan (SIP) revisions (Revision C16 and Revision I16) formally submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. These revisions pertain to amendments made to the definition of “volatile organic compound” (VOC) in the Virginia Administrative Code to conform with EPA's regulatory definition of VOC. Specifically, these amendments remove the record keeping and reporting requirements for t-butyl acetate (also known as tertiary butyl acetate or TBAC; Chemical Abstracts Service [CAS] number: 540-88-5) and add 1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-1-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy) ethane (also known as HFE-347pcf2; CAS number: 406-78-0) as a compound excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC, which match actions EPA has taken. EPA is approving these revisions to update the definition of VOC in the Virginia SIP under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before January 26, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0544 at
Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by email at
On July 31, 2017, the Commonwealth of Virginia, through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), submitted two SIP revisions (Revisions C16 and Revision I16). Revision C16 requested that the definition of VOC be updated in the Virginia SIP to conform with EPA's February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9339) final rulemaking updating EPA's regulatory definition of VOC in 40 CFR 51.100(s) to remove the recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements related to the use of TBAC as a VOC. Revision I16 requests that the definition
VOCs are organic compounds of carbon that, in the presence of sunlight, react with sources of oxygen molecules, such as nitrogen oxides (NO
VOCs have different levels of volatility, depending on the compound, and react at different rates to produce varying amounts of ozone. VOCs that are non-reactive or of negligible reactivity to form ozone react slowly and/or form less ozone; therefore, reducing their emissions has limited effects on local or regional ozone pollution. Section 302(s) of the CAA specifies that EPA has the authority to define the meaning of VOC and what compounds shall be treated as VOCs for regulatory purposes. It is EPA's policy that organic compounds with a negligible level of reactivity should be excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC in order to focus control efforts on compounds that significantly affect ozone concentrations. EPA uses the reactivity of ethane as the threshold for determining whether a compound has negligible reactivity.
Compounds that are less reactive than, or equally reactive to, ethane under certain assumed conditions may be deemed negligibly reactive and, therefore, suitable for exemption by EPA from the regulatory definition of VOC. The policy of excluding negligibly reactive compounds from the regulatory definition of VOC was first laid out in the “Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds” (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977) and was supplemented subsequently with the “Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans” (70 FR 54046, September 13, 2005). The regulatory definition of VOC as well as a list of compounds that are designated by EPA as negligibly reactive can be found at 40 CFR 51.100(s).
On September 30, 1999, EPA proposed to revise the regulatory definition of VOC in 40 CFR 51.100(s) to exclude TBAC as a VOC (64 FR 52731). In most cases, when a negligibly reactive VOC is exempted from the definition of VOC, emissions of that compound are no longer recorded, collected, or reported to states or the EPA as part of VOC emissions. However, EPA's final rule excluded TBAC from the definition of VOC for purposes of VOC emissions limitations or VOC content requirements, but continued to define TBAC as a VOC for purposes of all recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements that apply to VOC (69 FR 69298, November 29, 2004) (2004 Final Rule). This was primarily due to EPA's conclusion in the 2004 Final Rule that “negligibly reactive” compounds may contribute significantly to ozone formation if present in sufficient quantities and that emissions of these compounds need to be represented accurately in photochemical modeling analyses. Per EPA's 2004 Final Rule, Virginia partially excluded TBAC from the regulatory definition of VOC, which was approved into Virginia's SIP on August 18, 2006 (71 FR 47742).
When EPA exempted TBAC from the VOC definition for purposes of control requirements in the 2004 Final Rule, EPA created a new category of compounds and a new reporting requirement that required that emissions of TBAC be reported separately by states and, in turn, by industry. However, EPA did not issue any guidance on how TBAC emissions should be tracked and reported. Therefore, the data that was reported as a result of these requirements was incomplete and inconsistent. Also, in the 2004 Final Rule, EPA stated that the primary objective of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for TBAC was to address the cumulative impacts of “negligibly reactive” compounds and suggested that future exempt compounds may also be subject to such requirements. However, such requirements were not included in any other proposed or final VOC exemptions.
Because having high quality data on TBAC emissions alone was unlikely to be useful in assessing the cumulative impacts of “negligibly reactive” compounds on ozone formation, EPA subsequently concluded that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for TBAC were not achieving their primary objective of informing more accurate photochemical modeling in support of SIP submissions. Also, there was no evidence that TBAC was being used at levels that would cause concern for ozone formation and that the requirements were not providing sufficient information to evaluate the cumulative impacts of exempted compounds. Therefore, because the requirements were not addressing EPA's concerns as they were intended, EPA revised the regulatory definition of VOC under 40 CFR 51.100(s) to remove the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for TBAC (February 25, 2016, 81 FR 9341). EPA's rationale for this action is explained in more detail in the final rule for that action.
On August 1, 2016, EPA promulgated a final rule revising the regulatory definition of VOC in 40 CFR 51.100(s) to add HFE-347pcf2 to the list of compounds excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC (81 FR 50330). This action was based on EPA's consideration of the compound's negligible reactivity and low contribution to ozone as well as the low likelihood of risk to human health or the environment. EPA's rationale for this action is explained in more detail in the final rule for this action.
In order to conform with EPA's current regulatory definition of VOC in 40 CFR 51.100(s), the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board amended the definition of VOC in 9 VAC 5-10-20. These amendments removed the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for TBAC (Revision C16) and added HFE-347pcf2 to the list of compounds excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC (Revision I16). Revision C16 was adopted by the State Air Pollution Control Board on June 17, 2016 and was effective as of December 15, 2016. Revision I16 was adopted by the State Air Pollution Control Board on December 5, 2014 and was effective as of July 30, 2015. VADEQ formally submitted Revision C16 and Revision I16 as two separate SIP revisions on July 31, 2017.
Virginia's amendments to the definition of VOC in 9 VAC 5-10-20 are in accordance with EPA's regulatory changes to the definition of VOC in 40 CFR 51.100(s) and are therefore approvable for the Virginia SIP in accordance with CAA section 110. Also, because EPA has made the determination that TBAC and HFE-347pcf2 are of negligible reactivity and therefore have low contributions to ozone as well as low likelihood of risk
EPA is proposing to approve both Revision C16 and Revision I16, submitted on July 31, 2017, as revisions to the Virginia SIP, as the submissions meet the requirements of CAA section 110. Revision C16 updates the regulatory definition of VOC in the Virginia SIP and removes the recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements related to the use of TBAC as a VOC. Revision I16 updates the regulatory definition of VOC in the Virginia SIP to add HFE-347pcf2 to the list of compounds excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action amending the definition of VOC in the Virginia SIP to conform with the regulatory definition of VOC in 40 CFR 51.100(s) is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of particulate matter (PM) from wood burning devices. We are proposing to approve a local measure to reduce emissions from these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Any comments must arrive by January 26, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0737 at
Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4118,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the measure addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
On August 28, 2017, the submittal for the NSAQMD measure was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
There are no previous versions of the NSAQMD measure in the SIP.
Particulate matter, including PM with diameters that are generally 2.5 microns or smaller (PM
On January 15, 2013, the EPA revised the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM
The submitted measure is an enforceable commitment by the NSAQMD to implement a woodstove change-out incentive program during the 2016-2022 timeframe in accordance with specific program requirements that are designed to achieve quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, and permanent PM
The enforceable commitment obligates the NSAQMD to achieve specific amounts of PM
We intend to evaluate California's PM
Generally, SIP control measures must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
The CAA explicitly provides for the use of economic incentive programs (EIPs) as one tool for states to use to achieve attainment of the NAAQS (see,
EPA's guidance documents addressing EIPs and other nontraditional programs provide for some flexibility in meeting established SIP requirements for enforceability and quantification of emission reductions, provided the State takes clear responsibility for ensuring that the emission reductions necessary to meet applicable CAA requirements are achieved. Accordingly, EPA has consistently stated that nontraditional emission reduction measures submitted to satisfy SIP requirements under the Act must be accompanied by appropriate “enforceable commitments” from the State to monitor emission reductions achieved and to rectify shortfalls in a timely manner (see,
Guidance documents that we use to evaluate discretionary EIPs and other nontraditional emission reduction programs include the following:
• “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs” January 2001 (EPA-452/R-01-001) (“2001 EIP Guidance”).
• “Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measure in a State Implementation Plan (SIP),” Stephen D. Page, OAQPS, October 4, 2004 (“2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures Guidance”).
• “Guidance on Incorporating Bundled Measures in a State Implementation Plan,” Stephen D. Page, OAQPS, and Margo Oge, OTAQ, August 16, 2005 (“2005 Bundled Measures Guidance”).
• “Guidance for Quantifying and Using Emission Reductions from Voluntary Woodstove Changeout Programs in State Implementation Plans,” January 2006 (EPA-456/B-06-001) (“2006 Woodstove Guidance”).
The submitted commitment contains clear, nondiscretionary and mandatory obligations that are enforceable against the NSAQMD and ensure that information about the emission reductions achieved through the woodstove change-out program will be readily available to the public through the NSAQMD's submission of annual reports to the EPA. Our approval of this commitment would make these obligations enforceable by the EPA and by citizens under the CAA. The commitment obligates the District to implement a new program that achieves quantifiable, surplus, permanent, and enforceable PM
We are proposing to find that the submitted measure satisfies CAA requirements for enforceability, SIP revisions, and nontraditional emission reduction programs as interpreted in EPA guidance documents. The TSD contains more information on our evaluation of this measure.
The EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted measure under CAA section 110(k)(3) based on a conclusion that the measure satisfies all applicable requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until January 26, 2018. If we take final action to approve the submitted measure, our final action will incorporate this measure into the federally enforceable SIP.
In this action, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the NSAQMD measure described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
In this proposed rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing an opportunity to comment on an analysis of the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with certain biofuels that are produced from grain sorghum oil extracted at dry mill ethanol plants at any point downstream from sorghum grinding, also known as distiller sorghum oil. EPA seeks comment on its proposed assessment that using distillers sorghum oil as feedstock results in no significant agricultural sector GHG emissions; and that biodiesel and heating oil produced from distillers sorghum oil via a transesterification process, and renewable diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, naphtha, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) produced from distillers sorghum oil via a hydrotreating process, would meet the lifecycle GHG emissions reduction threshold of 50 percent required for advanced biofuels, and biomass-based diesel under the Renewable Fuel Standard program. Based on these analyses, EPA is proposing to amend the RFS program regulations to define the term “distillers sorghum oil”. We also propose to add to the regulations approved pathways from the production of biodiesel and heating oil from distillers sorghum oil via a transesterification process, and renewable diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, naphtha, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) produced from distillers sorghum oil via a hydrotreating process.
Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0655, at
Diana Galperin, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6401A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-5687; email address:
Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule are those involved with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels, including gasoline and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, heating oil, renewable diesel, naphtha and liquefied petroleum gas. Potentially regulated categories include:
This table
EPA is proposing to amend the RFS program regulations to define the term “distillers sorghum oil” as oil from grain sorghum that is extracted at a dry mill ethanol plant at any location downstream of grinding the grain sorghum kernel, provided that the grain sorghum is converted to ethanol, the oil is rendered unfit for food uses without further refining, and the distillers grains resulting from the dry mill and oil extraction processes are marketable as animal feed. We also propose to add to Table 1 to 80.1426(f), approved pathways from the production of biodiesel and heating oil from distillers sorghum oil via a transesterification process, and renewable diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, naphtha, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) produced from distillers sorghum oil via a hydrotreating process. Alternatively, or in addition, EPA may consider the comments it receives in response to this document in evaluating facility-specific pathway petitions submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 that propose using distillers sorghum oil to make biofuel.
Statutory authority for this action comes from Clean Air Act sections 114, 208, 211, and 301.
EPA will not hold a public hearing on this matter unless a request is received by the person identified in the
Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, under which EPA sets annual percentage standards specifying the amount of renewable fuel, as well as three subcategories of renewable fuel, that must be used to reduce or replace fossil fuel present in transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet
In addition to the lifecycle GHG reduction requirements, renewable identification numbers (RINs) may only be generated if the fuel meets the other definitional criteria for renewable fuel (
Since the formation of the RFS program, EPA has periodically promulgated rules to add new pathways to the regulations.
EPA's lifecycle analyses are used to assess the overall GHG emissions of a fuel throughout each stage of its production and use. The results of these analyses, considering uncertainty and the weight of available evidence, are used to determine whether a fuel meets the necessary GHG reductions required under the CAA. Lifecycle analysis includes an assessment of emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, including feedstock production, feedstock transportation, fuel production, fuel transportation and distribution, and tailpipe emissions. Per the CAA definition of lifecycle GHG emissions, EPA's lifecycle analyses also include an assessment of significant indirect emissions, such as those from land use changes and agricultural sector impacts.
EPA received a petition from the National Sorghum Producers (NSP), submitted under partial claims of confidential business information (CBI), requesting that EPA evaluate the GHG emissions associated with biofuels produced using grain sorghum oil derived from dry mill ethanol production as a feedstock, and that EPA provide a determination of the renewable fuel categories, if any, for which such biofuels may be eligible. In this action, EPA is proposing to amend the RFS program regulations to define the term “distillers sorghum oil” as oil from grain sorghum that is extracted at a dry mill ethanol plant at any location downstream of grinding the grain sorghum kernel, provided that the grain sorghum is converted to ethanol, the oil is rendered unfit for food uses without further refining, and the distillers grains resulting from the dry mill and oil extraction processes are marketable as animal feed. We also propose to add to Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426(f), approved pathways from the production of biodiesel and heating oil from distillers sorghum oil via a transesterification process, and renewable diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, naphtha, and LPG produced from distillers sorghum oil via a hydrotreating process. Alternatively, or in addition, EPA may consider the comments it receives in response to this document in evaluating facility-specific pathway petitions submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 that propose using distillers sorghum oil to make biofuel.
This preamble describes EPA's analysis of the GHG emissions associated with distillers sorghum oil when used to produce specified biofuels. The analysis considers a scenario where distillers sorghum oil is extracted from distillers grains with solubles (DGS) at dry mill plants that produce ethanol from grain sorghum and where the remaining reduced-oil DGS co-product is used as animal feed. The distillers sorghum oil is then used as a feedstock for conversion into certain biofuels. As described in Section IV of this preamble, we estimate that the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the production of biodiesel and heating oil produced from distillers sorghum oil via a transesterification process, and renewable diesel, jet fuel, naphtha, and LPG, produced from distillers sorghum oil via a hydrotreating process, are approximately 80 percent less than the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the baseline petroleum fuels they would replace. Based on these results, we propose to find that these biofuels would meet the 50 percent GHG reduction threshold required for advanced biofuel and biomass-based diesel. We also anticipate that heating oil produced through transesterification or hydrotreating from distillers sorghum oil would meet the 50 percent GHG emission reduction threshold required for advanced biofuel and biomass-based diesel.
Dry mill ethanol plants grind and ferment grain sorghum, produce ethanol from the fermented grain sorghum starch, and also produce a DGS co-product (made of non-fermentable solids, solubles syrup, and sorghum oil) that is sold as a type of livestock feed. A portion of the oil that would otherwise reside in the DGS can be extracted at the ethanol plant, typically through gravimetric methods. At dry mill ethanol plants, sorghum oil is recovered through methods nearly identical to that of corn oil extracted from DGS, and corn and sorghum oil extraction can occur at the same facilities.
EPA has approved pathways for the production of ethanol from grain sorghum made through a dry mill process as qualifying for renewable fuel (D code 6) RINs, and in some cases advanced biofuel (D code 5) RINs, depending on process energy sources used during production.
We propose to define distillers sorghum oil to mean oil recovered at a point downstream of where a dry mill grain sorghum ethanol plant grinds the grain sorghum, provided that the grain sorghum is converted to ethanol, the oil is rendered unfit for food uses without further refining, and the distillers grains resulting from the dry mill and oil extraction processes are marketable as animal feed. So long as these criteria are met, a variety of recovery methods could be implemented. For example, this would include recovery of sorghum oil before fermentation from the slurry or from liquefaction tanks. It would also include recovery of sorghum oil after fermentation from the thin stillage and/or DGS. Further, it would also include recovery of sorghum oil by a third-party from DGS produced by a dry mill sorghum ethanol plant.
EPA evaluated the GHG emissions associated with using distillers sorghum oil as a biofuel feedstock based on information provided by the petitioner and other available data sources. GHG emissions include emissions from production and transport of distillers sorghum oil; the processing of the oil into biofuel; transport of the biofuel from the production facility to the fuel-blender; and, ultimately the use of the biofuel by the end consumer. The methodology EPA used for this analysis is generally the same approach used for the March 2010 RFS rule for lifecycle analyses of several other biofuel feedstocks, such as distillers corn oil and yellow grease.
EPA's lifecycle analyses include upstream emissions, which include the significant direct and indirect GHG emissions (including such emissions from land use changes) associated with producing a feedstock and transporting it to the processing facility. All of the upstream emissions were calculated and taken into account in EPA's evaluation of the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with grain sorghum ethanol.
During a typical dry mill ethanol production process, DGS are produced. These DGS are then used as animal feed, thereby displacing feed crops and the GHG emissions associated with growing and transporting those feed crops. When distillers sorghum oil is produced, DGS continue to be created with reduced oil content. A significant portion of this analysis focuses on reviewing how reduced-oil DGS compare to full-oil DGS in terms of feed values and displacement of other feeds.
Chemically, full-oil and reduced-oil sorghum DGS share similar compositions, primarily made up of crude protein, fat, and natural and acid detergent fibers. Where the two products differ most significantly is in their acid detergent fiber and fat concentrations. Table IV.1 shows the key nutrients that make up dried full-oil and reduced-oil DGS.
The difference in fat values is important as crude fat concentrations impact net energy uptake by the livestock. A memorandum to the docket shows the total net energy profiles by livestock of full-oil and reduced-oil sorghum DGS.
Research suggests that for poultry and swine, “increased concentrations of free fatty acids have a negative impact on
For dairy, there are also benefits from feeding reduced-oil DGS as compared to full-oil DGS. Research on dairy cows shows that reduced-oil DGS produce a lessened likelihood of the onset of milk fat depression.
An impact on displacement rates may occur when reduced-oil instead of full-oil DGS are used for beef cattle, which has the ability to digest additional fat. Table IV.2 shows the displacement ratios for the livestock sectors where dried DGS (DDGS) are used. In this table, for instance, 1 pound of reduced-oil DDGS fed to beef cattle displaces 1.173 pounds of corn. A pound of full-oil and reduced-oil DDGS also displace equal portions (0.056 pounds) of urea. Urea is a non-protein nitrogen compound that is typically fed to cattle for aiding the production of protein by rumen microbes.
We
Distillers sorghum oil is removed from DGS at dry mill ethanol plants using the same equipment and technologies used for corn oil extraction. Oil extraction requires thermal energy to heat the DGS and electricity to power centrifuges, pumps and other oil recovery equipment. Our analysis for the March 2010 RFS final rule,
As discussed above, we do not expect sorghum oil extraction to significantly change the feed value of DGS on a per pound basis. According to the NSP petition, grain sorghum oil yields should be 0.67 pounds per bushel of grain sorghum feedstock.
In our analysis, distillers sorghum oil is transported 50 miles by heavy duty truck from the dry mill ethanol plant to the biodiesel or hydrotreating facility where it is converted to transportation fuel. GHG emissions associated with feedstock transport are relatively small, and modest changes in transport distance are unlikely to affect the results of our analysis.
For emissions from feedstock pretreatment and fuel production, we perform two analyses. In the first analysis, we calculate the emissions from biodiesel produced using transesterification. In the second analysis, we calculate the emissions from renewable diesel, jet fuel, LPG, and naphtha, produced using hydrotreating. In Section V below, we then explain how similar results can be inferred for heating oil.
Before distillers sorghum oil is converted to biodiesel via transesterification, it is processed to remove free-fatty acids. This process requires thermal energy. Our evaluation of yellow grease for the March 2010 RFS final rule included 14,532 Btu of natural gas per gallon of biodiesel produced for pretreatment, and we have applied the same assumption for this analysis. According to the NSP petition, distillers sorghum oil has free fatty acid content near or below 15 percent, which is in the range of yellow grease free fatty acid contents (<15 percent).
Pretreatment to remove free-fatty acids is not required when distillers sorghum oil is used to produce renewable diesel, jet fuel, LPG and naphtha through a hydrotreating process.
For biodiesel production, we used the transesterification analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule for yellow grease biodiesel.
For production of renewable diesel, jet fuel, naphtha and LPG via a hydrotreating process, we used the same data and approach as used in the March 2013 Pathways I rule (78 FR 14190, March 5, 2013), and subsequent facility-specific petitions involving hydrotreating processes.
Our previous analyses of hydrotreating processes have applied an energy allocation approach for RIN-generating co-products that qualify as renewable fuel.
In the allocation approach, all the emissions from the hydrotreating process are allocated across all co-products. There are a number of ways to do the allocation, for example on the basis of energy, mass, or economic value. Consistent with the approach taken in the hydrotreating analysis for the March 2013 RFS rule, for this analysis of fuels produced from distillers sorghum oil feedstock through a hydrotreating process we allocated emissions to the renewable diesel, naphtha and LPG based on the energy content (using lower-heating values) of the products produced. Emissions from the process were allocated equally to all of the Btus of fuel produced. Therefore, on a per Btu basis, all of the primary products coming from the hydrotreating facility have the same emissions from the fuel production stage of the lifecycle. For this analysis, the energy content was the most appropriate basis for allocating emissions because all of the fuel products are used as sources of energy. Energy content also has the advantage of being a fixed factor as opposed to market prices which fluctuate over time.
We used the fuel distribution results from the biodiesel analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule. Fuel distribution emissions are relatively small compared to baseline lifecycle GHG emissions (see Table IV.3 below), and although they may be different for different types of fuel, for the purposes of this analysis we assume that renewable diesel, jet fuel, LPG, and naphtha, have the same fuel distribution emissions per mmBtu of fuel used. Even if we applied a more precise value for fuel distribution emissions, we do not expect that revision to change our assessment that these fuels meet a 50 percent GHG emission reduction.
For this analysis we applied fuel use emissions factors developed for the March 2010 RFS final rule. For biodiesel we used the biodiesel emissions factor. For renewable diesel and jet fuel we used the emissions factors for non-CO
Table IV.3 shows the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with biofuels produced from distillers sorghum oil that result from our assessment. The table also shows the percent reduction relative to the petroleum baseline. All of the fuels are compared to the diesel baseline, except for naphtha which is compared to the gasoline baseline.
Based on the lifecycle GHG emissions results presented above, all of the pathways evaluated would meet the 50 percent GHG reduction threshold required for advanced biofuel and biomass-based diesel.
The results presented above would also justify qualifying heating oil produced from distillers sorghum oil as meeting the 50 percent GHG threshold. In previous rulemakings, EPA considered the lifecycle GHG impacts associated with heating oil and determined that heating oil produced from a range of feedstocks (
Based on our GHG lifecycle evaluation described above, we propose to find that biodiesel and heating oil produced from distillers sorghum oil via a transesterification process, and renewable diesel, jet fuel and heating oil produced from distillers sorghum oil via a hydrotreating process meet the 50 percent GHG reduction threshold requirement for advanced biofuel and biomass-based diesel. This finding
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the provisions of the
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements 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. This rule proposes to provide a positive economic effect for distillers sorghum oil producers and producers of biofuels from distillers sorghum oil as they would be able to participate in the RFS program, see CAA section 211(o).
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
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 proposed rule would affect only producers of distillers sorghum oil and producers of biofuels made from distillers sorghum oil. 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 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 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
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 that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This proposed rule does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment by applicable air quality standards. This action does not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the fuel programs and RFS regulations and therefore will not cause emissions increases from these sources.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Diesel Fuel, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, Oil imports, Petroleum, Renewable fuel.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 80 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545, and 7601(a).
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) proposes to establish federal nutrient criteria to protect designated uses for the State of Missouri's lakes and reservoirs. On August 16, 2011, EPA disapproved most of the numeric criteria for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and chlorophyll
Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0010, at
EPA is offering two online public hearings so that interested parties may provide verbal comments on this proposed rule. The first public hearing
Mario Sengco, Standards and Health Protection Division, Office of Water, Mailcode: 4305T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-2676; email address:
Citizens concerned with water quality in the State of Missouri may be interested in this proposed rulemaking. Entities discharging nitrogen or phosphorus to lakes and reservoirs, or to flowing waters emptying into lakes or reservoirs, could be affected directly or indirectly by this rulemaking because WQS are used in determining National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit effluent limits. Stakeholders that rely on lakes and reservoirs for recreation or as a source of drinking water likewise may be interested in the proposed criteria. Table 1 lists categories that ultimately may be affected by this proposal.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it provides a guide for entities that may be affected directly or indirectly by this action. Nonpoint source contributors and other entities not listed in the table also could be affected indirectly. Any party or entity that conducts activities within the watersheds affected by this rule, or that relies on, depends upon, influences, or contributes to the water quality of the lakes, reservoirs and flowing waters of Missouri, also may be affected by this rule. To determine whether your facility or activities may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine this proposed rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding
The EPA is proposing two alternatives to establish federal nutrient criteria to protect designated uses for the State of Missouri's lakes and reservoirs. Under the first alternative, EPA proposes nutrient protection values (total nitrogen, total phosphorus, chlorophyll
Excess loading of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds
Elevated nitrogen and phosphorus levels can occur locally in a stream or groundwater aquifer, or can accumulate much further downstream leading to degraded lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries and material impacts on fish and other aquatic life.
Howarth, R.W., A. Sharpley & D. Walker. 2002. Sources of nutrient pollution to coastal waters in the United States: Implications for achieving coastal water quality goals.
Smith, V.H. 2003. Eutrophication of freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems.
Dodds, W.K., W.W. Bouska, J.L. Eitzmann, T.J. Pilger, K.L. Pitts, A.J. Riley, J.T. Schloesser & D.J. Thornbrugh. 2009. Eutrophication of U.S. freshwaters: Analysis of potential economic damages.
The causal pathways that lead from human activities to excess nutrients to impacts on designated uses in lakes and reservoirs are well established in the scientific literature (
Schindler D.W., H. Kling, R.V. Schmidt, J. Prokopowich, V.E. Frost, R. A. Reid & M. Capel. 1973. Eutrophication of Lake 227 by addition of phosphate and nitrate: The second, third, and fourth years of enrichment 1970, 1971, and 1972.
Schindler D.W. 1974. Eutrophication and recovery in experimental lakes: Implications for lake management.
Vollenweider, R.A. 1976.
Carlson R.E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes.
Paerl, H.W. 1988. Nuisance phytoplankton blooms in coastal, estuarine, and inland waters.
Elser, J.J., E.R. Marzolf & C.R. Goldman. 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in the freshwaters of North America: A review and critique of experimental enrichments.
Smith, V.H., G.D. Tilman & J.C. Nekola. 1999. Eutrophication: Impacts of excess nutrient inputs on freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems.
Downing, J. A., S. B. Watson & E. McCauley. 2001. Predicting cyanobacteria dominance in lakes.
Smith, V.H., S.B. Joye & R.W. Howarth. 2006. Eutrophication of freshwater and marine ecosystems.
Elser, J.J., M.E.S. Bracken, E.E. Cleland, D.S. Gruner, W.S. Harpole, H. Hillebrand, J.T. Ngai, E.W. Seabloom, J.B. Shurin & J.E. Smith. 2007. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary production in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems.
Excessive algal growth also contributes to increased oxygen consumption associated with decomposition (
In freshwater lakes and reservoirs, blooms of cyanobacteria (sometimes referred to as blue-green algae),
Elevated nitrogen and phosphorus levels in lakes and reservoirs can impact human health and safety and otherwise detract from the outdoor recreational experience. For example, nutrient pollution in lakes typically promotes higher densities of phytoplankton, which can reduce the clarity of the water column to the detriment of swimmer safety. Cyanobacterial blooms frequently result in high algal toxin (
Many other states, and countries for that matter, are experiencing problems with harmful algal blooms (HABs).
Human health also can be impacted by disinfection byproducts (DBPs), formed when disinfectants (such as chlorine) used to treat drinking water react with organic carbon produced by algae in source waters. Some DBPs have been linked to rectal, bladder, and colon cancers; reproductive health risks; and liver, kidney, and central nervous system problems.
Implementation of nutrient criteria help to protect lakes and reservoirs from the negative effects of nutrient pollution, which frequently include, but are not limited to (a) the occurrence and spread of toxic algae, (b) the proliferation of certain fish species that are less desirable to sport anglers (
Lake water quality impairments attributable to nutrient pollution have not been quantified with any degree of precision in Missouri. Long-term monitoring data are available for about 10 percent of the State's classified lakes and reservoirs (representing approximately 90 percent of overall lake acreage), and about 15 percent of these monitored waters already have EPA-approved numeric nutrient criteria.
Missouri adopted site-specific chlorophyll
MDNR acknowledges that lake and reservoir eutrophication is occurring at a detectable rate throughout much of the state.
Section 303(c) of the CWA (33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)) directs states and authorized tribes
Additionally, 40 CFR § 130.10(b) provides that “[i]n designating uses of a waterbody and the appropriate criteria for those uses, the state shall take into consideration the water quality standards of downstream waters and ensure that its water quality standards provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters.”
States and authorized tribes also are required to hold one or more public hearings consistent with 40 CFR § 25.5 to review their WQS at least once every three years and, as appropriate, modify or adopt new standards and to hold public hearings when revising or adopting new WQS. (
Under CWA section 304(a), EPA periodically publishes criteria recommendations for use by states and authorized tribes in setting water quality criteria for particular parameters to protect the designated uses for their surface waters. Where EPA has published nationally-recommended criteria, states and authorized tribes have the option of adopting water quality criteria based on EPA's CWA section 304(a) criteria guidance, section 304(a) criteria guidance modified to reflect site-specific conditions, or other scientifically defensible methods. (
In general, there are three types of empirical analyses that provide distinctly different, independent and scientifically defensible, approaches for deriving nutrient criteria from field data. These include (1) the “reference condition approach,” which derives criteria based on the observed water quality characteristics of minimally disturbed or least disturbed waterbodies, (2) the “mechanistic modeling approach,” which employs mathematical representations of ecological systems, processes and parameters using equations that can be calibrated using site-specific data, and (3) the “stressor-response-based
EPA has long recommended that states adopt numeric criteria for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP),
EPA's articulation of this combined criterion approach
EPA has worked extensively with states that have adopted a combined criterion approach, resulting in CWA section 303(c) approvals of combined criterion approaches for Florida's streams,
EPA notes that once appropriate numeric criteria are developed, assessment of the impairment status of individual water bodies is dependent on data; this is true for any set of numeric criteria addressing any pollutant. EPA further recognizes that it is the responsibility of States to determine the pace and prioritization of data collection, as this is primarily an implementation issue rather than a criteria development issue. However, EPA recommends that states consider such implementation issues at the time of criteria development as this may lead to a more successful water quality standards program generally. In the case of nutrient criteria, EPA has recommended that states interested in this approach develop a biological assessment program that can measure biological responses and other nutrient-related response parameters with confidence through a robust monitoring program to account for spatial and temporal variability to document the effects of nutrient pollution. EPA reiterates, however, that States have significant discretion in determining the appropriate pace and prioritization of such a monitoring program.
In developing combined criteria, States and EPA have previously identified the following as response parameters that are indicative of nutrient pollution in streams: measures of primary productivity (
In previous guidance, EPA has recommended that a combined criterion approach should make clear the impairment status of waterbodies in the following situations.
One situation deserves special consideration. If a causal parameter is exceeded and data are unavailable for any applicable response parameters, EPA has previously recommended that the criterion be deemed not met and the waterbody be deemed to not be meeting its designated uses. Under one of EPA's co-proposed approaches (which mirrors the State's 2017 proposal), such waterbodies would be deemed “undetermined” with respect to impairment status. Under the other co-proposed approach, which matches EPA's prior recommendations, the water body is deemed to be impaired, until all response variables have been assessed, at which point the water body status may be changed to non-impaired if no response variable is exceeded. EPA has recommended this approach in the past on the grounds that an exceedance of a causal variable will generally correlate with impairment of aquatic life uses, but we preserve the flexibility for states to conclude that a waterbody is not impaired if information indicates the absence of a response in the waterbody supporting the conclusion that the use is being protected. EPA recognizes there are alternative views of how this comports with requirements that criteria be based on a sound scientific rationale and protective of designated uses, believing if data on some response variables are missing, then it may not be known whether the water body is meeting its designated use or not, and an “undetermined” status with respect to impairment may be appropriate. EPA solicits comment on whether response variables are the best indicators of impairment or non-impairment, and the science policy considerations relevant to determining whether a water body is meeting its designated use if data on some or all response variables are missing.
The approach described above ensures protection of designated uses by taking into account critical information about the pollutant load in the waterbody, as well as the response. Although the terminology of the combined criterion approach more closely aligns with assessment and listing terminology, the combined criterion is also the applicable WQS for NPDES permitting purposes whereby permits must contain limits for any pollutant parameters that are or may be discharged at levels that will cause, have reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any WQS (40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)).
On November 5, 2009, Missouri submitted revised WQS containing nutrient criteria for a large subset of the State's classified lakes and reservoirs. These standards contained the following language at 10 CSR 20-7.031(4)(N)2: “This [nutrient criteria] rule applies to all lakes and reservoirs that are waters of the state and that are outside the Big River Floodplain Ecoregion and have an area of at least ten (10) acres during normal pool.” Table G in Missouri's WQS regulations listed 453 classified lakes and reservoirs, 25 of which were deemed “high quality” and were assigned site-specific nutrient criteria separately in Table M. Of the remaining waters, 96 were smaller than ten acres and/or located in the Big River Floodplain Ecoregion and exempted from the application of nutrient criteria under 10 CSR 20-7.031(4)(N)2. Conversely, 332 lakes and reservoirs not listed in Table M were subject to the application of nutrient criteria under 10 CSR 20-7.031(4)(N)2 and (4)(N)3 at the time Missouri submitted its nutrient criteria to EPA. On August 16, 2011, EPA approved all nutrient criteria assigned to the 25 waterbodies listed in Table M but disapproved nutrient criteria that would have applied to the remaining waterbodies. Additionally, EPA disapproved site-specific criteria for total phosphorus assigned to the tributary arms of two large reservoirs (Lake of the Ozarks and Table Rock Lake) per 10 CSR 20-7.031(4)(N)3.A.IV.
The disapproved water quality standards defined “prediction values,” “reference values” and “site specific-values” and derived total phosphorus (TP) criteria based on how these values compared to one another. This approach involved a set of input variables and site-specific data requirements. For example, the regulation established that TP prediction values for lakes and reservoirs in the Plains must be calculated based on site-specific coefficients for the (a) percentage of watershed originally in prairie, (b) hydraulic residence time in years, and (c) dam height in feet. To apply the appropriate TP criterion, the State would have had to know how the TP prediction value compared to both the TP reference value
EPA's disapproval action was based on a determination that Missouri's proposal did not include the data and other necessary information needed for EPA to independently reproduce the State's work and that the State had failed to demonstrate that the criteria would protect the designated aquatic life support and recreational uses as required by 40 CFR 131.6(b) and (c).
On March 19, 2014, Missouri submitted revised water quality standards (the designated uses component) that incorporated, for the first time, the Missouri Use Designation Dataset (MUDD) (10 CSR 20-7.031(2)(E); see also Table G of WQS which references the MUDD
On February 24, 2016, the Missouri Coalition for the Environment Foundation (MCE) filed a lawsuit alleging that EPA failed to perform its
On October 16, 2017, MDNR continued to develop revised numeric nutrient criteria and formally issued its proposed WQS that are intended to address EPA's August 16, 2011 disapproval. Based on EPA's examination of the State's proposed rule, Missouri has characterized its revised nutrient WQS as a combined criterion. Missouri's proposed rule applies to lakes and reservoirs.
At the time of this proposal, Missouri's proposal is still under consideration and the State has not submitted to EPA for CWA 303(c) review a final rule with supporting information to address EPA's 2011 disapproval.
Today EPA is proposing two alternatives to establish nutrient criteria in a combined criterion approach to address its 2011 disapproval. Under the first alternative, EPA proposes nutrient protection values and eutrophication impact factors in a combined criterion approach. Under the second alternative, EPA proposes a combined criterion approach that would mirror the State of Missouri's October 2017 proposal for lake nutrient water quality standards. EPA seeks public comment on the two alternatives described below in light of the federal regulations at 40 CFR part 131.11 requiring that criteria must be based on a sound scientific rationale and protective of the designated uses of the waters.
Alternative 1 is presented in Table 3 below and appears as regulatory text at the end of this proposal.
Alternative 1 is comprised of nutrient protection values and eutrophication impacts. Nutrient protection values are defined similarly as Missouri defines their “screening values”: maximum ambient concentrations of TP, TN, and chl-
Under Alternative 1, lake and reservoir water quality must not exceed protection values for TN or TP unless each of the eutrophication impacts are evaluated and data demonstrate that none occur within the same three-year rolling average period as a TN or TP exceedance. EPA included this presumption to address potential for data gaps for response parameters.
EPA requests comment on a set of nutrient protection values as derived below. This methodology considered the water quality characteristics of lakes and reservoirs located in watersheds with comparatively low levels of human disturbance. This methodology, known as the reference condition approach, comports with longstanding Agency guidance
Thorpe, A. 2015.
Protecting a waterbody at reference conditions should inherently protect all designated uses, and therefore, should support the most sensitive use.
In developing this Alternative 1 approach, EPA initially considered all readily available water quality data (
EPA subsequently reviewed sampling and analytical protocols employed by the various governmental agencies, academic institutions and private entities (
In identifying candidate (least disturbed) reference sites, EPA used the following criteria as an initial screen to identify least disturbed waters, all previously included in the State's 2009 WQS submittal.
•
•
•
•
In order to identify waters meeting this initial screening criteria, EPA obtained digital watershed polygons from USGS's National Hydrography Dataset and a separate dataset maintained by the University of Missouri-Columbia. In about five cases, polygons were not available in either dataset and had to be digitized in ArcGIS.
Flanagan, D.C., J.R. Frankenberger, T.A. Cochrane, C.S. Renschler & W.J. Elliot. 2013.
After this initial screening exercise, EPA then subjected the identified candidate watersheds/lakes to further evaluation using aerial imagery, NPDES permit records, Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) conservation area reports, and other available sources of information. EPA removed watersheds and lakes from further consideration if they (1) received substantial drainage from the Big River Floodplain Ecoregion (out of scope); (2) exhibited extensive shoreline residential development; (3) had received historical or recent manure applications from nearby feedlots; (4) had undergone deliberate (fisheries oriented) fertilization efforts; and (5) had been situated in an area of formerly cultivated fields.
Additionally, three isolated waterbodies in the Plains exhibited median chlorophyll
To assist in the identification of appropriate concentration percentiles, land cover disturbance patterns in the three ecoregions were compared to patterns reported for the conterminous United States using ArcGIS. This comparison indicated that cropland and developed (urban) land collectively comprised 21.1 percent of the cover in the lower 48 states. This is comparable to the percentage reported for the Ozark Border (22.2 percent), higher than the percentage reported for the Ozark Highlands (6.9 percent), and lower than the percentage reported for the Plains (39.9 percent). Based on its review of the applicable federal guidance,
In this alternative, these concentration percentiles would serve as nutrient protection values as part of a combined criterion approach for all classified lakes and reservoirs in Missouri that (1) are listed in Table G of the State's WQS and the Missouri Use Designation
As described in the Technical Support Document accompanying this proposal, the resulting values are comparable in magnitude to those recommended by the Regional Technical Assistance Group (RTAG) for the four-state region, to criteria developed or adopted in neighboring Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma, and to TMDL targets adopted previously in Missouri. As such, EPA is confident that the nutrient protection values are protective of downstream lakes and reservoirs, though EPA emphasizes that this is not the only way of developing protective values. For protection of downstream rivers and streams, lakes often act as a “sink” for nutrients because of the relatively longer water residence time and associated physical processes and biochemical cycling. As such, lakes retain nutrients and outflow nutrient concentrations are generally lower than inflow nutrient concentrations. In terms of level of protection needed, nutrient criteria for lakes and reservoirs are generally lower than nutrient criteria for rivers and streams in the same ecoregion (see, for example, EPA's criteria published in 2000 for Ecoregion IX). For these reasons, EPA concludes that the values are protective of downstream waters and their assigned uses. EPA invites public comment on the derivation of EPA's proposed nutrient protection values based on least disturbed reference conditions. EPA specifically requests comments on the use of the 75th percentile of the reference lake values to establish the TN, TP, and chl-
Alternative 2 is presented in Table 4 below.
As of the date of this proposal, Missouri has not finalized, and EPA has not made any determination with respect to, Missouri's proposed standards. Notwithstanding this, EPA believes it is appropriate to propose standards for consideration that are essentially identical to the proposed state standards, and is doing so in Alternative 2. Alternative 2 includes chl-
The State of Missouri has documented a supporting rationale for the values proposed in Alternative 2 as part of a combined criterion structure.
Missouri indicated the stand-alone independent chl-
EPA is seeking comment on whether the chl-
The combined criterion could function in the manner proposed for Alternative 1, where a lake with water quality that exceeds protection values for TN or TP is deemed impaired for excess nutrients unless each of the eutrophication impacts are evaluated and none occur within the same evaluation period (or unless the chl-
EPA also has not provided proposed regulatory text for Alternative 2, because the regulatory text for this option would be largely identical to the regulatory text in the State's 2017 proposed rule. Rather, the Agency is providing notice of its consideration of Alternative 2 in the preamble to today's proposed rule. The Agency recognizes that, if the Agency were to adopt this alternative in the final rule, there may need to be formatting changes to the State regulatory text to conform to requirements applicable to codification in the Code of Federal Regulations.
This federal action fulfills EPA's commitment under the consent decree with MCE to propose criteria addressing its 2011 disapproval by December 15, 2017. EPA acknowledges that the alternatives in the current proposal are not the only possible options that EPA could promulgate or Missouri could adopt to address the 2011 disapproval action. When promulgating federal water quality standards for a state, EPA's preference is to rely on state-specific data, where available, to derive criteria to protect the state's applicable designated uses. EPA solicits comment from the public and stakeholders on the Agency's co-proposals, in addition to other scientifically defensible options, to support a well-informed and robust final rule that reflects thoughtful consideration of Missouri's regulatory structure and implementation mechanisms.
EPA considered several alternatives to the two alternatives proposed combined criterion approaches, component nutrient protection (or screening) values, and eutrophication impacts, and is interested in public comment on these approaches. First, EPA considered proposing the reference condition-derived nutrient protection values as stand-alone nutrient criteria (
Unless EPA approves water quality standards addressing EPA's 2011 disapproval, EPA's proposed nutrient combined criterion for Missouri's lakes and reservoirs would be effective for CWA purposes 60 days after publication of a final rule. The proposed combined criterion in this rule, if finalized would be subject to Missouri's general rules of applicability in the same way and to the same extent as are other state-adopted criteria.
EPA's proposed nutrient combined criterion, if finalized, would serve as a basis for development of new or revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits in Missouri for regulated dischargers found to have reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an
As part of its efforts to establish its water quality standards, the State of Missouri established water quality criteria in its 2009 WQS submission to address nutrient-related pollutants for certain lakes, reservoirs and tributary arms. As mentioned previously, on August 16, 2011, EPA disapproved most numeric criteria for TN, TP, and chl-
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires the EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), to ensure that any action authorized by the Agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for such species.
Pursuant to this section, EPA intends to initiate consultation with USFWS regarding the effects that finalizing this rulemaking would have on federally-listed threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat. EPA will subsequently conduct a biological evaluation to determine whether any federally-listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat are likely to be adversely affected by the finalization of this rulemaking.
Under the CWA, Congress gave states primary responsibility for developing and adopting WQS for their navigable waters.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 131.21(c), if EPA does promulgate final criteria, they would be applicable for the purposes of the CWA. EPA could eventually withdraw any federally promulgated criteria through a rulemaking. EPA would undertake a withdrawal action if Missouri adopts and EPA approves water quality criteria to address EPA's 2011 disapproval as meeting CWA requirements.
The Federal water quality standards regulation at 40 CFR part 131 provides several tools that Missouri has available to use at its discretion when implementing or deciding how to implement these numeric nutrient criteria, if finalized. Among other things, EPA's WQS regulation: (1) Specifies how states and authorized tribes establish, modify or remove designated uses, (2) specifies the requirements for establishing criteria to protect designated uses, including criteria modified to reflect site-specific conditions, (3) authorizes and provides requirements for states and authorized tribes to adopt WQS variances that provide time to achieve the underlying WQS, and (4) allows states and authorized tribes to authorize the use of compliance schedules in NPDES permits to meet Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs) derived from the applicable criteria. Each of these approaches is discussed in more detail in the next sections.
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 131.10 provide regulatory requirements for establishing, modifying, and removing designated uses. If Missouri removes or modifies the aquatic life or recreational designated uses of a lake or reservoir subject to EPA's proposed nutrient criteria and adopts the highest attainable use,
The regulation at 40 CFR 131.11 specifies requirements for modifying water quality criteria to reflect site-specific conditions. In the context of this rulemaking, a site-specific criterion (SSC) is an alternative to a federally promulgated nutrient criterion that would be applied on a watershed, area-wide, or water body-specific basis,
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 131.14 define a WQS variance as a time-limited designated use and criterion, for a specific pollutant or water quality parameter, that reflects the highest attainable condition during the term of the WQS variance. WQS variances adopted in accordance with 40 CFR 131.14 (including a public hearing consistent with 40 CFR 25.5) provide a flexible but defined pathway for states and authorized tribes to meet their NPDES permit obligations by allowing dischargers the time they need (as demonstrated by the state or authorized tribe) to make incremental progress toward meeting WQS that are not immediately attainable but may be in the future. When adopting a WQS variance, states and authorized tribes specify the interim requirements of the variance by identifying a quantitative expression that reflects the highest attainable condition (HAC) during the term of the variance, defining the term of the variance, and describing the pollutant control activities to achieve the HAC during the term of the variance. WQS variances will help states and authorized tribes focus on improving water quality, rather than pursuing a downgrade of the underlying water quality goals through modification or removal of a designated use, as a variance cannot lower currently attained water quality. As water quality standards, variances are submitted to EPA for review and approval under CWA section 303(c) which provides legal avenue by which NPDES permit limits can be written to derive from, and comply with, the WQS variance rather than the underlying WQS, for the term of the WQS variance. If dischargers are still unable to meet the WQBELs derived from the applicable WQS once a variance term is complete, the regulation allows the state to adopt a subsequent variance if it is adopted consistent with 131.14.
EPA's proposed nutrient criterion applies to use designations that Missouri has already established. Missouri may adopt time-limited designated uses and criteria to apply for the purposes specified in 40 CFR 131.14(a)(3).
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.47 and 40 CFR 131.15 address how states and authorized tribes include permit compliance schedules in their NPDES permits if dischargers need additional time to meet their WQBELs based on the applicable WQS. EPA's updated regulations at 40 CFR 131.15 require that states and authorized tribes that wish to allow the use of permit compliance schedules adopt specific provisions authorizing their use and obtain EPA approval under CWA section 303(c) to ensure that a decision to allow permit compliance schedules is transparent and allows for public input (80 FR 51022, August 21, 2015). On December 11, 2012, Missouri submitted a revised compliance schedule authorizing provision at 10 CSR 20-7.031(10). This revision was partly approved by EPA on January 25, 2015. Missouri is authorized to grant permit compliance schedules, as appropriate, to permitted facilities impacted by federally promulgated numeric nutrient criteria as long as such compliance schedules are consistent with EPA's permitting regulation at 40 CFR 122.47.
At this time, EPA has prepared only a preliminary economic analysis specifically for Alternative 1. This analysis will be further refined and an updated more comprehensive economic review will be put out for comment in a Notice of Data Availability at a later time. At that time, to best inform the public of the potential impacts of this rule, EPA will evaluate the potential benefits and costs associated with implementation of EPA's proposed criterion.
The analysis of acres with BMPs to address nonpoint sources of nutrients was conducted at the HUC-12 level of resolution. Many of the potentially incrementally impaired lakes in Missouri are small, and their watersheds are smaller than the HUC-12 watershed in which they are located; thus, the estimated costs for these watersheds may be overstated. However, EPA did not initially include any costs for watersheds for which it does not have data, thus, at least some likely costs were not included in the preliminary analysis. Due to these and other limitations, EPA believes that its current draft analysis is too preliminary to adequately inform public comment on the rule. EPA will address these issues in the updated analysis provided in the NODA.
EPA also preliminarily estimated the benefits from water quality improvements resulting from implementing the nutrient protection values in Missouri Lakes and reservoirs. However, due to data and resource limitations and other challenges, EPA believes that this benefits analysis is also too preliminary to be presented at this time. EPA will also include an updated analysis of benefits in the NODA.
EPA seeks public comment to inform EPA's economic analysis. EPA is interested in public comment regarding how likely it is that lakes without water quality data may trigger the screening criteria; what practices the agricultural sector and cities may take to reduce nonpoint source discharges and the likelihood that such practices are implemented; what unit costs EPA should consider using in conducting this analysis; and what assumptions EPA should consider using for expected nutrient load reductions.
EPA intends to make the revised analysis, including pre-publication peer review, available for public comment no later than six months after the date of publication of this proposed rule. In no circumstances will EPA issue a final rule without providing an economic analysis sufficiently in advance of the final rule for public comment on the analysis to meaningfully inform EPA's development of the rule.
This action is an economically significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) is available in the docket. A summary of the report can be found in Section VIII of this preamble.
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule will be available for public comment in a subsequent Notice of Data Availability to be published no later than six months after this proposed rule (See summary at Section VIII. Economic Analysis, and full economic analysis report in the docket for this proposed rulemaking).
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
Under the CWA, states must adopt WQS for their waters and submit these standards to EPA for approval. If the Agency disapproves a submitted standard and the state does not adopt revisions to address EPA's disapproval, EPA must promulgate standards consistent with the CWA requirements. State standards (or EPA-promulgated standards) are implemented through various water quality control programs including the NPDES program, which limits discharges to navigable waters except in compliance with an NPDES permit. The CWA requires that all NPDES permits include any limits on discharges that are necessary to meet applicable WQS. Thus, under the CWA, EPA's promulgation of WQS establishes standards that the state implements through the NPDES permit process. The State has discretion in developing discharge limits, as needed to meet the standards. This proposed rule, as explained earlier, does not itself establish any requirements that are applicable to small entities. As a result of this action, the State of Missouri will need to ensure that permits it issues include any limitations on discharges necessary to comply with the standards established in the final rule. In doing so, the state will have a number of choices associated with permit writing. While Missouri's implementation of the rule may ultimately result in new or revised permit conditions for some dischargers, including small entities, EPA's action, by itself, does not impose any of these requirements on small entities; that is, these requirements are not self-implementing. Thus, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA.
This proposed rule contains no federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
EPA determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Moreover, WQS, including those proposed here, apply broadly to dischargers and are not uniquely applicable to small governments. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
This action does not have federalism implications as that term is used in EO 13132. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action, EPA had extensive communication with the State of Missouri to discuss EPA's concerns with the State's previously submitted and disapproved criteria and the federal rulemaking process. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA's policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and local officials.
This action does not have any tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175. As there are no federally-recognized tribes in the State of Missouri, this executive order does not apply. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) requires agencies to identify and assess health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children and ensure that activities address disproportionate risks to children. This action not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This rule is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
EPA is not aware of any voluntary consensus standards that address the numeric nutrient criteria in this proposed rule.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it would afford a greater level of protection to both human health and the environment if these nutrient criteria are promulgated in the State of Missouri.
Environmental protection, water quality standards, nutrients, Missouri.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 131 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1251
(a)
(b)
(1) Lake and reservoir water quality must not exceed nutrient protection values for chlorophyll
(2) Lake and reservoir water quality must also not exceed nutrient protection values for total nitrogen and total phosphorus unless each of the following eutrophication impacts are evaluated and none occur within the same three-year rolling average period: (I) Eutrophication-related mortality or morbidity events for fish and other aquatic organisms, (II) An excursion from the DO or pH criteria in Missouri water quality standards applicable for Clean Water Act purposes, (III) Cyanobacteria counts equal to or greater than 100,000 cells per ml, (IV) Observed shifts in aquatic diversity directly attributable to eutrophication, or (V) Excessive levels of mineral turbidity that consistently limit algal productivity during the period May 1—September 30, or Secchi disk measurements of turbidity equal to or less than EPA's recommended Level III Ecoregions IX (1.53 m) or IX (2.86 m).
(1) The combined criterion in paragraph (b) of this section applies to waters discussed in paragraph (a) of this section and applies concurrently with other applicable water quality criteria.
(2) The combined criterion established in this section is subject to Missouri's general rules of applicability in the same way and to the same extent as state-adopted and EPA-approved water quality criteria when applied to the waters discussed in paragraph (a).
(d)
Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS.
Notification of intent to develop regulations.
In accordance with section 205 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), this annual notification solicits proposals and recommendations for developing new, and modifying existing, safe harbor provisions under the Federal anti-kickback statute (§ 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act), as well as developing new OIG Special Fraud Alerts.
To ensure consideration, public comments must be delivered to the address provided below by no later than 5 p.m. on February 26, 2018.
In commenting, please refer to file code OIG-127-N. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (fax) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of three ways (no duplicates, please):
1.
2.
3.
For information on viewing public comments, please see the
Patrice Drew, Regulatory Affairs Liaison, Office of Inspector General, (202) 619-1368.
Section 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)) provides criminal penalties for individuals or entities that knowingly
Because the statute, on its face, is so broad, concern has been expressed for many years that some relatively innocuous commercial arrangements may be subject to criminal prosecution or administrative sanction. In response to the above concern, section 14 of the Medicare and Medicaid Patient and Program Protection Act of 1987, Public Law 100-93 § 14, specifically required the development and promulgation of regulations, the so-called “safe harbor” provisions, specifying various payment and business practices that, although potentially capable of inducing referrals of business reimbursable under Federal health care programs, would not be treated as criminal offenses under the anti-kickback statute and would not serve as a basis for administrative sanctions. OIG safe harbor provisions have been developed “to limit the reach of the statute somewhat by permitting certain non-abusive arrangements, while encouraging beneficial and innocuous arrangements” (56 FR 35952, July 29, 1991). Health care providers and others may voluntarily seek to comply with these provisions so that they have the assurance that their business practices will not be subject to liability under the anti-kickback statute or related administrative authorities. OIG safe harbor regulations are found at 42 CFR part 1001.
OIG periodically issues Special Fraud Alerts to give continuing guidance to health care providers with respect to practices OIG considers to be suspect or of particular concern. The Special Fraud Alerts encourage industry compliance by giving providers guidance that can be applied to their own practices. OIG Special Fraud Alerts are published in the
In developing Special Fraud Alerts, OIG relies on a number of sources and consults directly with experts in the subject field, including those within OIG, other agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (the Department), other Federal and State agencies, and those in the health care industry.
Section 205 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191 § 205 (the Act), § 1128D, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7d, requires the Department to develop and publish an annual notification in the
In developing safe harbors for a criminal statute, OIG thoroughly reviews the range of factual circumstances that may fall within the proposed safe harbor subject area so as to uncover potential opportunities for fraud and abuse. Only then can OIG determine, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Justice, whether it can effectively develop regulatory limitations and controls that will permit beneficial and innocuous arrangements within a subject area while, at the same time, protecting Federal health care programs and their beneficiaries from abusive practices.
In accordance with the requirements of section 205 of HIPAA, OIG last published a
A detailed explanation of justifications for, or empirical data supporting, a suggestion for a safe harbor or Special Fraud Alert would be helpful and should, if possible, be included in any response to this solicitation.
In accordance with section 205 of HIPAA, we will consider a number of factors in reviewing proposals for new or modified safe harbor provisions, such as the extent to which the proposals would affect an increase or decrease in:
• Access to health care services,
• the quality of health care services,
• patient freedom of choice among health care providers,
• competition among health care providers,
• the cost to Federal health care programs,
• the potential overutilization of health care services, and
• the ability of health care facilities to provide services in medically underserved areas or to medically underserved populations.
In addition, we will consider other factors, including, for example, the existence (or nonexistence) of any potential financial benefit to health care professionals or providers that may take into account their decisions whether to (1) order a health care item or service or (2) arrange for a referral of health care items or services to a particular practitioner or provider.
In determining whether to issue additional Special Fraud Alerts, we will consider whether, and to what extent, the practices that would be identified in a new Special Fraud Alert may result in any of the consequences set forth above, as well as the volume and frequency of the conduct that would be identified in the Special Fraud Alert.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a proposed rule and a 12-month finding on a petition to list the Yangtze sturgeon (
We will consider comments and information received or postmarked on or before February 26, 2018. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-ES-2017-0047; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Janine Van Norman, Branch of Foreign Species, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone, 703-358-2171; facsimile, 703-358-2499. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Our intent, as required by the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Before issuing a final rule to implement this proposed action, we will take into account all comments and any additional relevant information we receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from our proposal. For example, new information or analysis may lead to a threatened status instead of an endangered status for this species, or we may determine that this species does not warrant listing based on the best available information when we make our determination. All comments, including commenters' names and addresses, if provided to us, will become part of the administrative record. For this species, we particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, ranges, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the species and existing regulations that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current status, range, distribution, and population size of the species, including the locations of any additional populations of the species.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date listed above in
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
On March 12, 2012, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) received a petition dated March 8, 2012, from WildEarth Guardians and Friends of Animals to list as endangered or threatened under the Act the following 15 sturgeon species: Adriatic sturgeon (
NMFS acknowledged receipt of this petition in a letter dated April 14, 2012, and informed the petitioners that NMFS would determine, under section 4 of the Act, whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Although the petition was initially sent to NMFS, as a result of subsequent discussions between NMFS and the Service regarding the August 28, 1974, Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to “Jurisdictional Responsibilities and Listing Procedures Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,” we have determined that 10 of the 15 petitioned sturgeon species are within the jurisdiction of the Service. Therefore, in April 2012, the Service notified WildEarth Guardians that we have jurisdiction over the 10 sturgeon species, listed below.
On September 24, 2013, we published in the
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and overall viability of the Yangtze sturgeon is presented in the Species Status Assessment (SSA) for the Yangtze sturgeon (Service 2017; available at
The Yangtze sturgeon is a freshwater fish species that attains a maximum size of around 130 centimeters (4.3 feet (ft)) and a maximum weight of about 16 kilograms (35 pounds) (Billiard and Lecointre 2000, p. 368; Zhuang
Historically, the Yangtze sturgeon coexisted alongside the Chinese sturgeon in the Yangtze River. Initial attempts to differentiate the two species included using morphological measures. However, morphological characteristics can be influenced by differences in environmental conditions. For example, wild Yangtze sturgeon display grey color on the sides of their bodies while those bred in captivity sometimes display a darker color (Li
Due to similarities in their morphology, the two sturgeons were not identified as separate species until 1869, based on collection of specimens obtained from the Yangtze River (Zhuang
Despite similarities between Yangtze and Chinese sturgeon, there are differences between the two species.
In addition to differences in their life history, these two species can also be differentiated based on their mitochondrial and nuclear DNA (Li J.
Although the Yangtze sturgeon's life history is similar to other sturgeon species, there are key differences. Based on the best available information, much of what is known about the Yangtze sturgeon's life history comes from research on the more numerous and studied Chinese sturgeon due to similarities in morphology, taxonomy, and life history between the two species. Yangtze sturgeons spawn in the spring from March to April, with a smaller late fall/early winter spawning period occurring from October to December (Qiwei 2010, p. 3; Gao
At the spawning site, female Yangtze sturgeons can lay between 57,000 to 102,000 eggs. These eggs, when mature, are gray to black and range from 2.7 to 3.4 millimeters (0.11 to 0.13 inches) in diameter. The eggs are sticky and firmly adhere to the space between pebbles and boulders, known as the “interstitial” space, on the riverbed (Gao
Juvenile sturgeons disperse around 100 to 200 kilometers (km) (62 to 124 miles (mi)) downstream from their spawning ground and arrive in backwater pools and sandy shallows with low velocity flow and rich mud and sand substrate where they feed on insects, aquatic plants, and small fish (Zhang
The Yangtze sturgeon is found in sandy shoal with silt ground and gentle to moderate water flow (Bemis and Kynard 1997, p. 169; Zhuang
As its name implies, the Yangtze sturgeon is found in the Yangtze River (Wu
Historically, the Yangtze sturgeon was found in the lower portion of the Jinsha River and the upper, middle, and lower reaches of the Yangtze River, a distance of about 1,300 km (807 mi) (Wu
The Yangtze sturgeon's current range is limited to the upper Yangtze River and its tributaries in the reaches between Yibin and Yichang, a distance of about 1,000 km (Wu
The Yangtze sturgeon was historically abundant and was commercially harvested up to the 1970s (Lu
While there may have been natural recruitment of the species in the 1990s, no natural recruitment has been observed in the wild since the 2000s (Du
The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any factors affecting its continued existence. We completed a comprehensive assessment of the biological status of the Yangtze sturgeon, and prepared a report of the assessment, which provides a thorough account of the species' overall viability. In this section, we summarize the conclusions of that species status assessment, which can be accessed at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2017-0047 on
The topography of the upper Yangtze River basin is characterized by mountains of varying heights. The change in elevation between the upper Yangtze to the lower Yangtze amounts to 3,280 m (10,761 ft), which makes the upper Yangtze River an ideal place for hydroelectric projects (Fan
Dam construction on Yangtze River limits the ability of the Yangtze sturgeon to migrate between spawning and feeding reaches. Dam construction on the Yangtze occurs on both the upper and lower end of the species' current range. In the middle Yangtze River, the construction of Gezhouba Dam in 1981 prevented migration of adults downstream of the dam from being able to migrate to the species' spawning ground in the upper Yangtze near Yibin (Miao
Meanwhile, the construction of Xiangjiaba Dam on the lower Jinsha River segment occurred on part of the historical spawning reach of the species. Xiangjiaba Dam is a barrier to all fish species and prevents the migration to areas above or the below the dam (Wu
In addition to dams currently present on the lower Jinsha and upper Yangtze River, in the early 2000s, a proposal was presented for the construction of the Xiaonanhai Dam, which is to be located upstream from Chongqing. If built, this dam will create a barrier between the species' last known spawning ground and feeding reach, which, depending on design, could have a negative impact on the species (Cheng
While the rejection of the proposal to construct the Xiaonanhai Dam is good for Yangtze sturgeon, the country's twelfth 5-year plan stated that renewable resources should make up 15 percent of all energy generated in China with 9 percent coming from hydroelectric source. This plan translates to an additional 230 gigawatt (GW) of power generated via hydroelectric dam. This target is a very ambitious one, given that Three Gorges Dam generates 18 GW of power per year (Dudgeon 2011, p. 1496). Furthermore, although the plan to construct the Xiaonanhai Dam has been rejected, plans to construct dams on the Jinsha River as part of a 12-dam cascade are still proceeding (Dudgeon 2010, p. 129).
Historically, dams negatively affect the reproductive success of Yangtze sturgeon by altering water temperature flowing through the species' habitat. Water temperature influences the reproductive success of the Yangtze sturgeon at two stages in its life cycle: Commencement of spawning migration and egg survival. Spawning migration of the Yangtze sturgeon will not start until the water temperatures reach 18 degrees Celsius (°C) (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) (Cheng
By altering discharge rates, dams affect the Yangtze sturgeon's reproductive success by affecting the timing of spawning migration. The species' spawning migration begins when flow rate increases during the spring flood (Zhuang
While we do not have long-term historical data for water discharge rate for the Yangtze sturgeon at Yibin, the flow rate at Chongqing during the years 1950-2000 was between 4,540 m
In addition to affecting spawning of Yangtze sturgeon, dams affect the condition of the species' spawning ground through changes in the water velocity and sedimentation load. Because reproductive success of sturgeon is tied to the amount of suitable habitat, a reduction in habitat area can reduce the reproductive success of the species (Ban
Historically, discharge rates and sedimentation load were in alignment with precipitation rates. A low discharge rate results in low sedimentation load. High discharge rates lead to higher sediment load, as high flows are able to transport more sediments downstream (Chen Z.
The Jinsha River dams trap up to 82 percent of the sediment during the winter months, resulting in “clean” (
Despite the spring release of concentrated sediments, sediment load is expected to decline over time. At Yichang, sediment load per year has decreased from 530 mega tons (Mt) per year in the 1950s-1960s, to 60 Mt per year after 2003. Additionally, suspended sediment at Yichang below Three Gorges Dam has decreased in size from 8-10 micrometers in 1987-2002 to 3 micrometers after 2003 (Yang
Dam construction in the middle Yangtze and lower Jinsha has restricted
Upstream from the species' current range, the construction of the Xiluodu and Xiangjiaba Dam is likely to negatively affect the reproductive success of the Yangtze sturgeon. Through the release of cold water during the spring flood, the dam can delay the spawning migration of the sturgeon, which will either shorten the maturation time for juveniles or prevent the successful maturation of eggs altogether (Kynard 2016, pers. comm.; Cheng
Historically, the Yangtze sturgeon was commercially harvested on the Yangtze River. In the 1960s, harvest of Yangtze sturgeon accounted for 10 percent of total harvest. In the 1970s, 5,000 kilograms (5.5 tons) of Yangtze sturgeons were caught in the spring season at Yibin (Zhuang
Despite attempts to help conserve the species by restocking, restocked juveniles experience very low survival rates (Wu
The Yangtze sturgeon requires river substrate to contain suitable concentration to reproduce successfully (Du
As a benthic predator, the Yangtze sturgeon is exposed to higher concentrations of industrial pollution than many other fish species (Yujun
A study on TPT exposure to 2- to 3-day-old Chinese sturgeon larvae found that 6.3 percent showed skeletal/morphological deformities and 1.2 percent had no eyes or only one eye. At the same time, larvae from spawning hatches of captured adults showed skeletal/morphological deformities of 3.9 percent and 1.7 percent that had only one eye or no eyes. Given the rate of deformities found in this study, the capability for the studied Chinese sturgeon to reproduce was reduced by 58.4 to 75.9 percent (Hu
In addition to TPT, the presence of endocrine disruptors compound (EDC) affects Chinese sturgeon by inducing declining sperm activity, intersex testis-ova, and a decline in male to female ratio in the population (An and Hu 2006, p. 381). A study on EDC found that the concentration of EDC in the Yangtze River (1.55 to 6.85 micrograms per liter) is very high and could have a detrimental impact on sturgeon in the river. This result suggests that industrial discharge of EDC is occurring in the Yangtze.
As a result of rapid industrialization on the Yangtze River, higher concentration of heavy metals are found in the Yangtze River (Yujun
Despite decline in wild fishery yields, the Yangtze basin remains one of the major centers of China's aquaculture industry. Fishery yields from the basin accounts for 65 percent of total freshwater fisheries production in China (Shen
There is currently no native-strain farm (farm that raises native species) for sturgeons in China. Because no farms in China focus on raising native stock in large enough number, this system creates shortages of parental stock of native sturgeons. In response to this shortage, farmers crossbreed wild-caught sturgeon with any sturgeon species available including nonnative species (Xiong
The uncontrolled hybridization of native and nonnative species on the Yangtze alters the population dynamics between hybrids and native stocks. Hybridization may reduce the fitness of the overall population or replace a population of native fish with hybrids (Shen
As a result of overfishing and the construction of Gezhouba Dam in 1981, the population of Yangtze sturgeon has declined (Du
In response to the decline of the Yangtze sturgeon, in 1989, China's State Council added the Yangtze sturgeon to the National Red Data Book for Threatened Chinese Fish as a Class I Protected Animal (Wu
In addition to its listing under national law, the species has also been included in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) since 1998 (Ludwig 2008, p. 5; CITES 1997, pp. 152-153). The CITES trade database has recorded no international trade of this species going as far back as 1975 (the oldest date on CITES database) (CITES 2017). International trade in CITES species is regulated via a permit system. Under Article IV of CITES, export of an Appendix-II specimen requires the prior grant and presentation of an export permit. Export permits for Appendix-II specimens are only granted if the Management Authority of the State of export is satisfied that the specimens were lawfully obtained and if the Scientific Authority of the State of export has advised that the trade is not detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild. For any living specimen, the Management Authority of the State of export must also be satisfied that the specimen will be so prepared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment. Re-export of an Appendix-II specimen requires the prior grant and presentation of a re-export certificate, which is only granted if the Management Authority of the State of re-export is satisfied that the specimen
Additionally, since 2003, a fishing ban on all fish species has been implemented in the upper Yangtze River from February 1 to April 30. Starting in 2017, the fishing ban was extended from March to June (Du 2017, pers. comm.). One of the side effects of this ban is a reduction in the bycatch of Yangtze sturgeon since the time period of the ban coincides with the spawning season of the Yangtze sturgeon (Chen D.
Despite the implementation of legal protection for the species, there are several shortcomings with the current regulatory mechanisms for the species. China currently does not have a specialized, dedicated agency to manage fisheries resources across the country. Riverine resource management is maintained at local levels which are often located in major population center, far away from the fishery resource (Chen D.
In addition to a lack of a specialized body or other effective basin-wide conservation efforts, lack of funding is major problem for local jurisdictions. Enforcement officers often lack basic equipment, such as boats, to carry out fishing regulations within the fishery (Chen D.
To offset the effects of habitat loss due to dams, China's State Department established in 2000 the National Reserve of Hejiang-Leibo Reaches of the Yangtze River for Rare and Endangered Fishes (Zhang H.
Since 2003, hydroelectric projects in China are subjected to environmental assessments and approval from the Ministry of Environmental Protection (Ministry) (Dudgeon 2011, p. 1496). However, this approval is routinely ignored even by nationally owned corporations. For example, in 2004, China Three Gorges Corporation (CTGC) began construction of the Xiluodu Dam in the Lower Jinsha without obtaining permission from the Ministry (Dudgeon 2011, pp. 1496-1497). In response, the Ministry suspended work on the dam in 2005. However, despite initial reservation about the lack of an environmental impact assessment, the Ministry quickly compiled reports and allowed the dam construction to proceed (Dudgeon 2011, p. 1499). Additionally, in 2009 the Ministry gave the authority to build two additional dams on the Jinsha segment to other dam construction companies after a brief suspension (Dudgeon 2010, p. 129). Overall, these temporary suspensions of construction have done little to slow down the pace of dam development. In 2011, CTGC began constructing the Xiangjiaba Dam on the Lower Jinsha. The location of this dam would have occurred within the 500-km boundary of the National Reserve of Hejiang-Leibo Reaches. The CTGC successfully petitioned the State Council to redraw the boundaries of the reserve to exclude the section of the river where the Xiangjiaba Dam is located (Dudgeon 2011, p. 1500; Dudgeon 2010, p. 129). The reserve, now renamed the National Natural Reserve Area of Rare and Special Fishes of the Upper Yangtze River, encompasses the reaches below the Xiangjiaba Dam from Yibin to Chongqing as well the tributaries that feed into the Yangtze (Zhang H.
As a result of the decline of the species, controlled reproduction and release of juvenile Yangtze sturgeon has occurred every year since 2007 (Zhang H.
Despite the efforts to restock the Yangtze sturgeon in the wild, current restocking efforts are unsuccessful (Wu
Species endemic to small regions, or known from few, widely dispersed locations, are inherently more vulnerable to extinction than widespread species because of the higher risks from localized stochastic (random) events and processes, such as industrial spills and drought. These problems can be further magnified when populations are very small, due to genetic bottlenecks (reduced genetic diversity resulting from fewer individuals contributing to the species' overall gene pool) and random demographic fluctuations (Lande 1988, p. 1455-1458; Pimm
The Yangtze sturgeon is known from a single geographic population in the upper Yangtze River and its tributaries (Zhang
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available on the Yangtze sturgeon. While we do not know the exact population size of the Yangtze sturgeon, the species was historically abundant enough to be commercially viable up to the 1970s, after which it experienced a significant decline (Kynard
Despite conservation efforts undertaken by local and national authorities such as fishing bans and restocking, current efforts do not appear to be successful in conserving the species. No natural reproduction has been documented in the wild since the 2000s (Wu
Industrial pollution and hybridization with displaced native and nonnative sturgeon species are also acting on the species (Factor E). Although we do not have information on the impact of industrial pollution on the species in the wild, studies in a laboratory environment found that pollutants such as TPT and EDC can reduce the reproductive success rate of adult sturgeons (Hu
Therefore, for the following reasons we conclude that this species has been and continues to be significantly reduced to the extent that the viability of the Yangtze sturgeon is significantly compromised:
(1) The species is limited to a single geographic population in the upper Yangtze main stem and its tributaries. There is also some evidence of a small remnant population in the middle Yangtze.
(2) Loss of habitat and connectivity between the spawning and feeding reaches is having a significant adverse effect on the species, which appears to have low to no reproduction.
(3) The cumulative effects of habitat modification and loss due to dams and riverbed projects, bycatch, industrial pollution, and hybridization are adversely affecting the species.
(4) Current restocking and management efforts are inadequate to maintain the species' presence in the wild.
(5) Stochastic events, such as industrial spills or drought, can reduce the survival rate of the species
In section 3(6), the Act defines an “endangered species” as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and in section 3(20), a “threatened species” as any species that is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
Based on the factors described above and their impacts on the Yangtze sturgeon, we find the following factors to be threats to this species (
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we propose listing Yangtze sturgeon as endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that a threatened species status is not appropriate for this species because of its restricted range, limited distribution, and vulnerability to extinction; and because the threats are ongoing throughout its range at a level that places this species in danger of extinction now.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the Yangtze sturgeon is endangered throughout all of its range, we do not need to conduct an analysis of whether there is any significant portion of its range where the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. This is consistent with the Act because when we find that a species is currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range (
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition of conservation status, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in public awareness and conservation actions by Federal and State governments in the United States, foreign governments, private agencies and groups, and individuals.
Our regulations at 50 CFR part 402 implement the interagency cooperation provisions found under ESA Section 7. Under section 7(a)(1) of the ESA, federal agencies are to utilize, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Service, their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to ensure, in consultation with the Service, that “any action authorized, funded, or carried out” by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat. An “action” that is subject to the consultation provisions of section 7(a)(2) has been defined in our implementing regulations as “all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas.” 50 CFR 402.02. With respect to this species, there are no “actions” known to require consultation under ESA Section 7(a)(2). Given the regulatory definition of “action,” which clarifies that it applies to “activities or programs . . . in the United States or upon the high seas,” the species is unlikely to be the subject of section 7 consultations, because the species conducts its entire life cycle in freshwater outside of the United States and is unlikely to be affected by U.S. Federal actions. Additionally, because the Yangtze sturgeon is not native to the United States, no critical habitat is being proposed for designation with this rule. 50 CFR 424.12(g).
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited financial assistance for the development and management of programs that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the conservation of endangered or threatened species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to encourage conservation programs for foreign listed species, and to provide assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the training of personnel.
Section 9 of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.21 set forth a series of general prohibitions that apply to all endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to “take” (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) endangered wildlife within the United States or upon the high seas. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. In addition, it is illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits under section 10 of the Act to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits for endangered species are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of the Branch of Foreign Species, Ecological Services, Falls Church, VA.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in Amendment 47 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) (Amendment 47). For vermilion snapper, this proposed rule would revise the stock annual catch limit (ACL). Additionally, Amendment 47 would establish a proxy for the estimate of the stock maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The purpose of this proposed rule is to revise the stock ACL for vermilion snapper in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) consistent with the most recent stock assessment.
Written comments must be received on or before January 26, 2018.
You may submit comments on the amendment identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0106” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Lauren Waters, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305; email:
NMFS and the Council manage the Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes vermilion snapper, under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to specify the MSY for managed stocks. The National Standard 1 Guidelines state that the Council should adopt a reasonable proxy for MSY if data are insufficient to estimate MSY directly.
Amendment 23 to the FMP established MSY for vermilion snapper as the yield associated with F
In 2016, a standard assessment for vermilion snapper was conducted (SEDAR 45) and the stock status was evaluated using several MSY proxies. Under all proxies evaluated in SEDAR 45, overfishing was not occurring and the stock was not overfished. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) determined that the most appropriate proxy for MSY is the yield when fishing at a mortality rate corresponding to 30 percent spawning potential ratio (F
SEDAR 45 also included projections for the overfishing limit and the ABC. The SSC provided the Council two recommendations for ABC: one that is derived from fishing at 75 percent of the MSY proxy (F
This proposed rule would revise the stock ACL for Gulf vermilion snapper consistent with the results of SEDAR 45 and the SSC's new ABC recommendation. The current ACL of 3.42 million lb (1.55 million kg), round weight, exceeds the ABCs recommended by the Council's SSC. Therefore, the Council determined that the ACL for vermilion snapper should be decreased to equal the constant catch ABC and this proposed rule would set the stock ACL at 3.11 million lb (1.41 million kg), round weight.
The current accountability measures for vermilion snapper require NMFS to close the commercial and recreational fishing seasons if the combined commercial and recreational landings reach or are projected to reach the stock ACL. Since 2013, combined landings have been less than 3.00 million lb (1.36 million kg), round weight, every year. Therefore, NMFS does not expect the combined landings of vermilion snapper to reach the proposed stock ACL and result in a closure before the end of the fishing year.
In addition to the measure proposed to be implemented through this proposed rule, Amendment 47 would establish a proxy for vermilion snapper MSY.
For vermilion snapper, the Council's SSC recommended that a proxy be used for MSY. The Council's SSC recommended F
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 47, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. A description of this proposed rule and its purpose and need are contained in the
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows.
This proposed rule would directly affect commercial and recreational fishing for vermilion snapper in the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Anglers (recreational fishers) are not considered small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Consequently, estimates of the number of anglers directly affected by the rule and the impacts on them are not provided here.
Any commercial fishing business that operates a commercial fishing vessel that harvests vermilion snapper in the Gulf EEZ must have a valid Federal commercial Gulf reef fish permit that is specifically assigned to that vessel. The Gulf reef fish permit is a limited access permit. As of February 21, 2017, 848 vessels had a Federal Gulf reef fish permit and 795 of the permits were valid. NMFS estimates that 631 businesses own the 848 vessels with a Federal permit, and the size of their individual Gulf reef fish fleets vary from 1 to 17 vessels.
The number of federally permitted vessels that land vermilion snapper is substantially less than the number of vessels with a Gulf reef fish permit. From 2011 through 2015, approximately 35 percent to 40 percent of the vessels with a Federal permit landed vermilion snapper in any given year. During that same 5-year period, an annual average of 342 federally permitted vessels landed vermilion snapper. NMFS estimates these 342 vessels are operated by 252 businesses.
The 342 vessels landed an average of 4,914 lb (2,229 kg), gutted weight, of vermilion snapper with a dockside value of $15,293 (2015 dollars) annually. This average annual dockside revenue from landings of vermilion snapper represents approximately 12 percent of the average vessel's annual dockside revenue from all species. However, there are considerable differences in average annual landings of vermilion snapper by gear type from 2011 through 2015. For example, the average longline vessel annually landed 72 to 73 lb (32 to 33 kg), gutted weight, of the species, whereas the average
For RFA purposes, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily involved in commercial fishing (NAICS 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on the average annual revenue for a federally permitted vessel that lands vermilion snapper, regardless of gear used, it is concluded that most to all of the businesses that harvest vermilion snapper from the Gulf EEZ are small.
Amendment 47 would establish an MSY proxy for vermilion snapper and that has no direct impact on any small business.
This proposed rule would decrease the stock ACL of vermilion snapper. The stock ACL is currently 3.42 million lb (1.55 million kg), round weight, and has been in place since 2012. This proposed rule would decrease the stock ACL to 3.11 million lb (1.41 million kg), round weight.
If combined landings reach or are projected to reach the stock ACL, the commercial and recreational fishing seasons are closed early as a result of accountability measures being triggered. Since 2012, there have been no early closures because combined commercial and recreational landings of vermilion snapper have been less than the stock ACL. From 2012 through 2015, combined landings varied from approximately 2.54 million lb (1.15 million kg) to 3.17 million lb (1.44 million kg), round weight, annually and averaged approximately 2.73 million lb (1.24 million kg). Since 2013, combined landings have been less than 3.00 million lb (1.36 million kg), round weight, every year, and preliminary data for 2016 indicate combined landings of approximately 2.63 million lb (1.19 million kg), round weight. Preliminary landings data for 2016 indicate combined landings of approximately 2.6 million lb (1.18 million kg), round weight. Moreover, as of November 27, 2017, for commercial landings and through the third wave for recreational landings, combined landings for 2017 are approximately 2.4 million lb (1.09 million kg), round weight. Based on recent landings data, it is expected that combined landings of vermilion snapper would be less than the proposed stock ACL of 3.11 million lb (1.41 million kg), round weight, and there would be no early closures. Therefore, NMFS expects the reduction of the stock ACL would have no economic impact on small businesses that harvest vermilion snapper from the Gulf EEZ.
No new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this proposed rule. Accordingly, this proposed rule does not implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act.
In conclusion, NMFS expects this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, Recreational, Vermilion snapper.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(j) * * * The stock ACL for vermilion snapper is 3.11 million lb (1.41 million kg), round weight.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes regulations to modify specific provisions of the North Pacific Observer Program. The first two elements of this proposed rule would modify the requirements for an observer to obtain a nontrawl lead level 2 (LL2) deployment endorsement and implement a pre-cruise meeting requirement for vessels required to carry an observer with a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement. These elements are intended to increase the number of observers that qualify for a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement and maintain observer safety and data quality. The third element of this proposed rule would make editorial changes, and modify observer coverage and reporting requirements for vessels when participating in the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program. This element is intended to promote operational efficiency, and remove unnecessary requirements for specific vessels participating in the CDQ Program. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, and the FMP for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, and other applicable law.
Comments must be received no later than January 26, 2018.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0071 by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of the draft Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this action are available from
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted by mail to NMFS at the above address; and to OIRA by email to
Alicia M Miller, 907-586-7228 or
NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska and under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
Regulations at subpart E of 50 CFR part 679 require that most vessels fishing for groundfish or halibut must carry an observer onboard their vessel for some, or all, fishing activities to ensure the collection of data necessary to manage the groundfish and halibut fisheries. The following sections describe (1) the North Pacific Observer Program, (2) nontrawl lead level 2 observer requirements, (3) the need for this action, and (4) this proposed rule.
The North Pacific Observer Program (Observer Program) is an integral component in the management of North Pacific fisheries. The Observer Program was created with the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the mid-1970s and has evolved from primarily observing foreign fleets to observing domestic fleets. Regulations at subpart E of 50 CFR part 679 implement the Observer Program and prescribe how NMFS-certified observers (observers) will be deployed on board vessels and in processing plants to obtain information necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish and halibut fisheries off Alaska. The information collected by observers contributes to the best available scientific information used to manage the fisheries in furtherance of the purposes and national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Observers collect biological samples and gather information on total catch, including bycatch, and interactions with protected species. Fishery managers use data collected by observers to manage groundfish catch and bycatch limits established in regulation and to document fishery interactions with protected species. Fishery managers also use data collected by observers to inform the development of management measures that minimize bycatch and reduce fishery interactions with protected resources. Scientists use observer-collected data for stock assessments and marine ecosystem research.
On January 1, 2013, the Observer Program was restructured to establish two observer coverage categories: Partial and full (77 FR 70062; November 21, 2012). Regulations at 50 CFR 679.50 identify that all vessels and processors that participate in federally managed or parallel groundfish and halibut fisheries off Alaska, except catcher vessels delivering unsorted codends to mothership vessels, are subject to observer coverage in one of these two categories. Regulations at 50 CFR 679.51 require vessels and processors in the full coverage category to carry an observer at all times when fish are caught or processed. Importantly for this proposed rule, the full coverage category includes most catcher/processors (
Regulations at 50 CFR 679.51 describe the vessels and processing plants that are in the partial coverage category. Most catcher vessels using nontrawl gear are in the partial coverage category. NMFS, in consultation with the Council, develops an annual deployment plan for the Observer Program to determine when and where observer coverage is needed for vessels and processors in the partial coverage category. NMFS contracts with an observer provider to deploy observers based on the scientific sampling plan described in the annual deployment plan.
Two groups of vessels are required to carry an observer with a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement. The first group of vessels includes vessels named on a License Limitation Program (LLP) license with a Pacific cod catcher/processor hook-and-line endorsement for the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, or both the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. These vessels are subject to monitoring requirements at 50 CFR 679.100 and are referred to as “freezer longline vessels” throughout this proposed rule. Pursuant to 50 CFR 679.100, a freezer longline vessel must carry an observer with a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement when the vessel (1) operates in either the BSAI or Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries and directed fishing for Pacific cod is open in the BSAI, or (2) when the vessel participates in the CDQ groundfish fisheries. These monitoring requirements for freezer longline vessels were implemented in 2012 and require freezer longline vessel owners and operators to select between one of two monitoring options: Either carry two observers so that all catch can be sampled, or carry one observer and use a motion-compensated flow scale to weigh Pacific cod before it is processed. Both monitoring options require the vessel to carry one observer endorsed as a nontrawl LL2 observer. (77 FR 59053; September 26, 2012).
The second group of vessels that are required to carry an observer with a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement
Regulations at 50 CFR 679.53 define the requirements for an observer to receive a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement. An observer obtains a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement when the observer meets minimum experience requirements for a level 2 deployment endorsement (has completed 60 days of data collection and met the Observer Program's performance expectations on their most recent evaluation) and has completed two cruises of at least 10 days each and sampled at least 30 sets on a vessel using nontrawl gear. This means that prior to gaining a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement, an observer must first deploy on a nontrawl vessel that is not required to carry a nontrawl LL2 observer and sample at least 30 sets.
In 2014, observer providers and representatives of freezer longline vessels reported shortages of nontrawl LL2 observers for deployment on freezer longline vessels and that, in some cases, shortages delayed fishing operations (See section 3.3.4 of the Analysis). Since 2012, all active freezer longline vessels, except one, have chosen the option to carry one LL2 observer and weigh Pacific cod on a flow scale. This means that only one freezer longline vessel subject to the nontrawl LL2 observer requirement has chosen to carry two observers—one observer with a nontrawl LL2 endorsement, and one observer who will gain sampling experience to count toward the requirements for a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement. In addition, since 2013, there are few other nontrawl vessels in the full observer coverage category that do not require an LL2 observer. Therefore, the few observers deployed in the full coverage category are able to gain the sampling experience necessary to gain the nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement. Observer providers contracted by vessels in the full coverage category have reported that they have been unable to create and retain an adequate pool of qualified nontrawl LL2 observers since 2014.
In contrast, observers deployed on vessels in the partial coverage category have opportunities to gain nontrawl sampling experience to count toward the requirements for a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement on catcher vessels in the partial coverage category. However, until August 2016, the observer provider contracted to deploy observers in the partial coverage category did not have a permit to deploy observers in the full coverage category pursuant to regulations at 50 CFR 679.52. These conditions from 2013 through August 2016 resulted in a diminishing pool of qualified observers employed by permitted observer providers in the full coverage category (See Tables 11, 12, and 13 in the Analysis).
Since 2014, NMFS, observer providers, and freezer longline vessels have undertaken a series of non-regulatory actions designed to build and retain a pool of qualified nontrawl LL2 observers available for the freezer longline vessels. For example, NMFS modified its policy on how sampled sets are credited to observers when determining the number of sampled sets for a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement, and some members of the freezer longline fleet voluntarily deployed a second observer on some freezer longline vessels to allow those observers to gain sampling experience necessary to receive a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement (See Section 3.3.5 of the Analysis for additional detail). However, these non-regulatory actions resulted in additional costs to the freezer longline fleet and did not fully address the industry's concerns about the limited availability of nontrawl LL2 observers.
Between 2014 and 2017, the Council and its Observer Advisory Committee discussed and analyzed potential solutions to address industry concerns about the limited availability of nontrawl LL2 observers in the full coverage category. In June 2017, the Council recommended changes to regulations that would (1) allow trawl sampling experience to count toward a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement and authorize the observer program to require additional training as necessary to adequately prepare observers to perform data collection duties when deployed as a nontrawl LL2 observer, and (2) require the operator or manager of a vessel required to carry an observer with a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement to participate in a pre-cruise meeting with the observer if notified by NMFS to do so. These regulatory changes are intended to minimize additional costs to industry while also maintaining observer safety and data quality.
This proposed rule includes three elements. The first element of this proposed rule would modify regulations at § 679.53(a)(5)(v)(C) to allow 100 sampled hauls on trawl catcher/processor or mothership vessel (equivalent to the required sampling experience for an observer to obtain a trawl LL2 deployment endorsement) to count toward a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement and authorize the observer program to require additional training for observers as necessary to adequately prepare them to safely perform data collection duties relevant to the nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement.
These changes are intended to reduce the potential for a shortage of nontrawl LL2 observers, because many observers deployed in the full coverage category qualify for a trawl LL2 deployment endorsement. This would allow observers that qualify as a trawl LL2 observer to potentially qualify as a nontrawl LL2 observer (See Table 11 and Section 3.3.3 of the Analysis for more information), and reduce the pressure for freezer longline vessels to voluntarily carry second observers for the purpose of providing opportunities for observers to gain sampling experience to count toward a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement. An observer with sampling experience on a trawl catcher/processor or mothership would be familiar with the pressures of data collection on vessels participating in a catch share program and would also be familiar with the use of a flow scale to weigh catch. These skills are important to successfully performing data collection duties when deployed as a nontrawl LL2 observer. Because these observers may not have nontrawl sampling experience, additional training and a pre-cruise meeting may be necessary to ensure that these observers are adequately prepared to handle the safety and sampling challenges that are unique to nontrawl LL2 deployments (See Section 4.3.2.2 of the Analysis).
This proposed rule would implement regulations to authorize the Observer Program to require additional training for observers as necessary to adequately prepare them to perform data collection duties relevant to the nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement. The Observer Program would develop and implement an observer training and also determine when this training would be required prior to receiving a nontrawl LL2
The Observer Program would use this training class to adequately prepare observers with different types of qualifying sampling experience to complete sampling duties when deployed as a nontrawl LL2 observer (See section 4.3.2 of the Analysis for additional detail). The nontrawl LL2 training class would be designed to address common safety and sampling challenges that are unique to nontrawl LL2 observer deployments. This training would prepare observers who do not have sampling experience on nontrawl catcher/processors for deployment on these vessels as a nontrawl LL2 observer. At a minimum, through existing trainings and briefings, the Observer Program would continue to train observers to follow the safety and data collection protocols established in the Observer Sampling Manual.
The second element of this proposed rule would require the operator or manager of a vessel that carries nontrawl LL2 observers to participate in a pre-cruise meeting with the observer assigned to the vessel if notified to do so by NMFS. This proposed rule would add a paragraph at §§ 679.32(c)(3)(i)(E) and 679.100(b)(1) and (2) to require freezer longline vessels and pot catcher/processors when groundfish CDQ fishing to notify the Observer Program prior to embarking on a trip with a nontrawl LL2 observer who has not deployed on that vessel in the past 12 months. The Observer Program may contact the vessel and require the vessel operator or manager and the observer assigned to the vessel to participate in a pre-cruise meeting prior to embarking on a trip.
This regulatory change would authorize the Observer Program to require a pre-cruise meeting as needed to address safety or sampling challenges on a specific vessel. Because vessel operations and individual observer's sampling history will vary, this would give the Observer Program the flexibility necessary to evaluate whether a pre-cruise meeting is necessary on a case-by-case basis between the observer and the vessel operator or manager to ensure the nontrawl LL2 observer is adequately prepared to collect high quality data in a safe manner. The Observer Program may consider the observer's deployment history or sampling experience, vessel specific information, or other relevant information to determine whether a pre-cruise meeting is necessary, and if so, the Observer Program would contact the vessels to arrange the pre-cruise meeting prior to the start of a trip (See section 4.3 of the Analysis for additional detail). This action would impose additional administrative costs for NMFS to process pre-cruise notifications, contact a vessel if a pre-cruise meeting is necessary, and participate in pre-cruise meetings if staff are available. Section 2.3.1 of the Analysis describes that these administrative costs are minimal relative to other alternatives considered.
In addition to the two elements recommended by the Council, NMFS proposes the third element of this proposed rule to remove duplicative and unnecessary regulatory reporting requirements and make minor changes to observer coverage requirements for specific vessels participating in the CDQ Program. These proposed revisions are intended to (1) align regulations with Magnuson-Stevens Act section 305(i)(1)(B)(iv), (2) reduce observer coverage costs, (3) improve operational efficiency, and (4) reduce the reporting burden for catcher/processors and motherships when participating in CDQ fisheries (See Section 2.4 in the Analysis).
This proposed rule would define the terms “cruise” and “Observer Program” in § 679.2. The term “cruise” is used to describe the minimum experience requirements for an observer to obtain LL2 deployment endorsements in § 679.53. This proposed rule would define a “cruise” to mean an observer deployment with a unique cruise number. This proposed definition would clarify that a cruise begins when an observer receives an endorsement to deploy and ends when the observer completes all debriefing responsibilities. The term “Observer Program” would replace and update the definition of “Observer Program Office,” because that term does not describe the Observer Program. This proposed rule would update corresponding references throughout part 679.
This proposed rule would remove provisions at § 679.32(c)(3)(i) that require operators of catcher/processors and motherships to provide observers with prior notification of CDQ catch and CDQ group number associated with the CDQ catch before the CDQ catch is brought on board the vessel. This provision would be removed for all catcher/processors and motherships when participating in the pollock CDQ or groundfish CDQ fisheries. These notification requirements were implemented in 1998 (63 FR 30381; June 4, 1998) when observer sampling methods for CDQ hauls and sets were different than observer sampling methods for non-CDQ hauls and sets. At that time, an observer needed to know if a haul would be designated as a CDQ haul before it was brought on board the vessel so that they could apply the appropriate sampling methods. With implementation of other catch share programs since 1998 and overlap of vessel participation between CDQ and other catch share programs, observer sampling methods have been made consistent between CDQ and non-CDQ hauls and sets. Therefore, these prior notification requirements are unnecessary and duplicative. An observer does not need prior notice of CDQ haul designation to appropriately sample CDQ catch, and other regulations ensure that an observer has access to this information.
This proposed rule would modify the heading for subpart E to part 679 from “Groundfish and Halibut Observer Program” to “North Pacific Observer Program” in order to be consistent with the term as used in the new definition of the Observer Program.
This proposed rule also would modify § 679.50(a)(2) to clarify that a catcher vessel is not subject to the requirements of subpart E when delivering unsorted codends to a mothership. The existing wording is more restrictive than intended, and this proposed rule would clarify that a catcher vessel which, for some of its fishing activity, delivers unsorted codends to a mothership, would not be subject to the requirements of subpart E only during the fishing activity that results in delivering unsorted codends to a mothership.
This proposed rule would modify § 679.51(a)(2)(vi)(A)(
This proposed rule would update the phone number that is currently provided in §§ 679.84(c)(7) and 679.93(c)(7) for notifying the Observer
To improve clarity and consistency, this proposed rule would remove the term “certified” and replace it with the term “endorsed” when used to describe observer deployment endorsements throughout § 679.51. This proposed rule would also remove the provision at § 679.53(a)(5)(v)(B) that describes sampling experience requirements for an observer to obtain an LL2 deployment endorsement for a catcher vessel using trawl gear. This LL2 deployment endorsement is not required for any vessels that operate in the commercial groundfish or halibut fisheries, which makes this regulation unnecessary.
Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration of comments received during the public comment period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An RIR was prepared to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this Analysis is available from NMFS (see
This Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), to describe the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. An IRFA describes why this action is being proposed; the objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule; the number of small entities to which the proposed rule would apply; any projected reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements of the proposed rule; any overlapping, duplicative, or conflicting Federal rules; and any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would accomplish the stated objectives, consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant adverse economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. Descriptions of this proposed rule, its purpose, and the legal basis are contained earlier in this preamble and are not repeated here.
This proposed rule would directly regulate observers and owners and operators of the following vessels: (1) Freezer longline vessels that participate in the BSAI hook-and-line Pacific cod fishery; and (2) pot catcher/processors, trawl catcher/processors, nontrawl catcher/processors, and motherships when groundfish CDQ fishing. Observer providers are impacted by the limited availability of nontrawl LL2 observers, but the proposed rule would not modify regulations that directly apply to observer provider firms. Observers are individuals and not entities, so they do not meet the Small Business Administration (SBA) definition of a small entity. Therefore, neither observer providers nor observers are considered directly regulated entities in this IRFA.
This proposed rule would directly regulate the activities of 29 BSAI freezer longline vessels, two pot catcher/processors, and 22 trawl catcher/processors and motherships. Two questions must be considered in classifying catcher/processors under the RFA. First, are the individual vessels independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation, or are these vessels affiliated under the RFA? Second, which industry classification is appropriate to use for vessels that conduct both fish harvesting and fish processing?
Freezer longline vessels directly regulated by this action are all members of the Freezer Longline Conservation Cooperative (FLCC), a voluntary fishing cooperative operating through a contract among all parties, whose members have a de facto catch share program because they effectively control fishing for the freezer longline vessel subsector's allocation of Pacific cod in the BSAI. NMFS has determined that vessels that are members of a fishing cooperative, including members of the FLCC, are affiliated when classifying them for the RFA analyses. In making this determination, NMFS considered SBA's “principles of affiliation” at 13 CFR 121.103. Specifically, in § 121.103(f), SBA refers to “[A]ffiliation based on identity of interest,” which states “[A]ffiliation may arise among two or more persons with an identity of interest. Individuals or firms that have identical or substantially identical business or economic interests (such as family members, individuals or firms with common investments, or firms that are economically dependent through contractual or other relationships) may be treated as one party with such interests aggregated.” If business entities are affiliated, then the threshold for identifying small entities is applied to the group of affiliated entities rather than on an individual entity basis.
In addition, distinct from their affiliation through the FLCC, vessels regulated by this proposed rule also may be affiliated through ownership. NMFS has reviewed cooperative membership and available ownership data to assess ownership and affiliations among vessels. Based on this information, NMFS estimates that the 29 active FLCC vessels and two pot catcher/processors affected by this action are owned and operated by no more than 11 separate entities. Of these 11 entities, 6 entities own 26 freezer longline vessels and one pot catcher/processor vessel.
The thresholds applied to determine if an entity or group of entities are “small” under the RFA depend on the industry classification for the entity or entities. Businesses classified as primarily engaged in commercial fishing are considered small entities if they have combined annual gross receipts not in excess of $11.0 million for all affiliated operations worldwide (81 FR 4469; January 26, 2016). Businesses classified as primarily engaged in fish processing are considered small entities if they employ 750 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all affiliated operations worldwide. Since at least 1993, NMFS Alaska Region has considered catcher/processors to be predominantly engaged in fish harvesting rather than fish processing. Under this classification, the threshold of $11.0 million in annual gross receipts is appropriate.
By applying the $11.0 million annual gross receipts threshold collectively to the vessels affiliated through the FLCC, all of the members of the FLCC are considered large entities under the RFA. The two pot catcher/processors are affiliated with additional vessels that, when interests are aggregated, exceed the $11.0 million threshold and are considered large entities under the RFA. NMFS considered vessel affiliation independent of the FLCC contracts and concluded that if not for FLCC affiliation, five vessels owned by four
The proposed regulatory change to modify observer coverage requirements for motherships receiving unsorted codends from catcher vessels groundfish CDQ fishing and to remove prior notification of CDQ catch and CDQ number would affect 19 nontrawl catcher/processors and 22 trawl catcher/processors, 4 of which also act as a mothership to receive unsorted codends from catcher vessels groundfish CDQ fishing. As described above, the 19 nontrawl catcher/processors are considered large entities under the RFA. All of the trawl catcher/processors and motherships affected by this proposed rule are affiliated as members of either an American Fisheries Act or an Amendment 80 cooperative with a combined average annual gross revenue above the $11.0 million threshold, classifying them as large entities under the RFA.
Based on this analysis, NMFS preliminarily determines that there are no small entities that would be affected by this proposed rule. However, due to the complexity of the affiliation among the entities and the overlay of affiliation due to ownership and affiliation based on the contractual relationship among members of cooperatives, NMFS has prepared this IRFA. This provides potentially affected entities an opportunity to provide comments on this IRFA. NMFS will evaluate any comments received on the IRFA and may consider certifying that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities prior to publication of the final rule.
To the degree that this proposed rule would increase the pool of available nontrawl LL2 observers, the primary economic impact of this proposed rule would be to reduce costs to vessel owners. Costs would be reduced by the amount vessel owners would otherwise pay to deploy second observers on some freezer longline vessels to allow those observers to gain sampling experience to count toward a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement. In addition, an increase in the number of available nontrawl LL2 observers would reduce the potential costs associated with a shortage of nontrawl LL2 observers. This proposed rule would add new costs for freezer longline vessels and pot catcher/processors to comply with pre-cruise meeting requirements. NMFS estimates the cost savings associated with the increase in the pool of qualified nontrawl LL2 observers is expected to exceed the relatively small costs that would be associated with the pre-cruise meeting requirements.
The proposed regulatory change to modify observer coverage requirements for motherships receiving unsorted codends from catcher vessels groundfish CDQ fishing could reduce costs by allowing less experienced observers to deploy, and would increase operational flexibility for vessels that operate in the CDQ and non-CDQ fisheries. The proposed regulatory change to remove the prior notification of CDQ catch and CDQ number would reduce costs to the owners of catcher/processors when pollock CDQ fishing, catcher/processors and motherships when groundfish CDQ fishing, and catcher/processors using nontrawl gear when groundfish CDQ fishing. All vessels affected by this action would benefit by reducing recordkeeping and reporting requirements with no negative impacts on affected entities.
This proposed rule adds additional reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for freezer longline vessels and pot catcher/processors that are required to carry a nontrawl LL2 observer. Vessel operators would be responsible to ensure that the Observer Program is notified by phone 24 hours prior to departure when a vessel will be carrying a nontrawl LL2 observer that has not previously been deployed on that vessel in the last 12 months. Vessel operators contract directly with permitted observer providers to procure observer coverage. The Observer Program could be notified by anyone with knowledge of the upcoming observer assignment, including the vessel operator, a crew member, or the observer provider. The person notifying the Observer Program would need knowledge of the vessel's prior observer assignment history and the upcoming observer assignment 24 hours in advance of a trip.
No small entity is subject to reporting requirements that are in addition to or different from the requirements that apply to all directly regulated entities. No unique professional skills are needed for the vessel operators to comply with any of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this proposed rule.
No duplication, overlap, or conflict between this proposed rule and existing Federal rules has been identified.
No significant alternatives were identified that would accomplish the stated objectives for placing observers on fishing vessels, are consistent with applicable statutes, and that would reduce costs to potentially affected small entities more than the proposed rule. The Council and NMFS considered three alternatives. Alternative 1, the no action alternative, would not reduce the potential for a shortage of nontrawl LL2 observers and would continue to impose additional costs on the industry. Alternative 2 would create a process to allow a vessel to go fishing without a nontrawl LL2 observer if there were no nontrawl LL2 observers available. Alternative 3 included two options. Option 1 would allow a vessel required to carry one LL2 observer to choose between carrying two level 2 observers or one LL2 observer. Option 2 would modify the training and experience requirements necessary for an observer to obtain the nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement.
The preferred alternative, Alternative 3 Option 2 was designed to minimize the impacts to small entities from the status quo requirement by increasing the pool of qualified observers and reducing the need for vessels to voluntarily carry second observers for the purpose of gaining the necessary experience to obtain a nontrawl LL2 deployment endorsement. Alternative 3 Option 2 includes additional observer training and a pre-cruise meeting as necessary to ensure that observers are adequately prepared to fulfill the data collection responsibilities.
Relative to Alternative 1, the preferred alternative would increase the recordkeeping burdens on small entities by requiring the Observer Program be notified prior to a vessel embarking on a trip with an observer who has not previously deployed on that vessel in the past 12 months, and by requiring, if necessary, the vessel operator or manager to participate in a pre-cruise meeting with the observer, which could delay fishing activity by the amount of time necessary to complete a pre-cruise meeting.
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements
This proposed rule would require that the Observer Program be notified by phone at least 24 hours prior to departure when a vessel will carry an observer who had not deployed on that vessel in the past 12 months. Public reporting burden per response to notify the Observer Program by phone is estimated to be five minutes.
Public comment is sought regarding (1) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the burden estimate; (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, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS Alaska Region at the
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at
Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) * * *
(
(a) * * *
(2)
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(v) * * *
(C) A lead level 2 observer on a vessel using nontrawl gear must have completed the following:
(
(
(
(
(c) * * *
(7)
(c) * * *
(7)
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) The Observer Program is notified by phone at 1 (907) 581-2060 (Dutch Harbor, AK) or 1 (907) 481-1770 (Kodiak, AK) at least 24 hours prior to departure when the vessel will be carrying an observer who has not previously been deployed on that vessel within the last 12 months. Subsequent to the vessel's departure notification, but prior to departure, NMFS may contact the vessel to arrange for a pre-cruise meeting. The pre-cruise meeting must minimally include the vessel operator or manager and any observers assigned to the vessel.
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) The Observer Program is notified by phone at 1 (907) 581-2060 (Dutch Harbor, AK) or 1 (907) 481-1770 (Kodiak, AK) at least 24 hours prior to departure when the vessel will be carrying an observer who has not previously been deployed on that vessel within the last 12 months. Subsequent to the vessel's departure notification, but prior to departure, NMFS may contact the vessel to arrange for a pre-cruise meeting. The pre-cruise meeting must minimally include the vessel operator or manager and any observers assigned to the vessel.
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 Montana Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 11:00 a.m. (Mountain Time) Friday, January 5, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to discuss preparations to hear testimony on border town discrimination.
The meeting will be held on, Friday, January 5, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. MT.
Angelica Trevino at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-856-1956, conference ID number: 5797044. 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 Angelica Trevino at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website,
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that planning meetings of the South Dakota Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 2:00 p.m. (CST) on Wednesday, January 10, 2018 and Wednesday, January 24, 2018, via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting on Jan 10 is review an advisory memorandum culminating from the subtle racism briefing in March 2017. The purpose of the meeting on January 24 is to vote on aforementioned advisory memorandum.
Wednesday, January 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. (CST) and Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. (CST).
To be held via teleconference:
David Mussatt, DFO,
Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-267-6301; Conference ID: 8658344. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS)
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
On July 11, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Metroplex International Trade Development Corporation, grantee of FTZ 168, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 168, on behalf of R.W. Smith & Co/TriMark USA, LLC, in Lewisville, Texas.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
On October 19, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Pennsylvania Foreign Trade Zone Corporation, grantee of FTZ 295, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 295, on behalf of North American Hoganas Company, in Johnstown, Hollsopple and St, Mary's, Pennsylvania.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
On August 18, 2017, the Port of Corpus Christi Authority, grantee of FTZ 122, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of voestalpine Texas, LLC, within Subzone 122T, in Portland, Texas.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of 100- to 150-seat large civil aircraft (aircraft) from Canada. The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. For information on the estimated subsidy
Applicable December 27, 2017.
Andrew Medley or Ross Belliveau, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4987, or (202) 482-4952, respectively.
The petitioner in this investigation is The Boeing Company. In addition to the Governments of Canada, Quebec and the United Kingdom, the mandatory respondent in this investigation is Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier).
The events that occurred since the Department published the
The scope of the investigation is aircraft from Canada. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation,
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), during September and October 2017, the Department verified the subsidy information reported by the Governments of Canada, Quebec and the United Kingdom, and Bombardier. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting records and original source documents provided by the respondents.
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to Bombardier's subsidy rate calculations since the
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we calculated a rate for Bombardier (the only individually investigated exporter/producer of subject merchandise). Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that, for companies not individually investigated, we will determine an “all others” rate equal to the weighted-average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
Because the only individually calculated rate is not zero,
The Department will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after October 2, 2017, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of aircraft from Canada no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to the APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/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 determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is aircraft, regardless of seating configuration, that have a standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity and a minimum 2,900 nautical mile range, as these terms are defined below.
“Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity” refers to the capacity to accommodate 100 to 150 passengers, when eight passenger seats are configured for a 36-inch pitch, and the remaining passenger seats are configured for a 32-inch pitch. “Pitch” is the distance between a point on one seat and the same point on the seat in front of it.
“Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity” does not delineate the number of seats actually in a subject aircraft or the actual seating configuration of a subject aircraft. Thus, the number of seats actually in a subject aircraft may be below 100 or exceed 150.
A “minimum 2,900 nautical mile range” means:
(i) Able to transport between 100 and 150 passengers and their luggage on routes equal to or longer than 2,900 nautical miles; or
(ii) covered by a U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type certificate or supplemental type certificate that also covers other aircraft with a minimum 2,900 nautical mile range.
The scope includes all aircraft covered by the description above, regardless of whether they enter the United States fully or partially assembled, and regardless of whether, at the time of entry into the United States, they are approved for use by the FAA.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 8802.40.0040. The merchandise may alternatively be classifiable under HTSUS subheading 8802.40.0090. Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meetings.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics of discussion for public meetings of the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee).
The meetings will be held on January 17, 2018, from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and January 18, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The meetings on January 17 and 18 will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Research Library (Room 1894), Washington, DC 20230.
Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services (OSCPBS), International Trade Administration. (Phone: (202) 482-1135 or Email:
The meetings will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. The public meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. Richard Boll, at (202) 482-1135 or
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before and after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of this meeting must send them to the Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 11014, Washington, DC 20230, or email to
For consideration during the meetings, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meetings, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on January 10, 2018. Comments received after January 10, 2018, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be considered at the meetings. The minutes of the meetings will be posted on the Committee website within 60 days of the meeting.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that 100- to 150-seat large civil aircraft (aircraft) from Canada are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017. The final estimated dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the section entitled “Final Determination.”
Applicable December 27, 2017.
Drew Jackson or Lilit Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4406 or (202) 482-6412, respectively.
On October 13, 2017, the Department published the
The products covered by this investigation are aircraft from Canada. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation,
Since issuing the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice at Appendix II.
As discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, for the final determination the Department continues to base Bombardier Inc's estimated weighted-average dumping margin on facts otherwise available with an adverse inference (AFA), pursuant to sections 776(a)-(b) of the Act.
As discussed in the
The Department determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of aircraft from Canada, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 13, 2017, the date of publication of the
Further, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), CBP shall require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondent listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not the respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.
The Department normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. However, because the Department did not make an affirmative determination for countervailable export subsidies in the companion CVD proceeding, the Department has not adjusted the estimated weighted-average dumping margin to offset countervailable export subsidies.
Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final determination in the
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the Department will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of the its final determination of sales at LTFV. As the final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine within 45 days of the final determination whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that such injury exists, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is aircraft, regardless of seating configuration, that have a standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity and a minimum 2,900 nautical mile range, as these terms are defined below.
“Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity” refers to the capacity to accommodate 100 to 150 passengers, when eight passenger seats are configured for a 36-inch pitch, and the remaining passenger seats are configured for a 32-inch pitch. “Pitch” is the distance between a point on one seat and the same point on the seat in front of it.
“Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity” does not delineate the number of seats actually in a subject aircraft or the actual seating configuration of a subject aircraft. Thus, the number of seats actually in a subject aircraft may be below 100 or exceed 150.
A “minimum 2,900 nautical mile range” means:
(i) Able to transport between 100 and 150 passengers and their luggage on routes equal to or longer than 2,900 nautical miles; or
(ii) covered by a U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type certificate or supplemental type certificate that also covers other aircraft with a minimum 2,900 nautical mile range.
The scope includes all aircraft covered by the description above, regardless of whether they enter the United States fully or partially assembled, and regardless of whether, at the time of entry into the United States, they are approved for use by the FAA.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 8802.40.0040. The merchandise may alternatively be classifiable under HTSUS subheading 8802.40.0090. Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invites organizations to provide products and technical expertise to support and demonstrate security platforms for the Privileged Account Management for the Financial Services sector. This notice is the initial step for the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) in collaborating with technology companies to address cybersecurity challenges identified under the Financial Services sector program. Participation in the use case is open to all interested organizations.
Interested parties must contact NIST to request a letter of interest template to be completed and submitted to NIST. Letters of interest will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. Collaborative activities will commence as soon as enough completed and signed letters of interest have been returned to address all the necessary components and capabilities, but no earlier than January 26, 2018. When the use case has been completed, NIST will post a notice on the NCCoE Financial Services sector program website at
The NCCoE is located at 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville, MD 20850. Letters of interest must be submitted to
James Banoczi via email to
Interested parties should contact NIST using the information provided in the
A detailed description of the Privileged Account Management is available at:
Each responding organization's letter of interest should identify how their products address one or more of the following desired solution characteristics in section 3 of the Privileged Account Management for the Financial Services sector use case (for reference, please see the link in the PROCESS section above):
1. Is easy to use for both PAM system administrators and PAM system users.
2. Provides protection for data at rest and data in transit.
3. Is complementary to existing access management.
4. Integrates with directories.
5. Provides account use control (policy enforcement and decision making).
6. Provides system command control.
7. Counters password obfuscation (hidden passwords).
8. Supports password management (vaults, changes, storage).
9. Supports activity logging (textual and video).
10. Supports real time activity monitoring.
11. Includes support functions needed by the typical user.
12. Supports privilege escalation management.
13. Supports forensic investigation data management.
14. Provides support for workflow management.
15. Enables emergency (break glass) scenario support.
16. Includes policy management support.
17. Supports single sign-on.
18. Permits system and privileged account discovery.
Responding organizations need to understand and, in their letters of interest, commit to provide:
1. Access for all participants' project teams to component interfaces and the organization's experts necessary to make functional connections among security platform components
2. Support for development and demonstration of the Privileged Account Management for the Financial Services sector use case in NCCoE facilities which will be conducted in a manner consistent with the following standards and guidance: FIPS 140-2, FIPS 199, FIPS 200, FIPS 201, SP 800-53, and SP 800-63.
Additional details about the Privileged Account Management for the Financial Services sector use case are available at:
NIST cannot guarantee that all of the products proposed by respondents will be used in the demonstration. Each prospective participant will be expected to work collaboratively with NIST staff and other project participants under the terms of the consortium CRADA in the development of the Privileged Account Management for the Financial Services sector capability. Prospective participants' contribution to the collaborative effort will include assistance in establishing the necessary interface functionality, connection and set-up capabilities and procedures, demonstration harnesses, environmental and safety conditions for use, integrated platform user instructions, and demonstration plans and scripts necessary to demonstrate the desired capabilities. Each participant will train NIST personnel, as necessary, to operate its product in capability demonstrations to the Financial Services community. Following successful demonstrations, NIST will publish a description of the security platform and its performance characteristics sufficient to permit other organizations to develop and deploy security platforms that meet the security objectives of the Privileged Account Management for the Financial Services sector use case. These descriptions will be public information.
Under the terms of the consortium CRADA, NIST will support development of interfaces among participants' products by providing IT infrastructure, laboratory facilities, office facilities, collaboration facilities, and staff support to component composition, security platform documentation, and demonstration activities.
The dates of the demonstration of the Privileged Account Management for the Financial Services sector capability will be announced on the NCCoE website at least two weeks in advance at
For additional information on the NCCoE governance, business processes, and NCCoE operational structure, visit the NCCoE website
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invites organizations to provide products and technical expertise to support and demonstrate security platforms for the Transport Layer
Interested parties must contact NIST to request a letter of interest template to be completed and submitted to NIST. Letters of interest will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. Collaborative activities will commence as soon as enough completed and signed letters of interest have been returned to address all the necessary components and capabilities, but no earlier than January 26, 2018. When the building block has been completed, NIST will post a notice on the NCCoE TLS Server Certificate Management Building Block website at:
The NCCoE is located at 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville, MD 20850. Letters of interest must be submitted to
Tim Polk, William Haag, Jr. and Murugiah Souppaya via email to
Interested parties should contact NIST using the information provided in the
• TLS servers in the Cloud.
• Public Certification Authority (CA).
• TLS Servers including webservers, application servers, or other services.
• TLS Load Balancers.
• DevOps Frameworks including application containers.
• Internal CAs.
• Certificate Management systems.
• Certificate Network Scanning Tools including vulnerability scanning.
Each responding organization's letter of interest should identify how their products address one or more of the following desired solution characteristics in Section 3 of the TLS Server Certificate Management Building Block (for reference, please see the link in the Process section above):
1. External Systems—The architecture will include the following components that typically reside outside the organizational firewall:
• TLS Servers in the Cloud Environment: The cloud environment will include multiple cloud instances acting as TLS servers. Certificates will be deployed and managed on these systems.
• Public CA: A publicly trusted CA will be used to issue one or more of the certificates used on TLS servers on the internal or external systems.
2. Internal Systems—The architecture will include several systems that are typically deployed within organizational network environments.
• TLS Servers: Multiple systems will be configured as TLS servers (
• Load Balancer: A load balancer will act as a TLS server with a certificate and will facilitate the load balancing of traffic to the other TLS servers.
• DevOps Framework(s): One or more DevOps frameworks (
• Internal CA: An internal CA will be used to issue certificates to some of the TLS servers.
• Certificate Manager: A certificate management system will be used to inventory and manage TLS server certificates deployed in the environment.
• Certificate Network Scanning Tool: A tool, such as a vulnerability scanning or other tool, will be used to facilitate the discovery of TLS server certificates via network scanning.
3. Stakeholders/Roles—Humans play an important part in the management of TLS server certificates in enterprises; therefore, the following roles will be represented:
• Line of Business/Application Owner: People in leadership positions who are responsible for the line of business or application and who will drive the need for certificates to be deployed.
• System Administrators: Responsible for managing TLS servers and ensuring that the load balancer will be represented.
• DevOps Developer: Responsible for programming/configuring and managing the DevOps framework.
• Approver: One or more stakeholders who will review and approve/reject certificate management operations.
• PKI Team: One or more individuals who will manage the certificate management system and public/internal CAs.
Responding organizations need to understand and, in their letters of interest, commit to provide:
1. Access for all participants' project teams to component interfaces and the organization's experts necessary to make functional connections among security platform components.
2. Support for development and demonstration of the TLS Server Certificate Management Building Block in NCCoE facilities which will be conducted in a manner consistent with the following standards and guidance: OMB Circular A-130; FIPS 200; FIPS 140-2; NIST Special Publications 800-52, 800-57, 800-63-3, 800-77, 800-177; NIST Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity; and internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Requests for Comments (RFCs) 2246, 4346, 5280 and 5246. The project will also be informed by two in-progress IETF standards draft-ietf-tls-tls13-21 The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3 and draft-ietf-acme-acme-07 Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME).
Additional details about the TLS Server Certificate Management Building Block are available at:
NIST cannot guarantee that all the products proposed by respondents will be used in the demonstration. Each prospective participant will be expected to work collaboratively with NIST staff and other project participants under the terms of the consortium CRADA in the development of the TLS Server Certificate Management Building Block. Prospective participants' contribution to the collaborative effort will include assistance in establishing the necessary interface functionality, connection and set-up capabilities and procedures, demonstration harnesses, environmental and safety conditions for use, integrated platform user instructions, and demonstration plans and scripts necessary to demonstrate the desired capabilities. Each participant will train NIST personnel, as necessary, to operate its product in capability demonstrations. Following successful demonstrations, NIST will publish a description of the security platform and its performance characteristics sufficient to permit other organizations to develop and deploy security platforms that meet the security objectives of the TLS Server Certificate Management Building Block. These descriptions will be public information. Under the terms of the consortium CRADA, NIST will support development of interfaces among participants' products by providing IT infrastructure, laboratory facilities, office facilities, collaboration facilities, and staff support to component composition, security platform documentation, and demonstration activities.
The dates of the demonstration of the TLS Server Certificate Management Building Block capability will be announced on the NCCoE website at least two weeks in advance at
For additional information on the NCCoE governance, business processes, and NCCoE operational structure, visit the NCCoE website
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Notice of Research Consortium Deadline Extension.
On November 1, 2017, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published a
Letters of interest for participation in this LTS Testing Consortium will be accepted until January 31, 2018. LTS testing is expected to occur in May or June 2018, with a pre-event workshop in March. Dates are subject to change, however.
Letters of interest and requests for additional information can be directed to the NIST LTS Testing Consortium Manager, Nader Moayeri, of the Advanced Network Technologies Division of NIST's Information Technology Laboratory. Nader Moayeri's contact information is NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8920, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8920, USA, email:
For further information regarding the terms and conditions of NIST's CRADA, please contact Jeffrey DiVietro, CRADA and License Officer, NIST's Technology Partnerships Office, by mail to 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2200, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-2200, by email to
On November 1, 2017, NIST published a
15 U.S.C. 3710a.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice.
The Interim Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) will be held in St. Pete Beach, Florida, from Sunday, January 21, 2018, through Wednesday, January 24, 2018. This notice contains information about significant items on the NCWM Committee agendas but does not include all agenda items. As a result, the items are not consecutively numbered.
The meeting will be held from Sunday, January 21, 2018, through Wednesday, January 24, 2018, on Sunday through Tuesday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and on Wednesday, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting schedule is available at
This meeting will be held at the Sirata Beach Resort and Conference Center, 5300 Gulf Boulevard, St. Pete Beach, Florida 33706.
Dr. Douglas Olson, NIST, Office of Weights and Measures, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600. You may also contact Dr. Olson at (301) 975-2956 or by email at
Publication of this notice on the NCWM's behalf is undertaken as a public service; NIST does not endorse, approve, or recommend any of the proposals or other information contained in this notice or in the publications produced by the NCWM.
The NCWM is an organization of weights and measures officials of the states, counties, and cities of the United States, and representatives from the private sector and federal agencies. These meetings bring together government officials and representatives of business, industry, trade associations, and consumer organizations on subjects related to the field of weights and measures technology, administration, and enforcement. NIST participates to encourage cooperation between federal agencies and the states in the development of legal metrology requirements. NIST also promotes uniformity in state laws, regulations, and testing procedures used in the regulatory control of commercial weighing and measuring devices, packaged goods, and for other trade and commerce issues.
The NCWM has established multiple committees, task groups, and other working bodies to address legal metrology issues of interest to regulatory officials, industry, consumers, and others. The following are brief descriptions of some of the significant agenda items that will be considered by some of the NCWM Committees at the NCWM Interim Meeting. Comments will be taken on these and other issues during several public comment sessions. At this stage, the items are proposals. This meeting also includes work sessions in which the Committees may also accept comments, and where recommendations will be developed for consideration and possible adoption at the NCWM 2018 Annual Meeting. The Committees may withdraw or carryover items that need additional development.
These notices are intended to make interested parties aware of these development projects and to make them aware that reports on the status of the project will be given at the Interim Meeting. The notices are also presented to invite the participation of manufacturers, experts, consumers, users, and others who may be interested in these efforts.
The Specifications and Tolerances Committee (S&T Committee) will consider proposed amendments to NIST Handbook 44, “Specifications, Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices.” Those items address weighing and measuring devices used in commercial applications, that is, devices that are used to buy from or sell to the public or used for determining the quantity of products or services sold among businesses. Issues on the agenda of the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee (L&R Committee) relate to proposals to amend NIST Handbook 130, “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the area of Legal Metrology and Engine Fuel Quality” and NIST Handbook 133, “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods.”
The following items are proposals to amend NIST Handbook 44:
These paragraphs currently specify that all weighing and measuring equipment and all mechanisms, software, and devices that are attached or used in conjunction therewith must be designed, constructed, assembled, and installed for use so that they do not facilitate the perpetration of fraud.
The S&T Committee will consider a proposal that would expand the application of paragraph G-A.1. Commercial and Law-Enforcement Equipment to include accessory equipment that can be used to defraud or collect unauthorized personal or financial information from a user (
In 2017, the NCWM adopted a proposal requiring the value of the scale division (d) and verification scale interval (e) to be equal on Class I and Class II scales installed into commercial service as of January 1, 2020, when used in a direct sale application (
The S&T Committee will consider a proposal requiring additional sales information to be recorded by cash
The S&T Committee will consider a proposal drafted by the NCWM's Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) Task Group (TG) to amend various sections of the NIST Handbook 44, Scales Code to address WIM vehicle scale systems used for commercial applications. The TG is made up of representatives of WIM equipment manufacturers, the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, NIST Office of Weights and Measures, truck weight enforcement agencies, state weights and measures agencies, and others.
The WIM TG was first formed in February 2016 to consider a proposal to expand the NIST Handbook 44, Weigh-In-Motion Systems Used for Vehicle Enforcement Screening—Tentative Code to also apply to legal-for-trade (commercial) and law enforcement applications. Members of the TG agreed during their first face-to-face meeting at the 2016 NCWM Annual Meeting to eliminate from the proposal any mention of a law enforcement application and focus solely on WIM vehicle scale systems intended for use in commercial applications. Members of the TG later agreed that commercial application WIM vehicle scale systems should be addressed by the Scales Code of NIST Handbook 44, rather than the Weigh-In-Motion Systems Used for Vehicle Enforcement Screening—Tentative Code.
The focus of the TG since July 2016 has been to concentrate on the development of test procedures that can be used to verify the accuracy of a WIM vehicle scale system given the different axle and tandem axle configurations of vehicles that will typically be weighed by a system and a proposed maintenance and acceptance tolerance of 0.2 percent on gross (total) vehicle weight. Members of the TG, to date, have been unsuccessful in agreeing on test procedures, and, as a result, the TG recently developed a “White Paper” during the summer of 2017, which it distributed to the different regional weights and measures associations requesting feedback from their fall 2017 conferences on some different draft test procedures being considered and some other concerns.
The S&T Committee will consider a proposal to add a new nonretroactive paragraph (effective date yet to be determined) that requires both stationary and vehicle mounted electronic LPG and anhydrous ammonia liquid-measuring devices be designed with an automatic interlock system that must engage following completion of a delivery. The proposal specifies that the interlock system must prevent a subsequent delivery from occurring until such time the indicating elements and recording elements, if so equipped, have been reset to zero. The proposal also requires the automatic interlock system to activate within three minutes of product flow cessation and that this “timeout” feature be sealable at the indicator.
Block 4 Items (B4) and Block 5 Items (B5) include all of the following items:
Block 4 and Block 5 items are considered related agenda items, and it
The following items are proposals to amend NIST Handbook 130 or NIST Handbook 133:
The L&R Committee is recommending adoption of a uniform method of sale for Pet Treats or Chews. If adopted, the proposal will require sellers to follow labeling guidance under the Food and Drug Administration and 21 CFR 501, which defines these types of products that shall be sold by weight. This will also allow consumers to make a value comparison for similar like items.
Currently, there is no test procedure in NIST Handbook 133 for Plywood and Wood-Based Structural Panels. This item will provide a test procedure for these products that follows good measuring practices for products sold by linear measure. The L&R Committee is seeking further comment and is recommending this test procedure be considered for addition to the handbook.
15 U.S.C. 272(b).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invites organizations to provide products and technical expertise to support and demonstrate security platforms for the Mitigating IoT-Based DDoS Building Block. This notice is the initial step for the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) in collaborating with technology companies to address cybersecurity challenges identified under the Mitigating IoT-Based DDoS Building Block. Participation in the building block is open to all interested organizations.
Interested parties must contact NIST to request a letter of interest template to be completed and submitted to NIST. Letters of interest will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. Collaborative activities will commence as soon as enough completed and signed letters of interest have been returned to address all the necessary components and capabilities, but no earlier than January 26, 2018. When the building block has been completed, NIST will post a notice on the NCCoE Mitigating IoT-Based DDoS Building Block website at:
The NCCoE is located at 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville, MD 20850. Letters of interest must be submitted to
Tim Polk, William Haag and Murugiah Souppaya via email to
Interested parties should contact NIST using the information provided in the
Each responding organization's letter of interest should identify how their products address one or more of the following desired solution characteristics in section 3 of the Mitigating IoT-Based DDoS Building Block (for reference, please see the link in the PROCESS section above):
• IoT device controllers are capable of address assignment and packet filtering based on routes that can be integrated into home or enterprise networks;
• Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) controllers are able to retrieve MUD files from websites using the HTTPS protocol;
• MUD controllers are able to provide route filtering commands for enforcement by routers;
• MUD servers at participating websites are capable of storing and retrieving MUD files and providing device communications requirements to MUD controllers;
• IoT devices are capable of inserting the MUD extension into address requests when they are powered up;
• IoT devices are capable of contacting update servers to download and apply security patches;
• Routers and switches are capable of receiving threat feeds from cloud-based or infrastructure services like DNS that includes type, severity, and mitigation for threats; and
• Any cryptographic modules employed conform to FIPS 140-2.
Responding organizations need to understand and, in their letters of interest, commit to provide:
1. Access for all participants' project teams to component interfaces and the organization's experts necessary to make functional connections among security platform components.
2. Support for development and demonstration of the Mitigating IoT-Based DDoS Building Block in NCCoE facilities which will be conducted in a manner consistent with the following standards and guidance: OMB Circular A-130; NIST Special Publications 800-40; 800-52; 800-57; 800-63; 800-147; 800-193; NISTIR 7823; NIST Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity; Ongoing Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) Standards activities including Manufacturer Usage Description Specification, MUD Lifecyle: A Network Operator's Perspective, and MUD Lifecyle: A Manufacturer's Perspective; and RFCs 2131, 2818, 3315, 5280, 5652, and 6020.
Additional details about the Mitigating IoT-Based DDoS Building Block are available at:
NIST cannot guarantee that all of the products proposed by respondents will be used in the demonstration. Each prospective participant will be expected to work collaboratively with NIST staff and other project participants under the terms of the consortium CRADA in the development of the Mitigating IoT-Based DDoS Building Block. Prospective participants' contribution to the collaborative effort will include assistance in establishing the necessary interface functionality, connection and set-up capabilities and procedures, demonstration harnesses, environmental and safety conditions for use, integrated platform user instructions, and demonstration plans and scripts necessary to demonstrate the desired capabilities. Each participant will train NIST personnel, as necessary, to operate its product in capability demonstrations. Following successful demonstrations, NIST will publish a description of the security platform and its performance characteristics sufficient to permit other organizations to develop and deploy security platforms that meet the security objectives of the Mitigating IoT-Based DDoS Building Block. These descriptions will be public information.
Under the terms of the consortium CRADA, NIST will support development of interfaces among participants' products by providing IT infrastructure, laboratory facilities, office facilities, collaboration facilities, and staff support to component composition, security platform documentation, and demonstration activities.
The dates of the demonstration of the Mitigating IoT-Based DDoS Building Block capability will be announced on the NCCoE website at least two weeks in advance at
For additional information on the NCCoE governance, business processes, and NCCoE operational structure, visit the NCCoE website
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) requests comments on the draft Special Publication (SP) 2000-02
NIST requests comments on the draft
Comments may be submitted to NIST in the following ways:
•
• Written comments may be submitted by mail to Lisa Carnahan, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2100, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Questions regarding the draft
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently revised Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,” in light of changes that have taken place in the world of regulation, standards, and conformity assessment since the Circular was last revised in 1998.
On February 28, 2017, NIST hosted a workshop to engage the conformity assessment community in the development of its conformity assessment materials. Updates to the conformity assessment materials reflect growth and evolution in the conformity assessment community as well as updates to the guidance in the revised OMB Circular A-119.
Taking into consideration the feedback received from workshop participants as well as input received from conformity assessment stakeholders in both the public and private sectors, NIST has developed a draft of the following materials:
The purpose of the draft
All comments will be made publicly available; therefore, personal, proprietary or confidential information should not be included. When submitting comments, inclusion of name, affiliation, and contact information (phone number and/or email address in case of questions about the comment) are optional. Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) requests comments on the draft Special Publication (SP) 2000-01
NIST requests comments on the draft
Comments may be submitted to NIST in the following ways:
•
• Written comments may be submitted by mail to Amy Phelps, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2100, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Questions regarding the draft
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently revised Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,” in light of changes that have taken place in the world of regulation, standards, and conformity assessment since the Circular was last revised in 1998.
On February 28, 2017, NIST hosted a workshop to engage the conformity assessment community in the development of its conformity assessment materials. Updates to the conformity assessment materials reflect growth and evolution in the conformity assessment community as well as updates to the guidance in the revised OMB Circular A-119.
Taking into consideration the feedback received from workshop participants as well as input received from conformity assessment stakeholders in both the public and private sectors, NIST has developed a draft of the following materials:
• Conformity Assessment Considerations for Federal Agencies
• ABC's of Conformity Assessment
The purpose of the draft
All comments will be made publicly available; therefore, personal, proprietary or confidential information should not be included. When submitting comments, inclusion of name, affiliation, and contact information (phone number and/or email address in case of questions about the comment) are optional. Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials.
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).
Section 303(b)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifically recognizes the need for permit issuance. The requirement of a permit for marine resource users is one of the regulatory steps taken to carry out conservation and management objectives. The issuance of a permit is an essential ingredient in the management of fishery resources needed for identification of the participants, expected activity levels, and for regulatory compliance (
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Regulations at 50 CFR 665, Subpart C, require that all participants (including vessel owners, operators, and crew) in the boat-based non-commercial bottomfish fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone around the main Hawaiian Islands obtain a federal bottomfish permit. This collection of information is needed for permit issuance, to identify actual or potential participants in the fishery, determine qualifications for permits, and to help measure the impacts of management controls on the participants in the fishery. The permit program is also an effective tool in the enforcement of fishery regulations and serves as a link between the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and fishermen.
Regulations at 50 CFR 665 require that all vessel owners or operators in this fishery submit a completed logbook form at the completion of each fishing trip. These logbook reporting sheets document the species and amount of species caught during the trip. The reporting requirements are crucial to ensure that NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will be able to monitor the fishery and have fishery-dependent information to develop an Annual Catch Limit for the fishery, evaluate the effectiveness of management measures, determine whether changes in fishery management programs are necessary, and estimate the impacts and implications of alternative management measures.
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 51 assessment webinar VII for Gulf of Mexico gray snapper.
The SEDAR 51 assessment process of Gulf of Mexico gray snapper will consist of a Data Workshop, a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 51 assessment webinar VII will be held January 17, 2018, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion during the assessment webinar VII are as follows:
1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the Data Workshop, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.
2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of reports; public meetings, and hearings.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) has begun its annual preseason management process for the 2018 ocean salmon fisheries. This document announces the availability of Pacific Council documents as well as the dates and locations of Pacific Council meetings and public hearings comprising the Pacific Council's complete schedule of events for determining the annual proposed and final modifications to ocean salmon fishery management measures. The agendas for the March and April 2018 Pacific Council meetings will be published in subsequent
Written comments on the salmon management alternatives must be received by 5 p.m. Pacific Time, March 30, 2018.
Documents will be available from, and written comments should be sent to Mr. Phil Anderson, Chair, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384, telephone: (503) 820-2280 (voice) or (503) 820-2299 (fax). Comments can also be submitted via email at
Ms. Robin Ehlke; telephone: (503) 820-2280.
All public hearings begin at 7 p.m. at the following locations:
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the STT meeting agendas may come before the STT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal STT action during these meetings. STT action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and to any issues arising after publication of this document requiring emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the STT's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These public meetings and hearings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 (voice), or (503) 820-2299 (fax) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
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
Regulations at 50 CFR 665.16 require that all U.S. vessels with Federal permits fishing for Western Pacific fishery management unit species display identification markings on the vessel and gear, as specified in 50 CFR 665 and 50 CFR 300. Vessels registered for use with a permit issued under Subparts B through E and Subparts G through I of 50 CFR 665, must display the vessel's official number on both sides of the deckhouse or hull, and on an appropriate weather deck. Vessels fishing for highly migratory species in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Convention Area must comply with the regulations at 50 CFR 300.217. These regulations require that vessels must display their international radio call sign on both sides of the deckhouse or hull, and on an appropriate weather deck, unless specifically exempted. Regulations at 50 CFR 300.35 require that vessels fishing under the South Pacific Tuna Treaty must display their international radio call sign on the hull, the deck, and on the sides of auxiliary equipment such as skiffs and helicopters. The numbers must be a specific size at specified locations. The display of the identifying numbers aids in fishery law enforcement.
Western Pacific fisheries regulations at 50 CFR 665.128, 665.228, 665.428, 665.628, and 665.804 require that certain fishing gear must be marked. In the pelagic longline fisheries, the vessel operator must ensure that the official number of the vessel is affixed to every longline buoy and float. In the coral reef ecosystem fisheries, the vessel number must be affixed to all fish and crab traps. The marking of gear links fishing or other activity to the vessel, aids law enforcement, and is valuable in actions concerning the damage, loss of gear, and civil proceedings.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) will hold a meeting, which is open to the public.
The meeting will be held Monday, January 22, 2018 to Wednesday, January 24, 2018, and will start at 8:30 a.m. and continue until business is concluded on each day.
The meeting will be held at the Glenn M. Anderson Federal Building, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90802, on the Third Floor in Room 3400. Visitors need to present photo ID and pass through electronic security equipment to enter the building. There is no visitor parking available in the building for the general public. Metered street parking is nearby. Commercial parking lots are within walking distance to the building.
Dr. Kit Dahl, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2422.
The purpose of the HMSMT meeting is to finalize a preliminary analysis of the range of alternatives for authorizing a fishery using deep-set buoy gear adopted by the Pacific Council in September 2017. The HMSMT will provide the draft analysis at the Pacific Council's March 2018 meeting. At that meeting the Council is scheduled to further refine the alternatives as needed and adopt a preliminary preferred alternative, if possible. The HMSMT may also discuss updates to the HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation document and HMS-related matters scheduled on future Council agendas.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2411 at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is requesting to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before February 26, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Department of the Air Force.
Federal Register Meeting Notice.
The Air Force Department is amending its prior notice of the meeting of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Barod that published in the
The Scientific Advisory Board meeting organizer, Lt Col Mike Rigoni at
The Air Force is amending the meeting notice of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board that published on Monday, November 27, 2017, 82 FR 56009. 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, the Department of Defense announces that the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Winter Board meeting will take place on 23 January 2018 at the Beckman Center of National Academies of Science and Engineering, located at 100 Academy Drive, Irvine, California 92617.
The purpose of this United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board quarterly meeting is to provide dedicated time for members to begin collaboration on research and formally commence the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board's two FY18 Secretary of the Air Force directed studies: (1) Technologies for Enabling Resilient Command and Control, and (2) Maintaining Technology Superiority for the USAF. At this meeting the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board will receive presentations covering; the status of FY18 new board members and consultants, the status of FY17 SAB study reports; the FY18 board meeting schedule; the outcome of recently completed United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Air Force Research Laboratory science and technology reviews; Multi-Domain Command & Control; technology development initiatives related to Air, Space, and cyberspace in the 2030 timeframe; the status of major acquisition programs; and the monetary balance between today's needs and investing in tomorrow's challenges—to prepare for full-spectrum operations.
The meeting will occur from 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, 23 January 2018. The session that will be open to the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, The Administrative Assistant of the Air Force, in consultation with the Air Force General Counsel, has agreed that the public interest requires several sessions of the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board meeting be closed to the public because they will discuss information and matters covered
Any member of the public wishing to provide input to the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, using the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed below at any time. Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed below at least five calendar days prior to the meeting start date. The Designated Federal Officer will forward all requests to the Chairman of the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board for review and ensure a formal reply is provided before 23 January 2018.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), DoD.
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 26, 2018
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-68 with attached Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Follow-on support and sustainment services for Poland's F-16 fleet to include aircraft maintenance; system and software overhauls and upgrades; engine support; spare and repair parts; support and test equipment; publications and technical documentation; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistical support; and other related elements of program support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Poland has requested to purchase follow-on support and sustainment services for its F-16 fleet to include aircraft maintenance; system and overhauls and upgrades; engine support; spare and repair parts; support and test equipment; publications and technical documentation; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistical support; and other related elements of program support. The estimated cost is $200 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO ally. Poland continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in Central Europe.
This potential sale will continue the sustainment of Poland's F-16 capability. Poland will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and support into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
Contracts will be awarded when necessary to provide the defense articles ordered if items ordered are not available from U.S. stock or are to be purchased further in the future. The potential prime contractors will be Harris Corporation of Melbourne, Florida; Boeing of Arlington, Virginia; UTC Aerospace Systems, ISR Systems of Charlotte, North Carolina; Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control of Orlando, Florida; Cubic Defense Applications of San Diego, California; L-3 Communications of New York, New York; Lockheed Martin Aero of Fort Worth, Texas; Exelis Electronic of Clifton, New Jersey; Northrop Grumman Corporation of Falls Church, Virginia; Raytheon of Waltham, Massachusetts; Honeywell of Morris Plains, New Jersey; Booz Allen Hamilton of McLean, Virginia; and BAE Systems of Arlington, Virginia. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Poland.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 26, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Healthcare Management Systems Modernization (DHMSM), 1501 Wilson Blvd., Room 810, Arlington VA 22209, or call (703) 588-5646.
MHS GENESIS is the Department of Defense's (DoD) modernized electronic health record (EHR) and will provide access to authoritative clinical data sources, and over time will become the authoritative source of clinical data to support improved population health, patient safety, and quality of care to maximize medical readiness for the DoD. MHS GENESIS is expected to unify and increase accessibility of integrated, evidence-based healthcare delivery and decision-making. MHS GENESIS supports the availability of longitudinal medical records for over 9.6 million DoD beneficiaries and over 153,000 Military Health System (MHS) personnel globally. MHS GENESIS enables the application of standardized workflows, integrated healthcare delivery, and data standards for improved and secure electronic exchange of medical and patient data between the DoD and its external partners, including the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) and private sector healthcare providers.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness (OUSD (P&R)), Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness (OASD(R)), DoD.
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 26, 2018.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), Department of Defense (DoD).
Federal advisory committee meeting notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel. This meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday, January 10 and 11, and February 14 and 15, 2018. Public registration will begin at 8:45 a.m. on each day. For entrance into the meeting, you must meet the necessary requirements for entrance into the Pentagon. For more detailed information, please see the following link:
Pentagon Library, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. The meeting room will be displayed on the information screen for both days. The Pentagon Library is located in the Pentagon Library and Conference Center (PLC2) across the Corridor 8 bridge.
LTC Robert McDonald, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition), 3600 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3600, email:
Minor changes to the agenda will be announced at the meeting. All materials will be posted to the FACA database after the meeting.
Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting or seeking additional information about public access procedures, should contact LTC McDonald, the committee DFO, or LTC Wollman at the email address or telephone number listed in the
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The action being taken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is an evaluation of CSRM problems, and an evaluation of alternative structural, non-structural, and natural and nature-based feature (NNBF) measures to address the CSRM problems in the coastal communities of the New Jersey Back Bays and Coastal Lakes in Monmouth, Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic, and Cape May Counties, New Jersey. The purpose of any consequent work would be to implement any one or a number of recommended plans and/or strategies that address CSRM problems evaluated in the feasibility study and integrated environmental impact statement.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, CENAP-PL-E, 100 Penn Square East, Wanamaker Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390.
Questions, comments, and suggestions regarding the Draft Integrated EIS should be addressed to Mr. Steven D. Allen at the above address; Phone: (215) 656-6559; email:
a. The NJBB CSRM Feasibility Study area is one of 9 focus areas with vulnerable coastal populations identified in the North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study (NACCS). The NACCS was conducted in response to Public Law 113-2 and the Water Resource and Reform Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014 following the devastation in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, which greatly affected the study area in October of 2012. The purpose of the NJBB CSRM Feasibility Study is to identify comprehensive CSRM strategies to increase coastal resilience, and to reduce flooding risk from future storms and impacts of sea level change. The objective of the Study is to investigate CSRM problems and solutions to reduce damages from coastal flooding that affect population, critical infrastructure, critical facilities, property, and ecosystems.
b. The authority for the proposed project is the resolution adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Public Works and Transportation and the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works dated December 1987.
In addition to the no action alternative, the alternatives considered for CSRM will fall into structural, non-structural, and NNBF categories. The structural measures being evaluated for CSRM include measures that would provide barrier protection and/or protection to the bays perimeters, which include: inlet storm surge barriers, interior flood gates, road/rail elevation, levees, floodwalls, bulkheads, seawalls, revetments, beach restoration, breakwaters, storm system drainage improvements or combinations thereof. Non-structural elements under consideration include building retrofit (elevation and flood proofing), managed coastal retreat, emergency evacuation plans, early warning systems, public education education/risk communication, working with other Federal, state and local government agencies to incorporate National Flood Insurance Program improvements into the study recommendations, and combinations thereof. NNBF considerations include wetland restoration, living shorelines, green stormwater management, reefs, and submerged aquatic vegetation. NNBF features may be combined with other proposed CSRM elements.
a. Scoping is conducted in accordance with Section 1501.7 of the National Environmental Policy Act, and is defined as an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. For the NJBB CSRM Feasibility Study, the scoping process is on-going and has involved preliminary coordination with 2 stakeholder meetings in June 2016, and the distribution of scoping letters to Federal, state, and local agencies, tribes and other non-government organizations. The general public and other interested parties and organizations were invited to participate by means of a public notice and a public workshop meeting held on December 1, 2016. Additional scoping meetings may be announced at major study milestone decision points. Agency and public input are being solicited throughout the study, and will help inform the identification of a Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP). The TSP milestone is expected to be reached in December 2018.
b. Significant issues and concerns that have been identified in addition to the premise of the CSRM study (flood risks associated with storms and sea level rise) include, but are not limited to the potential for impacts on aquatic biota, fisheries, intertidal habitat, shallow water habitat, endangered species, water quality, hydrodynamics, flood plain management, air quality, cultural resources, sustainability, and socio-economics.
c. The USACE is the lead Federal agency, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is the non-Federal sponsor. The USACE will be inviting key resource agencies with jurisdiction by law as a cooperating and/or participating agency in accordance with Section 1501.6 of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations and Section 1005 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. Federal agencies interested in participating as a Cooperating Agency are requested to submit a letter of intent to Lieutenant Colonel Kristen Dahle, District Engineer, at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, 100 Penn Square East, Wanamaker Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390.
It is estimated that the Draft Integrated EIS and Feasibility Study will be made available to the public in January 2019.
Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), 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 January 26, 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 Justis Tuia, 202-453-6654.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), 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 January 26, 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 Hannah Hodel, 202-453-6448.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance, a proposal for a three-year extension of collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The collections are used by DOE to exercise management oversight and control over its contractors.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before January 26, 2018. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at (202) 395-4718.
Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, and to Sandra K. Dentinger, AU-70/E-455 Germantown Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585-1290 or by fax at 301-903-0048, by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to the person listed above in
This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-1800; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Security; (3) Type of Review: Renewal/revision; (4) Purpose: The collections are used by DOE to exercise management oversight and control over its contractors that provide goods and services for DOE organizations and activities in accordance with the terms of their contracts and the applicable statutory, regulatory, and mission support requirements of the Department. Information collected is for (1) Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence data from bidders on DOE contracts requiring personnel security clearances; and (2) individuals in the process of applying for a security clearance/access authorization or who already hold one. The collections are: DOE Form 5631.18, Security Acknowledgement; DOE F 5631.20, Request for Visitor Access Approval; DOE Form 5631.29, Security Termination Statement; DOE F 5631.34, Data Report on Spouse/Cohabitant; DOE Form 5631.5, The Conduct of Personnel Security Interviews; DOE Form 5639.3 Report of Security Incident/Infraction; DOE F 471.1, Security Incident Notification Report; DOE Form 472.3 Foreign Citizenship Acknowledgement; DOE Form 473.2, Security Badge Request; DOE Form 473.3, U.S. Department of Energy Clearance Access Request; Influence (e-FOCI) System as required by DOE Order 470.4B, Safeguards and Security Program, Section 2; and the Foreign Access Central Tracking System (FACTS); (5) Estimated Number of Respondents: 86,893; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 86,893; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 11,296; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: 0.
DOE F 5631.34, Data Report on Spouse/Cohabitant: Section 145(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2165; Executive Order 12968 (August 2, 1995); Executive Order 10865 (February 20, 1960); Executive Order 10450 (April 27, 1953); DOE O 472.2 (July 21, 2011).
Security Incident Notification Report and Report of Preliminary Security Incident/Infraction (DOE F 471.1 and DOE F 5639.3): Executive Order 13526 (December 29, 2009); 32 CFR part 2001; DOE O 470.4B (July 21, 2011).
DOE F 5631.20, Request for Visitor Access Approval: Section 145(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2165.
DOE Form 5631.18, Security Acknowledgement: Section 145(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2165; Executive Order 13526 (December 29, 2009); Executive Order 10865 (Feb. 20, 1960); Executive Order 10450 (April 27, 1953); DOE O 5631.2C (February 17, 1994).
DOE Form 5631.29, Security Termination Statement: Section 145(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2165; Executive Order 13526 (December 29, 2009); Executive Order 10865 (Feb. 20, 1960); Executive Order 10450 (Apr. 27, 1953); 32 CFR part 2001; DOE O 472.2 (July 21, 2011).
DOE Form 5631.5, The Conduct of Personnel Security Interviews: 10 CFR part 710; Executive Order 12968 (Aug. 2, 1995); Executive Order 10450 (April 27, 1953); DOE Order 472.2 (July 21, 2011).
DOE F 471.1, Security Incident Notification Report; DOE Form 472.3 Foreign Citizenship Acknowledgement; and DOE Form 473.2, Security Badge Request; the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and by Executive Orders 13764, 10865, and 13526.
Electronic Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (e-FOCI) System: Executive Order 12829 (January 6, 1993); DOE O 470.4B (July 21, 2011).
Foreign Access Central Tracking System (FACTS): Presidential Decision Directive 61 (February 1999); DOE O 142.3A (October 14, 2010).
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of 229 Boundary for the Fort Saint Vrain (FSV) Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
Notice is hereby given that the U. S. Department of Energy, pursuant to Section 229 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, published in the
The FSV ISFSI is located on part of the original FSV Nuclear Generating Station site which is about three and one-half miles northwest of Platteville, Colorado. Platteville is located in Weld County and is about 35 miles north of Denver. The FSV ISFSI street address is 17122 19.5 Weld County Road, Platteville, Colorado. The ISFSI is located approximately 1500 feet northeast of the Public Service of Colorado fossil-fueled, power plant building. The facility occupies 10 acres more or less. The 229 Boundary of this facility is indicated by a combination of chain link fence and chain link gates which surround the facility.
Scott E. Ferrara, the Department of Energy—Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID), 1955 Fremont Ave., Idaho Falls, ID 83415. Telephone (208) 526-5531.
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on December 21, 2017.
Office of High Energy Physics, Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of request for information (RFI).
The Office of High Energy Physics (HEP) in the Department of Energy (DOE) invites interested parties to provide input on topical areas in which progress in quantum information science can inform high energy physics, and on contributions that the high energy physics community can make to advancing quantum information science.
Written comments and information are requested on or before February 12, 2018.
Interested persons may submit comments by email only. Comments must be sent to
Requests for additional information may be submitted to Dr. Lali Chatterjee, (301) 903-0435,
Quantum information science (QIS) encompasses novel approaches to fundamental science and to applications such as sensing, communications, simulation, and computing that are enabled by understanding and manipulation of the uniquely quantum phenomena of superposition, entanglement, and squeezing. Within high energy physics, DOE's emphasis is on employing new perspectives and capabilities offered or enabled by QIS to address the science drivers identified by the community in the May 2014 “Building for Discovery” report of the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5).
The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of High Energy Physics in the Office of Science seeks input from stakeholders regarding potential research and development in QIS that addresses scientific and technological needs in high energy physics, and regarding capabilities in the high energy physics community that could contribute to the advancement of QIS. The information received in response to this RFI will inform and be considered by the Office of High Energy Physics in program planning and development. Please note that this RFI
The DOE Office of High Energy Physics is specifically interested in receiving input pertaining to any of the following questions:
What are the key questions, opportunities, needs, and challenges for QIS to contribute to progress in the following topics? What kinds of experiments or calculations are needed to advance understanding? How can research in these areas contribute to the advancement of QIS?
What developments are needed, are on the horizon, or can be envisioned in the following areas? How will they contribute to high energy physics? How can high energy physics expertise, resources, or capabilities in these or other areas contribute to broader advances in quantum information science?
Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials. Note that comments will be made publicly available as submitted. Any information that may be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should be submitted as described below.
Depending on the response to this RFI, subsequent workshops or other activities may be held to further explore and elaborate the opportunities.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. On September 12, 2017, Jason and Carol Victoria Presley (licensee) filed a Notice of Intent to file a subsequent license application (Notice of Intent), and a request that the Commission waive certain deadlines, as required by the Commission's regulations, for filing the Notice of Intent, Pre-Application Document (PAD).
k. On October 31, 2017, the licensee filed a PAD and a request to use the TLP.
l. The licensee requests waiver of the Commission's regulatory deadlines and notice requirements for the Notice of Intent, PAD, and Request to Use the TLP because of recent resolution of transfer of the project following the death of the prior licensee and the subsequent transfer of license to current licensee.
m. With this notice we are soliciting comments on the licensee's PAD, request to use the TLP, and request to waive certain pre-filing requirements. All comments should be sent to the address in paragraph o below. Any individual or entity interested in submitting comments must do so within 60 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice.
n. The Notice of Intent, waiver request, PAD, request to use the TLP, and associated filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (
Register online at
o. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at
Take notice that on December 1, 2017, Western Area Power Administration submitted tariff filing per: Formula Rates for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Project-Eastern Division—Rate Order No. WAPA-180 to be effective 1/1/2018.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of States Edge Wind I Holding LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is January 9, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, permittee for the proposed Hudson Hill Pumped Storage Hydro Project, has requested that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on September 5, 2017, and would have expired on August 31, 2020.
The preliminary permit for Project No. 14826 will remain in effect until the close of business, January 19, 2018. But, if the Commission is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.
Take notice that on December 14, 2017, City of Banning, California submitted its tariff filing: City of Banning 2018 TRBAA/ETC Update to be effective 1/1/2018.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on December 18, 2017, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e), and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Brookfield Energy Marketing LP (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Green Mountain Power Corporation (Green Mountain or Respondent) requesting that the Commission issue an order finding that the Complainant's transmission service request was valid and order Green Mountain Power Corporation to process the request, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that during the month of November 2017, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2017).
Take notice that on December 13, 2017, City of Pasadena, California submitted its tariff filing: City of Pasadena 2018 TRBAA Update to be effective 1/1/2018.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on December 18, 2017, City of Riverside, California submitted its tariff filing: City of Riverside 2018 TRBAA/ETC Update to be effective 1/1/2018.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. Project Description.
The existing Colliersville Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) A dam that includes: A 200-foot-long, 35-foot-high, reinforced-concrete, Ambursen-type dam or spillway structure
Goodyear Lake Hydro operates the project in a run-of-river mode. The project experiences substantial seasonal and annual variations in generation, and generates an annual average of 5,985 megawatt-hours. Goodyear Lake Hydro proposes to continue to operate the project in run-of-river mode.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's web site at
n. You may also register online at
o. Scoping Process
The Commission staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Colliersville Hydroelectric Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.
Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments, recommendations, and information, on the Scoping Document 1 (SD1) issued December 20, 2017.
Copies of SD1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 may be viewed on the web at
Take notice that on December 8, 2017, Steel Reef Pipelines US LLC (Steel Reef), Suite 500, 407 8th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 1E5 Canada, filed in the above referenced docket an application, pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Subpart B of Section 153 of the Commission's regulations, seeking authorization to site, construct, operate and maintain certain natural gas pipeline border crossing facilities to export natural gas from the United States to Canada (Border Crossing Facilities). The Border Crossing Facilities consist of a segment of 10.75-inch outside diameter pipe that extends from an interconnection with upstream gathering facilities for 250 feet to the International Boundary. The Border Crossing Facilities are a part of the proposed approximately 2.2-mile pipeline that further extends to an existing natural gas processing plant in Canada. Additionally, Steel Reef requests a Presidential Permit for the Border Crossing Facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be also viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Chris Anderson, Steel Reef Infrastructure Corp. Suite 500—407, 8th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 1E5 Canada, or call (403) 263-8333 or email:
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website under the e-Filing link.
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 10, 2018.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted and is ready for environmental analysis.
l.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, REPLY COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, or PRESCRIPTIONS; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
You may also register online at
n. Public notice of the filing of the initial development application, which has already been given, established the due date for filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the initial development application. No competing applications or notices of intent may be filed in response to this notice.
o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
p.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on December 1, 2017, Western Area Power Administration submitted tariff filing per: Formula Rates for the Loveland Area Projects—Rate Order No. WAPA-179 to be effective 1/1/2018.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of States Edge Wind I LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is January 9, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that on December 14, 2017, City of Azusa, California submitted its tariff filing: City of Azusa 2018 TRBAA/ETC Update to be effective 1/1/2018.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following Draft License Application (DLA) and draft Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
All comments on the draft PDEA and DLA should be sent to the addresses noted above in Item (h), and filed with FERC.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
All comments must bear the heading Preliminary Comments, Preliminary Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, or Preliminary Prescriptions.
l. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Register online at
PacifiCorp has mailed a copy of the Preliminary DEA and Draft License Application to interested entities and parties. Copies of these documents are available for review at PacifiCorp Hydro Resources, 1407 W. North Temple, Suite 210, Salt Lake City, UT 84116.
m. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the UTAH STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO), as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.
Take notice that on December 6, 2017, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), having its principal place of business at 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056-5310 filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to abandon two reciprocating compressor units and related appurtenances located in Providence County, Rhode Island referred to as Burrillville Compressor Station Project (Project), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. Specifically, Algonquin is requesting approval to abandon in place compressor unit Nos. 1 and 2, and to remove related appurtenances, at its Burrillville Compressor Station. Algonquin states that the Project will allow Algonquin to eliminate the need for future operating and maintenance expenditures on facilities that are outdated and not needed to satisfy its current firm service obligations. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Lisa A. Connolly, Director, Rates & Certificates, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, or telephone (713) 627-4102, or fax (713) 627-5947 or by emailing
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Take notice that on December 7, 2017, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056, filed in Docket No. CP18-26-000 an application pursuant to sections 7(c) and 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authority to: (i) Construct, own, operate, and maintain two new 8,600 horsepower (hp) Solar Taurus 70 natural-gas fired compressor units to replace two existing natural-gas fired compressor units, and related appurtenant facilities on existing Texas Eastern's Lambertville Compressor Station in Hunterdon County, New Jersey (Lambertville East Expansion Project); (ii) charge initial incremental recourse rates and an incremental fuel percentage for firm service on the project facilities; and (iii) abandon the existing compressor units being replaced and related facilities; and (iv) any waivers, authority, and further relief as may be necessary to implement the proposal contained in its application. The Lambertville East Expansion Project will replace 10,200 hp from the existing two units being replaced and will provide additional 7,000 hp. The project is designed to allow Texas Eastern to deliver 60,000 dekatherms per day to two local New Jersey gas utilities. Texas Eastern estimates the cost of the project to be $110,955,942, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Berk Donaldson, Director, Rates and Certificates, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642; by telephone (713) 627-4488; by facsimile (713) 627-5947; or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit five copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Take notice that on December 18, 2017, City of Colton, California submitted its tariff filing: City of Colton 2018 TRBAA/ETC Update to be effective 1/1/2018.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Reissuance of NPDES General Permit.
Today, the EPA Region 4 (the “Region”) is reissuing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the Gulf of Mexico (General Permit No. GEG460000) for new and existing source discharges in the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category. This reissued general permit replaces the previous permit issued on March 15, 2010, and which became effective on April 1, 2010, and expired on March 31, 2015. The general permit authorizes discharges from exploration, development, and production facilities located in and discharging to all Federal waters of the eastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico seaward of the outer boundary of the territorial seas, and covers existing and new source facilities with operations located on Federal leases occurring in water depths seaward of 200 meters, occurring offshore the coasts of Alabama and Florida. The western boundary of the coverage area is demarcated by Mobile and Visoca Knoll lease blocks located seaward of the outer boundary of the territorial seas from the coasts of Mississippi and Alabama. The permit term will be no longer than five years from the effective date of the permit. Individual permits will be issued for operating facilities on lease blocks traversed by and shoreward of the 200-meter water depth.
The draft NPDES general permit was publicly noticed from August 18, 2016 to September 17, 2016. This final permit reflects changes based on comments received during the public comments period, which are detailed in the Amendment to the Fact Sheet.
This action is applicable as of January 20, 2018.
The final NPDES general permit, Amendment to the Permit fact sheet, Finding of No Significant Impact document, Final Essential Fish Habitat Determination, Final Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation, and other relevant documents may be obtained by writing the U.S. EPA-Region 4, Water Protection Division (WPD), NPDES Section, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, Attention: Ms. Bridget Staples. Alternatively, copies of the above-mentioned documents may be downloaded at:
Ms. Bridget Staples, EPA Region 4, WPD, NPDES Section, by mail at the Atlanta address given above, by telephone at (404) 562-9783 or by email at
In compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251
Operators of facilities within the NPDES general permit coverage area must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Regional Administrator, prior to discharge, that they intend to be covered by the general permit (See Part I.A.4). The effective date of coverage will be the postmarked date of the NOI, or if the postmarked date is illegible, the effective date of coverage will be two days prior to the receipt date of the NOI.
Administratively continued coverages under the previous NPDES general permit will cease for operators 30 days after the effective date of the new permit. Therefore, such operators must submit a new NOI to be covered under this general permit within 30 days after the effective date of this permit. If a permit application for an individual permit is filed, the coverage under the previous general permit terminates when a final action is taken on the application for an individual permit.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire midnight, Eastern Standard Time, five years from the effective date.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of the Science
A virtual public meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 23, 2018 and Wednesday, January 24, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time on both dates. A separate, subsequent teleconference meeting is planned for Thursday, March 15, 2018, from 2:00 p.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time for the HSRB to finalize its Final Report of the January 23 and 24, 2018 meeting and review other possible topics.
Both of these meetings will be conducted entirely by telephone and on the internet using Adobe Connect. For detailed access information visit the HSRB website:
Any member of the public who wishes to receive further information should contact the HSRB Designated Federal Official (DFO), Thomas O'Farrell on telephone number (202) 564-8451; fax number: (202) 564-2070; email address:
Meeting access: These meetings will be open to the public. The full Agenda and meeting materials will be available at the HSRB website:
The HSRB encourages the public's input. You may participate in these meetings by following the instructions in this section.
1.
2.
The HSRB is a Federal advisory committee operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 5 U.S.C. App. 2 9. The HSRB provides advice, information, and recommendations on issues related to scientific and ethical aspects of third-party human subjects research that are submitted to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) to be used for regulatory purposes.
The Agenda and meeting materials for this topic will be available in advance of the meeting at
On March 15, 2018, the HSRB will review and finalize their draft Final Report from the January 23 and 24, 2018 meeting, in addition to other topics that may come before the Board. The HSRB may also discuss planning for future HSRB meetings. The agenda and the draft report will be available prior to the meeting at
Meeting minutes and final reports. Minutes of these meetings, summarizing the matters discussed and recommendations made by the HSRB, will be released within 90 calendar days of the meeting. These minutes will be available at
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) (collectively, the “agencies”) may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), of which the agencies are members, has approved the Board's publication for public comment of a proposal to extend, with revision, the Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FFIEC 002) and the Report of Assets and Liabilities of a Non-U.S. Branch that is Managed or Controlled by a U.S. Branch or Agency of a Foreign (Non-U.S.) Bank (FFIEC 002S), which are currently approved collections of information. The Board is publishing this proposal on behalf of the agencies.
The proposed revisions to these reports would align with corresponding
Comments must be submitted on or before February 26, 2018.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the agency listed below. All comments, which should refer to the OMB control number, will be shared among the agencies.
You may submit comments, which should refer to “FFIEC 002 and FFIEC 002S,” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's website at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB desk officer for the agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by fax to (202) 395-6974; or by email to
For further information about the proposed revisions to the FFIEC 002 and FFIEC 002S discussed in this notice, please contact the agency staff member whose name appears below. In addition, copies of the FFIEC 002 and FFIEC 002S forms can be obtained at the FFIEC's website (
Nuha Elmaghrabi, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer, (202) 452-3884, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW, Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may call (202) 263-4869.
The Board is proposing to extend for three years, with revision, the FFIEC 002 and FFIEC 002S.
These information collections are mandatory (12 U.S.C. 3105(c)(2), 1817(a)(1) and (3), and 3102(b)). Except for select sensitive items, the FFIEC 002 is not given confidential treatment; the FFIEC 002S is given confidential treatment (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and (8)).
On a quarterly basis, all U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks are required to file the FFIEC 002, which is a detailed report of condition with a variety of supporting schedules. This information is used to fulfill the supervisory and regulatory requirements of the International Banking Act of 1978. The data are also used to augment the bank credit, loan, and deposit information needed for monetary policy and other public policy purposes. The FFIEC 002S is a supplement to the FFIEC 002 that collects information on assets and liabilities of any non-U.S. branch that is managed or controlled by a U.S. branch or agency of the foreign bank. A non-U.S. branch is managed or controlled by a U.S. branch or agency if a majority of the responsibility for business decisions, including but not limited to decisions with regard to lending or asset management or funding or liability management, or the responsibility for recordkeeping in respect of assets or liabilities for that foreign branch resides at the U.S. branch or agency. A separate FFIEC 002S must be completed for each managed or controlled non-U.S. branch. The FFIEC 002S must be filed quarterly along with the U.S. branch or agency's FFIEC 002. The data from both reports are used for (1) monitoring deposit and credit transactions of U.S. residents; (2) monitoring the impact of policy changes; (3) analyzing structural issues concerning foreign bank activity in U.S. markets; (4) understanding flows of banking funds and indebtedness of developing countries in connection with data collected by the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements that are used in economic analysis; and (5) assisting in the supervision of U.S. offices of foreign banks. The Federal Reserve System collects and processes these reports on behalf of all three agencies.
The proposed revisions partially stem from a formal initiative launched by the FFIEC in December 2014 to identify potential opportunities to reduce burden associated with Call Report requirements for community banks. The FFIEC's formal initiative included surveys of agency Call Report data users, which have served as the
The proposed revisions are meant to align with revisions either implemented or proposed to be implemented in the Call Report. Below is a list of the specific proposed revisions to the FFIEC 002 and FFIEC 002S. The proposed revisions are segmented by schedule except for the revisions relating to the accounting for equity securities, which can be found following the section regarding proposed revisions to FFIEC 002 Schedule S, Servicing, Securitization, and Asset Sale Activities. Other than proposed revisions to the Report of Assets and Liabilities in the next paragraph, which pertain to both the FFIEC 002 and the FFIEC 002S, all other proposed revisions pertain only to the FFIEC 002.
In an effort to improve clarity, conformity with current accounting terminology, and internal consistency across schedules, the agencies propose to revise the caption in the FFIEC 002 and FFIEC 002S forms and instructions from “loans and leases, net of unearned income” to “loans and leases held for investment and held for sale.” These two captions are intended to represent the same reported amounts. Accordingly, the agencies will replace the former caption with the latter caption in affected data items and related instructions across all applicable schedules.
Each year in the March FFIEC 002, each institution indicates in Schedule RAL, Assets and Liabilities, Memorandum item 17, the most comprehensive level of auditing work performed for the branch or agency by, or on behalf of, the parent organization during the preceding calendar year. In completing Memorandum item 17, each institution selects from seven statements describing a range of levels of auditing work the one statement that best describes the level of auditing work performed for it. Certain statements from which an institution must choose do not reflect current auditing practices performed in accordance with applicable standards and procedures promulgated by the U.S. auditing standard setters, namely the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and the Auditing Standards Board (ASB) of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The PCAOB establishes auditing and related professional practice standards used in the performance and reporting of audits of the financial statements and the internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) of public companies. The ASB establishes auditing and quality control standards applicable to the performance and issuance of audit reports for entities that are not public companies,
The PCAOB's Auditing Standard No. 5 (AS 5), An Audit of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting That Is Integrated with An Audit of Financial Statements, became effective for fiscal years ending on or after November 15, 2007, and provides guidance regarding the integration of audits of ICFR with audits of financial statements for public companies. Those public companies not required to undergo an integrated audit must have an audit of their financial statements.
The ASB has separately provided similar guidance in Statement on Auditing Standards Number 130 (SAS 130), An Audit of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting That Is Integrated With an Audit of Financial Statements, which became effective for integrated audits for periods ending on or after December 15, 2016. Consistent with the PCAOB, the ASB states in SAS 130 that “[a]n audit of ICFR is required to be integrated with an audit of financial statements.” Unless a private company is required to or elects to have an integrated audit of its financial statements and ICFR, the private company may be required to or can choose to have an external auditor perform an audit of its financial statements.
The existing wording of statements 1 and 2 of Schedule RAL, Memorandum item 17, reads as follows:
Because these statements no longer fully and properly describe the types of external auditing services performed for institutions under current professional standards and to enhance the information institutions provide the agencies annually about the level of auditing external work performed for them, the agencies are proposing to replace existing statements 1 and 2 with new statements 1a and 1b and revised statement 2. These statements would read as follows:
1a = “An integrated audit of the branch or agency and its internal control over financial reporting conducted in accordance with the auditing standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) or the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) by an independent public accountant.”
1b = “An audit of the branch or agency conducted in accordance with the auditing standards of the AICPA or the PCAOB by an independent public accountant.”
2 = “An audit of the branch or agency conducted in accordance with home-country auditing standards by an independent public accountant.”
Further, the agencies also propose to revise the caption to Memorandum item 17 to explicitly state that the work is performed by independent external auditors and to remove the reference to work performed on behalf of the parent organization.
The agencies also propose to consolidate the detail on the fair value and the unpaid principal balance of loans held for trading collected in Schedule RAL. For loans secured by 1-4 family residential properties, breakouts for revolving, open-end loans
On Schedule A, Cash and Balances Due from Depository Institutions, the agencies propose to consolidate the reporting of an institution's balances due from depository institutions in the U.S., which are currently reported in items 3.a for balances due from U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks (including their international banking facilities (IBFs)) and 3.b for balances due from other depository institutions in the U.S. (including their IBFs), into a single item 3. In addition, the agencies propose to consolidate the reporting of an institution's balances due from foreign branches of U.S. banks (item 4.a), balances due from banks in the reporting institution's home country and its home country central bank (item 4.b), and balances due from all other banks in foreign countries and foreign central banks (item 4.c), into a single item 4, Balances due from banks in foreign countries and foreign central banks. The agencies no longer need this current level of detail for these balances in the FFIEC 002.
At present, institutions that have elected to measure loans held for investment or held for sale at fair value under a fair value option are required to report the fair value and unpaid principal balance of such loans in Memorandum items 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule C, Part I, Loans and Leases. Because Schedule C, Part I, must be completed by all institutions, Memorandum items 5 and 6 also must be completed by all institutions although only a nominal number of institutions have disclosed reportable amounts for any of the categories of fair value option loans reported in the subitems of these two Memorandum items. Accordingly, the agencies are proposing to move Memorandum items 5 and 6 on the fair value and unpaid principal balance of fair value option loans from Schedule C, Part I, to Schedule Q, Financial Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis, and to designate them as Memorandum items 3 and 4, respectively.
The agencies also propose to consolidate the detail on loans held for investment or held for sale measured at fair value and the unpaid principal balance of such loans that would be moved to Schedule Q. Breakouts for revolving, open-end loans secured by 1-4 family residential properties and extended under lines of credit, as well as closed-end loans secured by 1-4 family residential properties, would be consolidated into a single item for loans secured by 1-4 family residential properties. In addition, construction, land development, and other land loans; loans secured by farmland; loans secured by multifamily (5 or more) residential properties; and loans secured by nonfarm nonresidential properties would be consolidated into a single item for loans secured by real estate other than 1-4 family residential properties. Specifically, existing Memorandum items 5.a.(3)(a) and 5.a.(3)(b) would be consolidated into new Memorandum item 5.a.(1), while existing Memorandum items 5.a.(1), 5.a.(2), 5.a.(4), and 5.a.(5) would be consolidated into new Memorandum item 5.a.(2). Existing Memorandum items 6.a.(3)(a) and 6.a.(3)(b) would be consolidated into new Memorandum item 6.a.(1), while existing Memorandum items 6.a.(1), 6.a.(2), 6.a.(4), and 6.a.(5) would be consolidated into new Memorandum item 6.a.(2). The agencies no longer need this current level of detail in the FFIEC 002.
The agencies propose to remove items 1.a and 1.b on Schedule C, Part II, Loans to Small Businesses and Small Farms. Item 1.a requires FDIC-insured branches to indicate on an annual basis whether all or substantially all of the institution's dollar volume of reported “Commercial and industrial loans to U.S. addressees” consist of loans with original amounts of $100,000 or less. If a branch reports “Yes” in item 1.a, then it must provide the number of “Commercial and industrial loans to U.S. addressees” outstanding in item 1.b. This change aligns this schedule with revisions made to the corresponding schedule in the FFIEC 031 Call Report.
The agencies propose to modify the reporting criteria for Schedule Q, Financial Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis, by applying only an activity threshold and not an asset-size threshold, which currently is $500 million. As proposed, Schedule Q is to be completed by branches and agencies that (1) have elected to report financial instruments or servicing assets and liabilities at fair value under a fair value option with changes in fair value recognized in earnings, or (2) reported total trading assets of $10 million or more in any of the four preceding calendar quarters. Institutions that do not meet either of these criteria would no longer need to complete this schedule, regardless of asset size. The agencies believe the activity thresholds are more appropriate than the existing simple asset-size threshold for determining which institutions must complete this schedule.
The agencies also propose to raise the dollar portion of the threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 for itemizing and describing the components of “All other assets” and “All other liabilities,” which are reported in Memorandum items 1 and 2, respectively. The percentage portion of the existing thresholds would not be changed. Based on a preliminary evaluation of the existing reporting thresholds, the agencies have concluded that the dollar portion of the thresholds that currently apply to these items can be increased to provide a reduction in reporting burden without a loss of data that would be necessary for supervisory or other public policy purposes.
The agencies propose the following revisions to Schedule S, Servicing, Securitization, and Asset Sale Activities, as they no longer need the current level of detail on securitization and asset sale activities in the FFIEC 002:
(1) Consolidate the maximum amount of credit exposures arising from recourse or other seller-provided credit enhancements in the forms of retained interest-only strips, subordinated securities and other residual interests, and standby letters of credit and other
(2) Create a reporting threshold of $100 billion or more in total assets for reporting in item 3, which is for reporting unused commitments to provide liquidity to structures reported in item 1 involving assets sold and securitized by the reporting institution with servicing retained or with recourse or other seller-provided credit enhancements.
(3) Consolidate ownership (or seller's) interests carried as securities and loans, which are reported in items 6.a and 6.b, respectively, into a single new item 6. The agencies also propose to create a reporting threshold of $10 billion or more in total assets for reporting this new combined item 6.
(4) Remove items 7.a and 7.b, which contain loan amounts included in ownership (or seller's) interests carried as securities that are 30-89 days past due and 90 days or more past due, respectively.
(5) Consolidate columns B and C of item 9, which contain the maximum amount of credit exposure arising from credit enhancements provided by the reporting institution to other institutions' securitization structures, into existing column G. The activities covered in columns B and C pertain to home equity lines and credit card receivables, respectively. The amounts previously reported in columns B and C would be reported in column G, “All other loans, all leases, and all other assets.”
(6) Create a reporting threshold of $10 billion or more in total assets for reporting unused commitments to provide liquidity to other institutions' securitization structures in item 10. The agencies also propose to consolidate columns B and C of item 10 into existing column G. The activities covered in columns B and C pertain to home equity lines and credit card receivables, respectively. The amounts previously reported in columns B and C by institutions with $10 billion or more in total assets would be included in column G, “All other loans, all leases, and all other assets.”
(7) Consolidate columns B through F of item 11, which contain assets sold with recourse or other seller-provided credit enhancements and not securitized, into existing column G. The activities covered in columns B through F pertain to home equity lines, credit card receivables, auto loans, other consumer loans, and commercial and industrial loans, respectively. The amounts previously reported in columns B through F would be included in column G, “All other loans, all leases, and all other assets.”
(8) Consolidate columns B through F of item 12, which contain the maximum amount of credit exposure arising from recourse or other seller-provided credit enhancements on assets sold with recourse or other seller-provided credit enhancements and not securitized, into existing column G. The activities covered in columns B through F pertain to home equity lines, credit card receivables, auto loans, other consumer loans, and commercial and industrial loans, respectively. The amounts previously reported in columns B through F would be included in column G, “All other loans, all leases, and all other assets.”
(9) Create a reporting threshold of $10 billion or more in total assets for reporting detail on asset-backed commercial paper conduits in Memorandum item 1. Institutions report the maximum amount of credit exposure arising from credit enhancements provided to asset-backed commercial paper conduits sponsored by the reporting institution or related institutions, and by unrelated institutions, in Memorandum items 1.a.(1) and 1.a.(2), respectively. Institutions report unused commitments to provide liquidity to asset-backed commercial paper conduits sponsored by the reporting institution or related institutions, and by unrelated institutions, in Memorandum items 1.b.(1) and M.1.b.(2), respectively.
In January 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2016-01, “Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities.” In its summary of this ASU, the FASB described how one of the main provisions of the ASU differs from current U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as follows:
The amendments in this Update supersede the guidance to classify equity securities with readily determinable fair values into different categories (that is, trading or available-for-sale) and require equity securities (including other ownership interests, such as partnerships, unincorporated joint ventures, and limited liability companies) to be measured at fair value with changes in the fair value recognized through net income. An entity's equity investments that are accounted for under the equity method of accounting or result in consolidation of an investee are not included within the scope of this Update.
The FASB further stated in the summary that “an entity may choose to measure equity investments that do not have readily determinable fair values at cost minus impairment, if any, plus or minus changes resulting from observable price changes in orderly transactions for the identical or a similar investment of the same issuer.”
The instructions to the FFIEC 002 require that respondents must utilize U.S. GAAP when filing the report. The agencies propose to revise the FFIEC 002 report form and instructions to account for the changes to U.S. GAAP set forth in ASU 2016-01.
The changes to the accounting for equity investments under ASU 2016-01 will affect several existing data items in the FFIEC 002. One outcome of these accounting changes is the elimination of the concept of available-for-sale (AFS) equity securities, which are measured at fair value on the balance sheet with changes in fair value recognized through other comprehensive income. At present, the historical cost and fair value of AFS equity securities,
Another outcome of the changes in the accounting for equity investments under ASU 2016-01 is that equity securities and other equity investments without readily determinable fair values that are within the scope of ASU 2016-01 and are not held for trading must be measured at fair value through net income, rather than at cost (less impairment, if any), unless the measurement election described above is applied to individual equity investments. In general, institutions currently report their holdings of such equity securities without readily determinable fair values as a component of other assets in Schedule RAL, item 1.h.
At present, AFS equity securities and equity investments without readily determinable fair values are included in the quarterly averages reported in Schedule K, Quarterly Averages. Institutions report the quarterly average for “Total claims on nonrelated parties” in item 5 of this schedule. This average reflects all equity securities not held for trading on a cost basis. In addition, for branches whose deposits are insured by the FDIC, AFS equity securities and equity investments without readily determinable fair values are included in the quarterly averages reported in Schedule O, Other Data for Deposit Insurance Assessments. Institutions report the quarterly average for “Average consolidated total assets for the calendar quarter” in item 4 of this schedule. This average reflects AFS equity securities with readily determinable fair values at the lower of cost or fair value, and equity securities without readily determinable fair values at historical cost.
The agencies have considered the changes to the accounting for equity investments under ASU 2016-01 and the effect of these changes on the manner in which data on equity securities and other equity investments are currently reported in the FFIEC 002, which has been described above. Accordingly, the proposed revisions to the FFIEC 002 report form and instructions to address the equity securities accounting changes are as follows:
(1) In Schedule RAL, Assets and Liabilities, a new Memorandum item 4, “Fair value of equity securities with readily determinable fair values not held for trading,” would be added effective June 30, 2018. From June 30, 2018, through September 30, 2020, the instructions for Memorandum item 4 and the reporting form for Schedule RAL would include guidance stating that Memorandum item 4 is to be completed only by institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01. Institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01 would leave Memorandum item 4 blank. Existing Memorandum items 3, “Fair value of available-for-sale securities,” and 4, “Amortized cost of available-for-sale securities,” would be renumbered as Memorandum items 3.a and 3.b, respectively, effective June 30, 2018. During the period from June 30, 2018, through September 30, 2020, the instructions for Schedule RAL, Memorandum items 3.a and 3.b, would explain that institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01 should include only debt securities in Memorandum items 3.a and 3.b. Effective December 31, 2020, the caption for Memorandum items 3.a and 3.b would be revised to “Fair value of available-for-sale debt securities” and “Amortized cost of available-for-sale debt securities,” respectively, and all institutions would report their holdings of equity securities with readily determinable fair values not held for trading in Memorandum item 4.
(2) In Schedule RAL, equity securities and other equity investments without readily determinable fair values not held for trading, which are currently reported in item 1.h, would continue to be reported in this item. However, the instructions would be revised as of June 30, 2018, to state that, after the effective date of ASU 2016-01 for an institution, the equity securities and other equity investments the institution reports in item 1.h would be measured in accordance with the ASU.
(3) In Schedule K, Quarterly Averages, the instructions for item 5, “Total claims on nonrelated parties,” would include guidance from June 30, 2018, through September 30, 2020, stating that, for purposes of reporting the quarterly average for total claims:
• Institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01 should reflect the quarterly average of all debt securities not held for trading on an amortized cost basis, and
• Institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01 should reflect the quarterly average for all securities not held for trading on an amortized cost basis.
Then, effective December 31, 2020, the instructions for item 5 would indicate that, for debt securities not held for trading, the quarterly average for total claims should reflect such securities on an amortized cost basis.
(4) In Schedule O, Other Data for Deposit Insurance Assessments, the instructions for item 4, “Average consolidated total assets for the calendar quarter,” would include guidance from June 30, 2018, through September 30, 2020, stating that, for purposes of reporting the quarterly average for total assets:
• Institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01 should reflect the quarterly average for debt securities not held for trading at amortized cost, and
• Institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01 should reflect the quarterly average for all debt securities not held for trading at amortized cost, available-for-sale equity securities with readily determinable fair values at the lower of cost or fair value, and equity securities without readily determinable fair values at historical cost.
Then, effective December 31, 2020, the instructions for item 4 would indicate that, for debt securities not held for trading, the quarterly average for total assets should reflect such securities at amortized cost.
(5) In Schedule Q, the caption for item 1, “Available-for-sale securities,” would be changed to “Available-for-sale debt securities and equity securities with readily determinable fair values not held for trading” effective June 30, 2018. From June 30, 2018, through September 30, 2020, the instructions for item 1 and the reporting form for Schedule Q would include guidance stating that, for institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01, the amount reported in item 1, column A, must equal the sum of Schedule RAL, Memorandum items 3.a and 4, and for institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01, the amount reported in item 1, column A, must equal Schedule RAL, Memorandum item 3.a. Effective December 31, 2020, this guidance would indicate that the amount reported in item 1, column A, must equal the sum of Schedule RAL, Memorandum items 3.a and 4.
Institutions that apply ASU 2016-01 in the first quarter of 2018 will need to report their holdings of equity securities and other equity investments in accordance with this accounting
The proposed changes to the report forms and instructions described in this notice would be implemented as of the June 30, 2018, report date. However, as discussed above, the proposed revised reporting requirements for equity investments would have varying effective dates for individual respondents and would begin with the June 30, 2018, report date. The agencies invite comment on any difficulties that institutions would expect to encounter in implementing the systems and process changes necessary to accommodate the proposed revisions to the FFIEC 002 and FFIEC 002S as of this proposed effective date.
The specific wording of the captions for the new or revised data items discussed in this proposal and the numbering of these data items may be modified to provide clarity.
Public comment is requested on all aspects of this notice. Comment is specifically invited on:
a. Whether the information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the information collections, 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 information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be shared among the agencies. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent orders—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before January 15, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Nicholas Bush, (202-326-2848), Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for December 15, 2017), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before January 15, 2018. Write “Alimentation Couche-Tard, Inc. (ACT) et al.; FTC File No. 1710184” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Alimentation Couche-Tard, Inc. (ACT) et al.; FTC File No. 1710184” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted for public comment, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. (“ACT”) and CrossAmerica Partners LP (“CAPL”) (collectively, the “Respondents”). The Consent Agreement is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects that likely would result from ACT's proposed acquisition of Holiday Companies (“Holiday”).
Under the terms of the proposed Consent Agreement, ACT and CAPL must divest to a Commission-approved buyer (or buyers) certain CAPL and Holiday retail fuel outlets and related assets in ten local markets in Minnesota and Wisconsin. ACT and CAPL must complete the divestiture no later than 120 days after the closing of ACT's acquisition of Holiday. The Commission and Respondents have agreed to an Order to Maintain Assets that requires Respondents to operate and maintain each divestiture outlet in the normal course of business through the date the Commission-approved buyer acquires the outlet.
The Commission has placed the proposed Consent Agreement on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the proposed Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make it final.
Respondent ACT, a publicly traded company headquartered in Laval, Quebec, Canada, operates convenience stores and retail fuel outlets throughout the United States and the world. ACT is the parent of wholly owned subsidiary Circle K Stores Inc. (“Circle K”). ACT's current U.S. network consists of approximately 7,200 stores located in 42 states. Over 5,000 locations are company-operated, making ACT the largest convenience store operator in terms of company-owned stores and the second-largest chain overall in the country. ACT convenience store locations operate primarily under the Circle K, Kangaroo Express, and Corner Store banners, while its retail fuel outlets operate under a variety of company and third-party brands.
Respondent CAPL, a publicly traded master limited partnership headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania, markets fuel at wholesale, and owns and operates convenience stores and retail fuel outlets. ACT, via Circle K, acquired CST Brands, Inc. in June 2017, which gave Circle K operational control and management of CAPL. CAPL supplies fuel to nearly 1,200 sites across 29 states.
On July 10, 2017, ACT, through its wholly owned subsidiary Oliver Acquisition Corp., entered into an agreement to acquire certain Holiday equity interests, including Holiday's retail fuel outlets (the “Transaction”). The Transaction would cement ACT's position as one of the largest operators of retail fuel outlets in the United States.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that the Transaction, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and that the Transaction agreement constitutes a violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition for the retail sale of gasoline and the retail sale of diesel in ten local markets in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that relevant product markets in which to analyze the Transaction are the retail sale of gasoline and the retail sale of diesel. Consumers require gasoline for their gasoline-powered vehicles and can purchase gasoline only at retail fuel outlets. Likewise, consumers require diesel for their diesel-powered vehicles and can purchase diesel only at retail fuel outlets. The retail sale of gasoline and the retail sale of diesel constitute separate relevant markets because the two are not interchangeable—vehicles that run on gasoline cannot run on diesel and vehicles that run on diesel cannot run on gasoline.
The Commission's Complaint alleges the relevant geographic markets in which to assess the competitive effects
The geographic markets for retail gasoline and retail diesel are highly localized, ranging up to a few miles, depending on local circumstances. Each relevant market is distinct and fact-dependent, reflecting the commuting patterns, traffic flows, and outlet characteristics unique to each market. Consumers typically choose between nearby retail fuel outlets with similar characteristics along their planned routes. The geographic markets for the retail sale of diesel may be similar to the corresponding geographic markets for retail gasoline as many diesel consumers exhibit the same preferences and behaviors as gasoline consumers.
The Transaction would substantially increase the market concentration in each of the ten local markets, resulting in highly concentrated markets. In five local markets, the Transaction would reduce the number of competitively constraining independent market participants from three to two. In the remaining five local markets, the Transaction would reduce the number of competitively constraining independent market participants from four to three.
The Transaction would substantially lessen competition for the retail sale of gasoline and the retail sale of diesel in these local markets. Retail fuel outlets compete on price, store format, product offerings, and location, and pay close attention to competitors in close proximity, on similar traffic flows, and with similar store characteristics. The combined entity would be able to raise prices unilaterally in markets where ACT and Holiday are close competitors. Absent the Transaction, ACT and Holiday would continue to compete head to head in these local markets.
Moreover, the Transaction would increase the likelihood of coordination in local markets where only two or three competitively constraining independent market participants would remain. Two aspects of the retail fuel industry make it vulnerable to coordination. First, retail fuel outlets post their fuel prices on price signs that are visible from the street, allowing competitors to observe each other's fuel prices without difficulty. Second, retail fuel outlets regularly track their competitors' fuel prices and change their own prices in response. These repeated interactions give retail fuel outlets familiarity with how their competitors price and how their competitors respond to their own prices.
Entry into each relevant market would not be timely, likely, or sufficient to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects arising from the Acquisition. Significant entry barriers include the availability of attractive real estate, the time and cost associated with constructing a new retail fuel outlet, and the time associated with obtaining necessary permits and approvals.
The proposed Consent Agreement would remedy the Acquisition's likely anticompetitive effects by requiring ACT and CAPL to divest certain CAPL and Holiday retail fuel outlets and related assets in ten local markets.
The proposed Consent Agreement requires that the divestiture occur no later than 120 days after ACT consummates the Acquisition. This Agreement protects the Commission's ability to obtain complete and effective relief given the small number of outlets to be divested. Further, based on Commission staff's investigation, the Commission believes that ACT can identify an acceptable buyer (or buyers) within 120 days.
The proposed Consent Agreement further requires ACT and CAPL to maintain the economic viability, marketability, and competitiveness of each divestiture asset until the Commission approves a buyer (or buyers) and the divestiture is complete. For up to twelve months following the divestiture, ACT and CAPL must make available transitional services, as needed, to assist the buyer of each divestiture asset.
In addition to requiring outlet divestitures, the proposed Consent Agreement also requires ACT and CAPL to provide the Commission notice before acquiring designated outlets in the ten local areas for ten years. The prior notice provision is necessary because acquisitions of the designated outlets likely raise competitive concerns and may fall below the HSR Act premerger notification thresholds.
The proposed Consent Agreement contains additional provisions designed to ensure the effectiveness of the proposed relief. For example, Respondents have agreed to an Order to Maintain Assets that will issue at the time the proposed Consent Agreement is accepted for public comment. The Order to Maintain Assets requires Respondents to operate and maintain each divestiture outlet in the normal course of business, through the date the Respondents' complete divestiture of the outlet. During this period, and until such time as the buyer (or buyers) no longer requires transitional assistance, the Order to Maintain Assets authorizes the Commission to appoint an independent third party as a Monitor to oversee the Respondents' compliance with the requirements of the proposed Consent Agreement.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent agreement, and the Commission does not intend this analysis to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement or to modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).
Notice and request for comment.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FTC is seeking public comments on its request to OMB for a three-year extension of the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in its Trade Regulation Rule entitled Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation (R-value Rule or Rule). That clearance expires on January 31, 2018.
Comments must be received by January 26, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Hampton Newsome, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mail Code CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2889.
On October 11, 2017, the Commission sought comment on the information collection requirements in the R-value Rule. 82 FR 47207. No germane comments were received. As required by OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment. Comments should address only the information collection requirements of the current Rule. They should not address proposed Rule amendments recently announced by the Commission in a separate proceeding.
Installation manufacturers, installers, new home builders/sellers, dealers and retailers.
(a) Installation manufacturers.
• Testing by installation manufacturers − 15 new products/year × 2 hours each = 30 hours; and
• Disclosures by installation manufacturers − [(144 manufacturers × 20 hours) + (6 largest manufacturers × 80 hours each] = 3,360 hours.
• Recordkeeping by installation manufacturers − 150 manufacturers × 1 hour each = 150 hours.
(b) Installers.
• Disclosures by retrofit installers (manufacturer's insulation fact sheet) − 2 million retrofit installations/year × 2 minutes each = 66,667 hours.
• Disclosures by installers (advertising) − 1,615 installers × 1 hour each = 1,615 hours.
• Recordkeeping by installers − 1,615 installers × 5 minutes each = 135 hours.
(c) New home builders/sellers, dealers.
• Disclosures by new home sellers − 1,174,000 new home sales/year × 30 seconds each = 9,783 hours.
(d) Retailers.
• Disclosures by retailers − [25,000 retailers × 1 hour each (fact sheets) + 25,000 retailers × 1 hour each (advertising disclosure) = 50,000 hours.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before January 26, 2018. Write “R-value Rule: FTC File No. R811001” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “R-value Rule: FTC File No. R811001” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments can also be sent via email to
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before January 26, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of delisting.
The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ, on behalf of the Secretary of HHS, to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” by the Secretary if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. AHRQ has accepted a notification of voluntary relinquishment from the Regenstrief Center for Healthcare Engineering at Purdue University Patient Safety Organization (RCHE Purdue PSO) of its status as a PSO, and has delisted the PSO accordingly.
The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on December 15, 2017.
Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS website:
Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 06N94B, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.
HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.
AHRQ has accepted a notification from RCHE Purdue PSO, a component entity of Purdue University, PSO number P0168, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, RCHE Purdue PSO was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on December 15, 2017.
More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO website at
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 “Implementation of Pathogen Reduction Technology in the Manufacture of Blood Components in Blood Establishments: Questions and Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance document provides blood establishments that collect or process blood and blood components with recommendations for implementing pathogen reduction technology in the manufacture of pathogen-reduced blood components. The guidance also provides answers to frequently asked questions concerning the implementation of the INTERCEPT® Blood System for Platelets and Plasma. The recommendations apply to licensed blood establishments that intend to manufacture pathogen-reduced blood components using an FDA approved pathogen reduction device.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by March 27, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
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
Jonathan McKnight, 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 “Implementation of Pathogen Reduction Technology in the Manufacture of Blood Components in Blood Establishments: Questions and Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance provides blood establishments that collect or process blood and blood components with recommendations for implementing pathogen reduction technology in the manufacture of pathogen-reduced blood components. The draft guidance also provides recommendations to licensed manufacturers on reporting the manufacturing changes associated with implementation of pathogen reduction technology under 21 CFR 601.12. Currently, the INTERCEPT® Blood System for Platelets and Plasma has been approved for the manufacture of certain pathogen-reduced platelet and plasma products. The draft guidance provides answers to frequently asked questions from blood establishments concerning the implementation of the INTERCEPT® Blood System for Platelets and Plasma. If the product platform for this device changes or FDA approves another device with a similar intended use in the future, the Agency will consider providing additional recommendations to blood establishments.
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 implementation of pathogen reduction technology in the manufacture of blood components in blood establishments. 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 refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 606 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0116; and the collections of information in 21 CFR
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HRSA is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the program), as required by the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of HHS is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.
For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the program in general, contact Lisa L. Reyes, Acting Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 08N146B, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-6593, or visit our website at:
The program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10
A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.
Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the
Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:
1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and
2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:
a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or
b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.
In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading “
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 26, 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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant and/or contract proposals applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant and/or contract proposals applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Request for applications.
The U.S. Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee. The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee provides advice and makes recommendations to the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security on various matters relating to the safe operation of commercial fishing industry vessels. Both positions were previously advertised under Docket No. USCG-2017-0829 but no applications for either of the two positions were received.
Completed applications should be submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard on or before February 26, 2018.
Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee that also identifies which membership category the applicant is applying under, along with a resume detailing the applicant's experience via one of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Jonathan Wendland, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee, 202-372-1245 or
The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee is a federal advisory committee which operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Title 5, U.S.C. Appendix). The U.S. Coast Guard chartered the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee to provide advice on issues related to the safety of commercial fishing industry vessels regulated under Chapter 45 of title 46, United States Code, which includes uninspected fish catching vessels, fish processing vessels, and fish tender vessels. (See Title 46 U.S.C. 4508.)
The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee meets at least once a year. It may also meet for other extraordinary purposes. Its subcommittees or working groups may communicate throughout the year to prepare for meetings or develop proposals for the committee as a whole or to address specific tasks.
Each member serves for a term of three years. An individual may be appointed to a term as a member more than once, but not more than two terms consecutively. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary or other compensation from the Federal Government, although travel reimbursement and per diem may be provided for called meetings.
The U.S. Coast Guard will consider applications for two (02) positions that will be vacant on January 2018 in the following categories:
(a) An individual who represents the general public, a marine surveyor who provides services to vessels to which Chapter 45 of Title 46 U.S.C. applies (
(b) An individual who represents manufacturers of equipment for vessels to which Chapter 45 of Title 46, U.S.C. applies (one position);
If you are selected as a member from the general public, you will be appointed and serve as a Special Government Employee as defined in Section 202(a) of Title 18, U.S.C. Applicants for appointment as a Special Government Employee are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450). The U.S. Coast Guard may not release the reports or the information in them to the public except under an order issued by a Federal court or as otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Only the Designated U.S. Coast Guard Ethics Official or his or her designee may release a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report. Applicants can obtain this form by going to the website of the Office of Government Ethics (
Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on federal advisory committees in an individual capacity. See “Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyist to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and Commissions” (79 CFR 47482, August 13, 2014). Registered lobbyists are lobbyists as defined in Title 2, U.S.C. 1602 who are required by Title 2 U.S.C. 1603 to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. The position we list for a member from the general public would be someone appointed in their individual capacity and would be designated as a Special Government Employee as defined in Section 202(a), Title 18, U.S.C.
The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, send your cover letter and resume to Mr. Jonathan Wendland, Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee Alternate Designated Federal Officer, via one of the transmittal methods in the
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Request for applications.
The U.S. Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee. This committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard on matters relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards and other matters as assigned by the Commandant; may be given special assignments by the Secretary and may conduct studies, inquiries, workshops, and fact finding in consultation with individuals and groups in the private sector and with State or local governments; shall advise, consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary; and may make available to Congress recommendations that the Committee makes to the Secretary.
Completed applications should reach the Coast Guard on or before February 26, 2018.
Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee that also identifies which membership category the applicant is applying under, along with a resume detailing the applicant's experience via one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Davis J. Breyer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC, 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1445, fax 202-372-8382 or
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee is a federal advisory committee which operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Title 5 U.S.C. Appendix).
The Committee meets not less than twice each year. Its subcommittees and working groups may also meet intercessionally to consider specific tasks as required.
Each Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee member serves a term of office of up to three years. Members may serve a maximum of two consecutive terms. All members serve without compensation from the Federal Government; however, upon request, they may receive travel reimbursement and per diem.
We will consider applications for the following 8 positions that will either be vacant on August 13, 2018, or are currently vacant. These positions are three year terms.
To be eligible, you must have the experience listed for the applicable membership position:
(1) Three positions for members who serve as representatives standing for the viewpoint of merchant marine deck officers. One member shall be licensed for inland or river route, with a limited or unlimited tonnage; one shall be licensed for oceans any gross tons; and one member shall be a licensed deck officer with an unlimited tonnage master's license with significant tanker experience;
(2) one position for a member who serves as a representative standing for the viewpoint of licensed merchant marine engineering officers who is licensed as a chief engineer, any horsepower;
(3) one position for a member who serves as a representative standing for the viewpoint of maritime training institutions other than state or federal academies and shall represent the viewpoint of the small vessel industry;
(4) one position for a member who will be appointed from the general public who will serve as a Special Government Employee as defined in Title 18, United States Code, section 202(a). Preference will be given to applicants who can provide relevant input regarding matters relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards.
(5) one position for a member who must be jointly recommended by the state academies as defined by 46 CFR 310 Subpart A, who will represent the viewpoint of the state academies in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 8108; and
(6) one position for a member who must be recommended by the federal academy as defined by 46 CFR 310 Subpart C, who will represent the viewpoint of the federal academy in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 8108.
If you are selected as a member from the general public you will be appointed and serve as a Special Government
Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on federal advisory committees in an individual capacity. See “Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards and Commissions” (79 FR 47482, August 13, 2014). The position we list for a member from the general public would be someone appointed in their individual capacity and would be designated as a Special Government Employee as defined in Section 202(a), Title 18, U.S.C. Registered lobbyists are lobbyists as defined in Title 2 U.S.C. 1602 who are required by Title 2 U.S.C. 1603 to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House Representatives.
The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disabilities and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, send your cover letter and resume to Mr. Davis J. Breyer, Alternate Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee via one of the transmittal methods in the
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day notice and request for comments; revision of information collection request: 1670-0029.
The DHS NPPD Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) will submit the following Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments during a 60-day public comment period prior to the submission of this ICR to OMB. The submission describes the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (in hours), and the estimated burden cost necessary to implement the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) Personnel Surety Program. In this notice, DHS is updating the burden estimate and expanding the collection to include Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 26, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0037, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI),
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Amy Graydon at (866)323-2957 or at
On December 18, 2014, the President signed into law the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014 (“CFATS Act of 2014”) providing long-term authorization for the CFATS program. The CFATS Act of 2014 codified the DHS authority to implement the CFATS program into the Homeland Security Act of 2002. See 6 U.S.C. 621
Section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Public Law 109-295 (2006) (“Section 550”), provided (and the CFATS Act of 2014 continues to provide) the Department with the authority to identify and regulate the security of high-risk chemical facilities using a risk-based approach. On April 9, 2007, the Department issued the CFATS Interim Final Rule (IFR), implementing this statutory mandate. See 72 FR 17688.
Section 550 required (and the CFATS Act of 2014 continues to require) that the Department establish risk-based
Identifying affected individuals who have terrorist ties is an inherently governmental function and requires the use of information held in government-maintained databases that are unavailable to high-risk chemical facilities.
In accordance with the Homeland Security Act of 2002 as amended by the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014, Public Law 113-254, the following options are available to enable high-risk chemical facilities to facilitate the vetting of affected individuals for terrorist ties:
In addition to the options described above for satisfying RBPS 12(iv), a high-risk chemical facility is welcome to propose alternative or supplemental options in its SSP that are not described in this document. The Department will assess the adequacy of such alternative or supplemental options on a facility-by-facility basis in the course of evaluating each facility's SSP.
Under Option 3 and Option 4, a high-risk chemical facility would not need to submit information about an affected individual to the Department. These Options are only mentioned in this notice for informational purposes, and there will be no analysis of Option 3 and Option 4 in this information collection request.
This information collection request does not propose changes to who qualifies as an affected individual. There are certain groups of persons that the Department does not consider to be affected individuals, such as (1) Federal officials that gain unescorted access to restricted areas or critical assets as part of their official duties; (2) State and local law enforcement officials that gain unescorted access to restricted areas or critical assets as part of their official duties; and (3) emergency responders at the State or local level that gain unescorted access to restricted areas or critical assets during emergency situations.
The current information collection for CFATS Personnel Surety Program (IC 1670-0029) will expire on August 31, 2018.
The Department is seeking a revision to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program Information Collection to: (1) Obtain approval to collect information about affected individuals from all high-risk chemical facilities rather than only Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities; (2) update the estimated number of annual respondents from 195,000 to 72,607 based on historical information collected since the Department implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program; and (3) update the estimated time per respondent from 0.58 hours to 0.1667 hours based upon historical data collected by the Department since the implantation of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.
In response to multiple comments on the current ICR, the Department agreed to a “phased implementation” of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program to Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities. Based on lessons learned and the near completion of the implementation at Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities, the Department now seeks to close the last security gap by implementing CFATS Personnel Surety Program at all high-risk chemical facilities. As implemented at Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities, the Department will roll out the CFATS Personnel Surety Program in a “phased implementation” to Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities.
The Department implemented the CFATS Personnel Surety Program in December 2015. Since implementation, the Department has evaluated many of the assumptions it used when estimating the burden estimate of this Information Collection. As a result, several of the assumptions can be
This information collection request does not propose changes to the information collected on affected individuals.
If high-risk chemical facilities select Option 1 to satisfy RBPS 12(iv) for an affected individual, the following information about the affected individual would be submitted to the Department:
• For U.S. Persons (U.S. citizens and nationals, as well as U.S. lawful permanent residents):
○ Full Name;
○ Date of Birth; and
○ Citizenship or Gender.
• For Non-U.S. Persons:
○ Full Name;
○ Date of Birth;
○ Citizenship; and
○ Passport information and/or alien registration number.
To reduce the likelihood of false positives in matching against records in the Federal Government's consolidated and integrated terrorist watch list, high-risk chemical facilities would also be able to submit the following optional information about an affected individual to the Department:
• Aliases;
• Gender (for Non-U.S. Persons);
• Place of Birth; and/or
• Redress Number.
High-risk chemical facilities have the option to create and use the following field(s) to collect and store additional information to assist with the management of an affected individual's records. Any information collected in this field will not be used to support vetting activities.
Table 1 summarizes the biographic data that would be submitted to the Department under Option 1.
In lieu of submitting information to the Department under Option 1 for vetting of terrorist ties, high-risk chemical facilities also have the option, where appropriate, to submit information to the Department to electronically verify that an affected individual is currently enrolled in another DHS program that vets for terrorist ties.
To verify an affected individual's enrollment in one of these programs under Option 2, the Department would collect the following information about the affected individual:
• Full Name;
• Date of Birth; and
• Program-specific information or credential information, such as expiration date, unique number or issuing entity (
To reduce the likelihood of false positives, high-risk chemical facilities may also submit the following optional information about an affected individual to the Department:
• Aliases;
• Gender;
• Place of Birth; and/or
• Citizenship.
High-risk chemical facilities have the option to create and use the following field(s) to collect and store additional information to assist with the management of an affected individual's records. Any information collected in this field will not be used to support vetting activities.
Table 2 summarizes the biographic data that would be submitted to the Department under Option 2.
The Department may also contact a high-risk chemical facility or its designees to request additional
The Department may also collect information provided by individuals or high-risk chemical facilities in support of any adjudication requests under Subpart C of the CFATS regulation,
The Department is requesting from OMB an exception for the CFATS Personnel Surety Program to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) notice requirement contained in 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3), which requires Federal agencies to ensure that their information collections provide certain reasonable notices under the PRA to affected individuals. If this exception is granted, the Department will be relieved of the potential obligation to require high-risk chemical facilities to collect signatures or other positive affirmations of these notices from affected individuals, which would increase burdens.
Whether or not this exception is granted, high-risk chemical facilities must affirm the required privacy notice regarding the collection of personal information has been provided to affected individuals before personal information is submitted to the Department.
For the purpose of this collection, the number of respondents is broken down into two groups: “initial respondents” and “annual respondents.”
The “initial respondents” are those affected individuals with existing access at a high-risk chemical facility and will be submitted by the facility after receiving authorization or approval of an SSP requiring the facility to implement measures to comply with RBPS 12(iv). All new burdens associated with initial respondents under this collection will be for Tier 3 and Tier 4 facilities as discussed later in this notice under “(A) Initial Respondents,” Tier 1 and Tier 2 facilities have already submitted initial respondents to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program under the current collection. The burden for “initial respondents” is estimated in this notice under “Total Burden Cost (Capital/Startup)” because the burden imposed by initial respondent submission on high-risk chemical facilities is a one-time cost.
“Annual respondents” are the number of respondents the Department estimates will be submitted each year by high-risk chemical facilities that have completed the initial respondent's submission and are now in the maintenance phase (
The estimated number of high-risk chemical facilities and the average number of respondents is based on historical data collected by the Department since the implementation of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. The Department estimates that under this collection there are (a) 200 Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities that will have to submit information about affected individuals under the current ICR, and (b) 3,700 Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities that will submit for the first time under this new collection. Historically, each Authorizer submitted, on average, 180 initial respondents, with each Authorizer responsible for 1.7 high-risk chemical facilities. Dividing 180 affected individuals per Authorizer by 1.7 high-risk chemical facilities results in an average of 106 initial respondents submitted per high-risk chemical facility.
Additionally, the Department recognizes that high-risk chemical facilities that are high risk for a release security issue may take a facility-wide approach rather than an asset-based approach in defining their restricted areas, which may result in a higher number of affected individuals. Therefore, the Department reviewed the number of release sites to ensure the estimated number of respondents for the Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities were comparable to the historical data received by the Department since the implementation of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. The Department found that the release security issues for Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities made up 38% of the total Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facility population. For the Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities, the release security issue made up 25% of the total Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facility population. Based on these findings, the Department was satisfied that the Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facility historical data provided a valid representation of what the Department can expect from the Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities.
Under the current collection, approximately 21,200 initial respondents for Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities (200 high-risk Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities with an average of 106 initial respondents per high-risk chemical facility) will or have been submitted to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. The Department assumes that there are no additional burdens associated with initial respondents for Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities under this collection because they have already submitted the initial respondents under the current collection.
As described above, the Department intends to implement the CFATS Personnel Surety Program at all high-risk chemical facilities, which will require Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities to submit information about affected individuals under the CFATS Personnel Surety Program or to select Option 3 or 4 for CFATS Personnel Surety Program participation that do not involve submission of information to the Department. However, for burden estimates, the Department assumes all Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities will select option 1 and/or option 2, which both require information submission. As these high-risk chemical facilities have not previously submitted, all 3,700 Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities would be required to submit initial respondents to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program.
The Department intends to implement the CFATS Personnel Surety Program at Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities in a phased implementation so that the estimated 3,700 Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities are evenly distributed over three years (
The Department estimates the annual respondents based on the annual hires rates of 47.8% for total private industry, as estimated from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
The breakdown of the annual hires for each year of the information collection request is as follows:
• In year one, the number of hires is 10,134 respondents (
• In year two, the number of hires is 72,607 respondents (
• In year three, the number of hires is 135,081 respondents (
Table 3 presents the annual submissions for the three years.
The number of respondents for the three years was then averaged to come up with the revised annual respondent rate of 72,607 respondents per year (
Based on industry feedback and historical data collected on their use of the CFATS Personnel Surety Program application, the Department has estimated the time per respondent to be 5 minutes per submission of a record about an affected individual rather than 30 minutes previously estimated in the current collection. The proposed estimated time per respondent includes the time to edit or remove a record if a high-risk chemical facility opts to subsequently notify the Department that an affected individual no longer has access. Since this estimate is based on current submissions from Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities, the Department has chosen an estimate of 10 minutes (0.1667 hours) per record to provide a more conservative estimate.
To estimate the annual burden hours for this collection, the Department multiplies the number of annual respondents by the estimated time burden of 0.1667 hours (10 minutes), for an estimated annual burden of 12,101 hours (
The Department provides access to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program application free of charge and assumes that each high-risk chemical facility already has access to the internet for basic business needs. In addition to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 high-risk chemical facilities at which the CFATS Personnel Surety Program has already been implemented, the Department expects to implement the CFATS Personnel Surety Program at Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities upon approval of this collection request. Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities will have a one-time requirement to submit information about initial respondents with existing access to the restricted areas or critical assets at the high-risk chemical facility. This one-time cost is estimated here as a startup cost. The Department estimates that under this collection there will be 3,700 Tier 3 and Tier 4 high-risk chemical facilities that will submit initial respondents. To estimate initial startup cost, the Department multiples the number of high-risk chemical facilities by the estimated number of affected individuals per high-risk chemical facility to obtain the total number of initial respondents submitted. The estimated number of initial respondents is 392,094 (
The one-time startup cost is estimated by multiplying the startup burden by the wage rate of the employee type expected to submit the information about affected individuals to the CFATS Personnel Surety Program. The site security officer's average hourly wage rate of $78.93 was based on an average hourly wage rate of $53.92
This information collection request maintains the existing assumptions found in the current information collection request with regard to activities listed in 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1). Specifically, that 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1) and 5 CFR 1320.8 require the Department to estimate the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. Therefore, many costs (
Furthermore, the Department maintains the same assumptions found in the current information collection request with regards to estimating certain high-risk chemical facility capital costs, such as: (1) Capital costs for computer, telecommunications equipment, software, and storage to manage the data collection, submissions, and tracking; (2) capital and ongoing costs for designing, deploying, and operating information technology (IT) systems necessary to maintain the data collection, submissions, and tracking; (3) cost of training high-risk chemical facility personnel to maintain the data collection, submissions, and tracking; and (4) site security officer time to manage the data collection, submissions, and tracking. The Department continues to exclude these costs in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), which directs Federal agencies to not count the costs associated with the time, effort, and financial resources incurred in the normal course of their activities (
The Department continues to exclude these usual and customary costs because the time, effort, and financial resources are costs that high-risk chemical facilities incur to conduct background checks for identity, criminal history, and legal authorization to work under 6 CFR 27.230(a)(12)(i)-(iii), and also under various other Federal, State, or local laws or regulations.
The recordkeeping costs, if any, to create, keep, or retain records pertaining to background checks as part of a high-risk chemical facility's SSP or ASP, are properly estimated in the recordkeeping estimates associated with the SSP Instrument under Information Collection 1670-0007.
The 2007 CFATS Regulatory Evaluation assumed that Site Security Officers are responsible for submitting information to the Department. For the purpose of this notice, the Department maintains this assumption.
Therefore, to estimate the total annual burden, the Department multiplied the annual burden of 12,101 hours by the average hourly wage rate of Site Security Officers of $78.93 and then added the one-time startup cost associated with the initial respondents. Therefore, the total annual burden cost for the CFATS Personnel Surety Program is $955,191 (12,101 total annual burden hours multiplied by $78.93 per hour). For the three year period for which this collection will be approved, the total cost burden would be $8,023,798 ($955,191 annual cost multiplied by 3 + $5,158,226 startup cost). The annual burden for this collection over the three year period is estimated at $2,674,599 ($8,023,798 total cost/3 years).
OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
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 (
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 26, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
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
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(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)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 26, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
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
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(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)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 26, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
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
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(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
(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)
(7)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This notice allocates $57,800,000 of Community Development Block Grant disaster recovery (CDBG-DR) funds to the State of Texas in response to Hurricane Harvey. This allocation is made pursuant to the requirements of Public Law 115-31. This notice also makes a technical correction to the previously established alternative requirement on the low- and moderate- income national objective criteria for grantees undertaking CDBG-DR buyouts and housing incentives.
Applicable: January 2, 2018.
Jessie Handforth Kome, Acting Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW, Room 10166, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-708-3587. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Facsimile inquiries may be sent to Ms. Kome at 202-401-2044. (Except for the”800” number, these telephone numbers are not toll-free.) Email inquiries may be sent to
Congress appropriated $400 million in CDBG-DR funds for necessary expenses for activities authorized under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (HCDA) related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas resulting from a qualifying major disaster declared by the President pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (Stafford Act) (42 U.S.C. 5121
Of this amount, HUD previously allocated $342,200,000 to areas impacted by disasters in 2015 and 2016. The $57,800,000 allocated under this notice is the remaining amount from $400 million appropriated under Public Law 115-31.
Public Law 115-31 specifies that the funds allocated for disasters in 2017 or later must be allocated and used under the same authority and conditions as those applicable to CDBG-DR funds appropriated by Public Law 114-223. Therefore, the funds allocated to the State of Texas under this notice are subject to the authority and conditions of Public Law 114-223 and the requirements, waivers, and alternative requirements applicable to CDBG-DR funds appropriated under Public Law 114-223 provided in HUD's
Section III.A. of HUD's August 7, 2017
Section III.A. also provided that HUD would use the detailed methodology specified in Appendix A of the January 18, 2017 notice and make allocations equal to the lesser of 100 percent of the serious unmet needs or the remaining funds available from Public Law 115-31. Using updated data HUD received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Small Business Administration (SBA), the unmet needs in Texas far exceed this allocation of the remaining $57,800,000 available from Public Law 115-31. A detailed explanation of HUD's allocation methodology applicable to the $57,800,000 is provided at Appendix A of the January 18, 2017 notice.
The grantee's use of funds is limited to unmet recovery needs from Hurricane Harvey (FEMA Disaster No. 4332). Table 2 shows the HUD-identified “most impacted and distressed” areas impacted by the identified disaster. At least 80 percent of the $57,800,000 must address unmet needs within Harris County, Texas, which is the “most impacted and distressed” area, as identified by HUD. Texas may spend the remaining 20 percent in Harris County or in other areas the grantee determines to be “most impacted and distressed” that a received a presidential disaster declaration pursuant to the disaster number listed in Table 1.
Public Law 115-31 requires funds to be used only for specific disaster recovery related purposes. This allocation provides funds to the State of Texas for authorized disaster recovery efforts associated with Hurricane Harvey. Section III of the August 7, 2017 notice describes the requirements governing the submission of action plans required for 2017 disasters. However, the State of Texas previously completed a CDBG-DR action plan for 2016 disasters and that action plan is subject to the same requirements applicable to this allocation. Due to the severity of Hurricane Harvey and to help ensure funds reach those affected in a timely manner, HUD will allow Texas to adopt and incorporate into its Action Plan, for the funds allocated under this notice, any relevant information from the action plan that it previously completed for its 2016 disaster allocation. Additionally, the scale of analysis for this allocation may be commensurate with the amount of the allocation and the limited data available this soon after the disaster. Accordingly, section III. B. of the August 7, 2017 notice is deleted and replaced with the following:
Grantees receiving an allocation of funds under Public Law 115-31 for 2017 and later disasters pursuant to a subsequent notice are subject to the requirements of the November 21, 2016 notice, as amended, which require that prior to the obligation of CDBG-DR funds, a grantee shall submit a plan to HUD for approval detailing the proposed use of all funds, including criteria for eligibility, and how the use of these funds will address long-term recovery and restoration of infrastructure and housing and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas. The grantee's Action Plan for 2017 disasters may adopt and incorporate applicable sections and any other relevant information from its Action Plan for 2016 disasters, previously submitted pursuant to the November 21, 2016 notice or January 18, 2017 notice. The grantee must include updated information specific to the 2017 disasters, such as its analysis of unmet needs and use of funds to address these needs. The Action Plan for 2017 disasters must describe uses and activities for all funds that: (1) Are authorized under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (HCDA) or allowed by a waiver or alternative requirement; and (2) respond to disaster-related impact to infrastructure, housing, and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas. To inform the Action Plan, the grantee must conduct an updated assessment of community impacts and unmet needs to guide the development and prioritization of planned recovery activities, pursuant to paragraph A.2.a. in section VI of the November 21, 2016, notice, as amended. However, the scale of analysis for this allocation may be commensurate with the amount of the allocation and the limited data available.
Public Law 115-31 requires the Secretary to certify, in advance of signing a grant agreement, that the grantee has in place proficient financial controls and procurement processes and has established adequate procedures to prevent any duplication of benefits as defined by section 312 of the Stafford Act, ensure timely expenditure of funds, maintain comprehensive websites regarding all disaster recovery activities assisted with these funds, and detect and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funds. The November 21, 2016 notice further required grantees to submit risk analysis documentation and to certify to its capacity to administer CDBG-DR funds. To provide a basis for these certifications, grantees were required to submit documentation to the Department demonstrating compliance with the stated requirements of the
Pursuant to the November 21, 2016 notice, as amended, a grantee receiving an allocation of funds for 2017 disasters in a subsequent notice is also required to expend 100 percent of its allocation of CDBG-DR funds on eligible activities within 6 years of HUD's execution of the grant agreement.
A grantee receiving an allocation of funds for 2017 disasters will be subject to the grant process provided for in section V. of the November 21, 2016 notice, as amended. The grantee and HUD will execute a separate grant agreement for funds for 2017 disasters.
To receive funds allocated by this notice, Texas may adopt and incorporate applicable sections and any other relevant information from its approved Action Plan for 2016 disasters, and include any additional information, as appropriate, to address recovery from Hurricane Harvey. In developing the resulting Action Plan for Hurricane Harvey (Public Law 115-31), Texas must meet the grant process requirements from the November 21, 2016 notice, which include the following:
• Consult with affected citizens, stakeholders, local governments, and public housing authorities to assess needs;
• Publish the resulting Action Plan for Hurricane Harvey (Pub. L. 115-31) in accordance with the requirements set forth in section VI.A.4.a of the November 21, 2016 notice, including the requirement to prominently post the Action Plan on its official website for no less than 14 calendar days. The grantee must also ensure equal access for persons with disabilities and persons with limited English proficiency. The manner of publication must afford citizens, affected local governments, and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to examine the Action Plan contents and provide feedback;
• Respond to public comment and submit its resulting Action Plan for 2017 disasters to HUD no later than 90 days after the effective date of this notice;
• Enter the activities from its published Action Plan for Hurricane Harvey (Pub. L. 115-31) into the Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting (DRGR) system and submit the updated DRGR Action Plan to HUD within the system;
• Sign and return the grant agreement to HUD;
• Ensure that the HUD approved Action Plan for Hurricane Harvey (Pub. L. 115-31) is posted prominently on its official website; and
• Amend its published Action Plan for Hurricane Harvey (Pub. L. 115-31) to include its projection of expenditures and outcomes within 90 days of the Action Plan approval.
HUD will review Texas's resulting Action Plan for Hurricane Harvey (Pub. L. 115-31) within 45 days from date of receipt and determine whether to approve the plan per criteria identified in this notice and all applicable prior notices. HUD will then send an approval letter, grant conditions, and an unsigned grant agreement to the grantee. If the state's Action Plan is not approved, a letter will be sent identifying its deficiencies and the state must then re-submit the plan within 45 days of the notification letter.
Once HUD signs the grant agreement and revises the grantee's line of credit amount, the state may draw down funds from the line of credit after the Responsible Entity completes applicable environmental review(s) pursuant to 24 CFR part 58 or as authorized by Public Law 115-31 and, as applicable, receives from HUD or the state an approved Request for Release of Funds and certification.
The funds allocated under this notice are subject to the waivers and alternative requirements provided in the November 21, 2016, January 18, 2017, and August 7, 2017 notices governing the award of CDBG-DR funds to 2016 grantees. These waivers and alternative requirements provide additional flexibility in program design and implementation to support full and swift recovery following the disasters, while also ensuring that statutory requirements are met. Texas may request additional waivers and alternative requirements from the Department, as needed, to address specific needs related to its recovery activities. Waivers and alternative requirements are effective five days after they are published in the
Public Law 115-31 provides that these funds will remain available until expended. However, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 1555 and OMB Circular A-11, if the Secretary or the President determines that the purposes for which the appropriation has been made have been carried out and no disbursements have been made against the appropriation for two consecutive fiscal years, any remaining balance will be made unavailable for obligation or expenditure. Consistent with the November 21, 2016, January 18, 2017, and August 7, 2017 notices, the provisions at 24 CFR 570.494 and 24 CFR 570.902 regarding timely distribution of funds are waived and replaced with alternative requirements. Grantees must expend 100 percent of their allocation of CDBG-DR funds on eligible activities within 6 years of HUD's execution of the grant agreement.
This section of the notice provides a technical correction to the previously established alternative requirement on the low- and moderate- income (LMI) national objective criteria for grantees undertaking buyouts and housing incentives with CDBG-DR funding provided by Public Laws 113-2, 114-113, 114-223, 114-254 and 115-31.
The
For a buyout award or housing incentive to meet the new LMB and LMHI national objectives, grantees must demonstrate the following:
(1) The CDBG-DR funds have been provided for an eligible activity that benefits LMI households by supporting their move from high risk areas. The following activities shall qualify under this criterion, and must also meet the eligibility criteria of the notices governing the use of the CDBG-DR funds:
(a) Low/Mod Buyout (LMB). When CDBG-DR funds are used for a buyout award to acquire housing owned by a qualifying LMI household, where the award amount is greater than post-disaster (current) fair market value of that property;
(b) Low/Mod Housing Incentive (LMHI). When CDBG-DR funds are used for a housing incentive award, tied to the voluntary buyout or other voluntary acquisition of housing owned by a qualifying LMI household, for which the housing incentive is for the purpose of moving outside of the affected floodplain or to a lower-risk area; or when the housing incentive is for the purpose of providing or improving residential structures that, upon completion, will be occupied by an LMI household.
(2) Activities that meet the above criteria will be considered to benefit low- and moderate-income persons unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
Any activities that meet the newly established national objective criteria described above will count towards the calculation of a CDBG-DR grantee's overall LMI benefit to comply with the primary objective described in 24 CFR 570.200(a)(3) and 24 CFR 570.484(b). Grantees receiving an allocation of CDBG-DR funds pursuant to the following appropriations acts must specifically request a waiver and alternative requirement from HUD in order apply the new national objective criteria established in this section of the notice: Public Law 109-148, 109-234, and 110-116 (Katrina, Rita, and Wilma); Public Law 110-252 and 110-328 (2008 Disasters), Public Law 111-112 (2010 disasters), and Public Law 112-55 (2011 disasters).
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers for the disaster recovery grants under this notice are as follows: 14.218; 14.228; and 14.269.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the docket file must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, on behalf of the interdepartmental National Invasive Species Council (NISC), proposes to appoint new members to the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). The Secretary of the Interior, acting as administrative lead, is requesting nominations for qualified persons to serve as members of the ISAC.
Nominations must be postmarked by February 26, 2018.
Nominations should be sent to Jamie K. Reaser, Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council (OS/NISC), Regular/Express Mail: 1849 C Street NW (Mailstop 3530), Washington, DC 20240.
Kelsey Brantley, Coordinator for NISC and ISAC Operations, at (202) 208-4122, fax: (202) 208-4118, or by email at
Executive Order (E.O.) 13112 authorized the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) to provide interdepartmental coordination, planning, and leadership for the Federal Government on the prevention, eradication, and control of invasive species. This authorization was recently reiterated in E.O. 13751. NISC is currently comprised of the senior-most leadership of thirteen Federal Departments/Agencies and three Executive Offices of the President. The Co-chairs of NISC are the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce. The Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) advises NISC. NISC is requesting nominations for individuals to serve on the ISAC.
NISC provides high-level interdepartmental coordination of Federal invasive species actions and works with other Federal and non-Federal groups to address invasive species issues at the national level. NISC duties, consistent with E.O. 13751, are to provide national leadership regarding invasive species and: (a) Work to ensure that the Federal agency and interagency activities concerning invasive species are coordinated, complementary, cost-efficient, and effective; (b) undertake a National Invasive Species Assessment that evaluates the impact of invasive species on major U.S. assets, including food security, water resources, infrastructure, the environment, human, animal, and plant health, natural resources, cultural identity and resources, and military readiness, from ecological, social, and economic perspectives; (c) advance national incident response, data collection, and rapid reporting capacities that build on existing frameworks and programs and strengthen early detection of and rapid response to invasive species, including those that are vectors, reservoirs, or causative agents of disease; (d) publish an assessment by 2019 that identifies the most pressing scientific, technical, and programmatic coordination challenges to the Federal Government's capacity to prevent the introduction of invasive species, and that incorporate recommendations and priority actions to overcome these challenges into the National Invasive Species Council Management Plan, as appropriate; (e) support and encourage the development of new technologies and practices, and promote the use of existing technologies and practices, to prevent, eradicate, and control invasive species, including those that are vectors, reservoirs, and causative agents of disease; (f) convene annually to discuss and coordinate interagency priorities and report annually on activities and budget
ISAC is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA; 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2). At the request of NISC, ISAC provides advice to NISC members on topics related to NISC's aforementioned duties, as well as emerging issues prioritized by the Administration. As a multi-stakeholder advisory committee, ISAC is intended to play a key role in recommending plans and actions to be taken at local, tribal, state, territorial, regional, and landscape-based levels to achieve the goals and objectives of the Management Plan. It is hoped that, collectively, ISAC will represent the views of the broad range of individuals and communities knowledgeable of and affected by invasive species.
Prospective members of ISAC need to have knowledge in the prevention, eradication, and/or control of invasive species, as well as to demonstrate a high degree of capacity for: Advising individuals in leadership positions, team work, project management, tracking relevant Federal government programs and policy making procedures, and networking with and representing their peer-community of interest. ISAC members need not be scientists. Membership from a wide range of disciplines and professional sectors is encouraged. At this time, we are particularly interested in applications from representatives of tribes, states, territories, non-governmental organizations, outdoor recreational groups, the private sector, and large-scale land management entities (urban and rural).
After consultation with the other members of NISC, the Secretary of the Interior will appoint members to ISAC. Members will be selected based on their individual qualifications, as well as the overall need to achieve a balanced representation of viewpoints, subject matter expertise, regional knowledge, and representation of communities of interest. ISAC member terms are limited to three (3) years from their date of appointment to ISAC. Following completion of their first term, an ISAC member may request consideration for reappointment to an additional term. Reappointment is not guaranteed.
Typically, ISAC will hold at least one in-person meeting per year. Between meetings, ISAC members are expected to participate in committee work via conference calls and email exchanges. Members of the ISAC and its subcommittees serve without pay. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services of the ISAC, members may be reimbursed for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the government service, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code. Employees of the Federal Government ARE NOT eligible for nomination or appointment to ISAC.
Individuals who are federally registered lobbyists are ineligible to serve on all FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils in an individual capacity. The term “individual capacity” refers to individuals who are appointed to exercise their own individual best judgment on behalf of the government, such as when they are designated Special Government Employees, rather than being appointed to represent a particular interest.
Nominations should include a resume that provides an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, particularly information that will enable the Department of the Interior to make evaluate the nominee's potential to meet the membership requirements of the Committee and permit the Department of the Interior to contact a potential member. Please refer to the membership criteria stated in this notice.
Any interested person or entity may nominate one or more qualified individuals for membership on the ISAC. Self-nominations are also accepted. Persons or entities submitting nomination packages on the behalf of others must confirm that the individual(s) is/are aware of their nomination. Nominations must be postmarked no later than February 26, 2018 to Jamie K. Reaser, Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council (OS/NISC), Regular Mail: 1849 C Street NW (Mailstop 3530), Washington, DC 20240.
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of termination of Environmental Impact Statement.
The National Park Service (NPS) has cancelled its planning process for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area dog management plan, and no longer intends to issue a Record of Decision.
The associated environmental impact statement (EIS) is terminated as of December 27, 2017.
Dana Polk, Public Affairs Office, Park Headquarters, Fort Mason, Building 201, San Francisco, CA 94123; phone 415-561-4728.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508 and 43 CFR part 46), the NPS published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS in the
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations applicable November 18, 2016, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by the Coalition for Fair Trade of Hardwood Plywood and its individual members.
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on December 20, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4747 (December 2017), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of submission of request for approval of a questionnaire to the Office of Management and Budget. This notice is being given pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
(1) Number of forms submitted: 1.
(2) Title of form: Global Digital Trade Questionnaire.
(3) Type of request: New.
(4) Frequency of use: Industry questionnaire, single data gathering, scheduled for 2018.
(5) Description of respondents: U.S. firms in industries involved in global digital trade.
(6) Estimated number of questionnaire requests to be mailed: 13,000.
(7) Estimated total number of hours to complete the questionnaire per respondent: 17 hours.
(8) Information obtained from the questionnaire that qualifies as confidential business information will be so treated by the Commission and not disclosed in a manner that would reveal the individual operations of a firm. Aggregate responses will be considered NSI as requested by USTR.
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet address (
By order of the Commission.
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations (a portion of which will be open to the public) in Arlington, VA, on January 11-12, 2018.
Thursday, January 11, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Friday, January 12, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Internal Revenue Service, 2345 Crystal Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22202.
Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, at 703-414-2163.
Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at the Internal Revenue Service, 2345 Crystal Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22202, on Thursday, January 11, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Friday, January 12, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B) and to review the November 2017 Pension (EA-2F) Examination in order to make recommendations relative thereto, including the minimum acceptable pass score. Topics for inclusion on the syllabus for the Joint Board's examination program for the May 2018 Basic (EA-1) Examination and the May 2018 Pension (EA-2L) Examination also will be discussed.
A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the portions of the meeting dealing with the discussion of questions that may appear on the Joint Board's examinations and the review of the November 2017 Pension (EA-2F) Examination fall within the exceptions to the open meeting requirement set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such portions be closed to public participation.
The portion of the meeting dealing with the discussion of the other topics will commence at 1:00 p.m. on January 11, 2018, and will continue for as long as necessary to complete the discussion, but not beyond 3:00 p.m. Time permitting, after the close of this discussion by Advisory Committee members, interested persons may make statements germane to this subject. Persons wishing to make oral statements should contact the Designated Federal Officer at
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until January 26, 2018.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any other additional information, please contact Anita Scheddel, Program Analyst, Explosives Industry Programs Branch, either by mail 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20226, by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Department of Justice.
Notice.
This notice advises the public that the State of Texas has provided additional information regarding its request for certification of its capital counsel mechanism by the Attorney General, and that the period to submit public comment to the Department of Justice regarding Texas's request has been extended to 60 days from the date of publication of this notice.
Written and electronic comments must be submitted on or before February 26, 2018. Comments received by mail will be considered timely if they are postmarked on or before that date. The electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) will accept comments until Midnight Eastern Time at the end of that day.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. OLP 167” on all electronic and written correspondence. The Department encourages that all comments be submitted electronically through
Laurence Rothenberg, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530; telephone (202) 532-4465.
Chapter 154 of title 28, United States Code, provides special procedures for federal habeas corpus review of cases brought by prisoners in State custody who are subject to capital sentences. These special procedures may be available to a State only if the Attorney General of the United States has certified that the State has established a qualifying mechanism for the appointment, compensation, and payment of reasonable litigation expenses of competent counsel in State postconviction proceedings for indigent capital prisoners. 28 U.S.C. 2261, 2265; 28 CFR part 26.
On November 16, 2017, the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy published a notice in the
This notice advises the public that the State of Texas has submitted additional information in regard to its prior request for certification. Public comment is solicited regarding Texas's request, and the comment period has been extended to 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Texas's request and supporting materials may be viewed at
One comment received by the Department in response to the Department's November 16, 2017 notice requested the comment period be extended from 60 days to 90 days from the date of publication of Texas's supplemental information. The Department declines at this time to extend the comment period to 90 days, but, as noted, has extended the deadline for public comment until 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Further, the Department may choose to solicit additional public comment if necessary during the review process.
On December 20, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed Consent Decree resolves the claims alleged in the Complaint, and requires the City to take specified actions designed to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act, Clean Streams Law, and the City's NPDES Permit. The proposed Consent Decree requires the City to submit an Amended Long Term Control Plan in accordance with the schedules contained in the Decree. In addition, City must pay a civil penalty of $135,000, to be split equally between the United States and PADEP, and the City must complete a Supplemental Environmental Project designed to improve water quality in the Conestoga River. The SEP involves daylighting a stream in the City of Lancaster, identified as Groff's Run.23.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Please address comments to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division and refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $23.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On December 20, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree (“Decree”) with the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed Decree resolves claims under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), against Honeywell International Inc. (“Honeywell”) and Onondaga County (“County”) (collectively the “Defendants”) for natural resource damages resulting from the releases of hazardous substances at or from the Defendants' facilities at the Onondaga Lake Superfund Site, located in the City of Syracuse, New York. The proposed Decree provides that Honeywell will (1) implement and maintain 20 restoration projects to restore and protect wildlife habitat and water quality, and increase recreational opportunities at Onondaga Lake; (2) pay $5 million for future restoration projects to be undertaken by the Trustees; (3) pay $500,000.00 toward stewardship activities to protect and maintain restoration projects; and (4) pay $750,000.00 for Trustees' future oversight costs. The proposed Decree also requires that the County will operate, repair, maintain, and monitor five of these restoration projects located on or adjacent to County parklands for 25 years. The Defendants' work and payment obligations under the Decree total more than $26 million.
Appendix A to the proposed Decree is the Final Onondaga Lake Natural Resource Damage Assessment Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment (“RP/EA”) issued in August 2017. The RP/EA describes the natural resource injuries and associated losses and outlines the 20 restoration projects. The plan also includes responses to oral and written comments received from the public on the draft plan during a 90-day public comment period, which included four public meetings and one public hearing held during the spring 2017. The final RP/EA is available at
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $93.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy of the Decree without the appendices the cost is $12.75.
Department of Justice.
Notice.
This notice advises the public that the State of Arizona has provided additional information regarding its request for certification of its capital counsel mechanism by the Attorney General, and that the period to submit public comment to the Department of Justice regarding Arizona's request has been extended to 60 days from the date of publication of this notice.
Written and electronic comments must be submitted on or before February 26, 2018. Comments received by mail will be considered timely if they are postmarked on or before that date. The electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) will accept comments until Midnight Eastern Time at the end of that day.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. OLP 166” on all electronic and written correspondence. The Department encourages that all comments be submitted electronically through
Laurence Rothenberg, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530; telephone (202) 532-4465.
Chapter 154 of title 28, United States Code, provides special procedures for federal habeas corpus review of cases brought by prisoners in State custody who are subject to capital sentences. These special procedures may be available to a State only if the Attorney General of the United States has certified that the State has established a qualifying mechanism for the appointment, compensation, and payment of reasonable litigation expenses of competent counsel in State postconviction proceedings for indigent capital prisoners. 28 U.S.C. 2261, 2265; 28 CFR part 26.
On November 16, 2017, the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy published a notice in the
This notice advises the public that the State of Arizona has submitted additional information in regard to its prior request for certification. Public comment is solicited regarding Arizona's request, and the comment period has been extended to 60 days from the date of this notice. Arizona's request and supporting materials may be viewed at
Two comments (from a single commenter) received by the Department in response to the Department's November 16, 2017 notice requested the comment period be extended from 60 days to 180 days or, in the alternative, to extend the comment period by a lesser amount in light of supplemental information submitted by the State of Arizona. The Department declines at this time to extend the comment period to 180 days, but, as noted, has extended the deadline for public comment until 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Further, the Department may choose to solicit additional public comment if necessary during the review process.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Publication of summary of the Department of Labor's report on the investigation.
Section 224(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Trade Act”) requires the United States Department of Labor (“Department”) to publish in the
December 19, 2017: Transmittal of the Department's report to the President.
United States Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. The public report may be viewed on the Department's website at
Norris Tyler, Administrator, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; Telephone: (202) 693-3560 (this is not a toll-free number). The media should contact Egan Reich, Office of Public Affairs, on (202) 693-4960, or
Pursuant to section 224(a), the Department will investigate: (1) The number of workers in the domestic industry producing the like or directly competitive article(s) who have been or are likely to be certified as eligible for adjustment assistance, and (2) the extent to which the adjustment of such workers to the import competition may be facilitated through the use of existing programs. The full text of the report will be posted on the Department's website at
Section 202(c)(1) of the Trade Act directs the Department to report to the President certain information whenever the Commission makes a finding under Section 202 of the Trade Act. The Department's report to the President studies the following:
(1) The number of workers in the domestic industry for LRWs producing the like or directly competitive article who have been or are likely to be certified as eligible for adjustment assistance; and
(2) The extent to which the adjustment of workers to the import competition may be facilitated through the use of existing programs.
Consistent with the statutory requirement, the focus of the Department's study is limited to potential future job losses related to increased imports on the domestic production of LRWs. Job losses in related domestic industries or upstream providers, if any, and consequences of potential remedies, such as foregone job growth due to less foreign direct investment are outside the scope of this report. Based on the Department's analysis, the current size of the U.S. domestic workforce responsible for the production of LRWs is approximately 4,000.
In the U.S. domestic industry, there are four companies which are currently employing workers: Whirlpool, Staber, Alliance, and General Electric. During the Commission's investigation, the petitioner (Whirlpool) maintained that in addition to tariffs, a quota on imported covered parts would be a strong final remedy that will ensure U.S. manufacturing jobs are protected. However, other interested stakeholders (LG and Samsung) suggest that among other things, the protection of U.S. jobs afforded by the tariff and quota may be offset in part by the loss of U.S. jobs that could result from higher consumer prices for LRWs and reduce overall consumer demand. We also note that Samsung and LG both have plans in the near future to open factories in the United States that would provide an estimated 1,600 new jobs in this industry. It is difficult to determine what the effect any remedies would have on long-run employment in this industry.
1. The Department received Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) petitions for four worker groups involved in the production of LRWs since January 2012. All four of those worker groups were certified as eligible to apply for TAA, resulting in an estimated 183 workers eligible to apply for individual benefits under the TAA Program.
2. The Department estimates that 324 additional workers are likely to be covered by certified TAA petitions before the end of 2019.
3. Sufficient funding is available to provide TAA benefits and services to these workers. In Fiscal Year 2017, the Department provided $391 million to states to provide training and other activities for TAA participants, as well as $294 million in funding for Trade Readjustment Allowances, and $31 million in Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance funds.
4. The Department believes that training and benefits under the Trade Act, other Department programs, and programs at other federal agencies are sufficient to assist workers in the LRWs industry to adjust to the trade impact.
As required by Section 224(f)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2274(f)(1)), the Department must provide notice of an affirmative determination by the Commission and the identity of the affected firms to the Governor in each State in which one or more firms in the affected industry are located. The Department must also notify representatives of the domestic industry, firms identified by name during the proceedings, and any recognized worker representatives of the benefits available under the TAA program, the manner in which to file a petition to apply for such benefits, and the availability of assistance in filing TAA petitions.
Finally, once the Commission's findings and the Department's report are provided to the President, the President may impose relief in the form of increased duties and/or other restrictions on imports of LRWs under Section 203 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2253).
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed revision of the “Occupational Requirements Survey.” A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Send comments to Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20212. Written comments also may be transmitted by fax to 202-691-5111 (this is not a toll free number).
Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, at
The Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS) is a nationwide survey that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is conducting at the request of the Social Security Administration (SSA). Three years of data collection and capture for the ORS will start in 2018 and end in mid-2021.
Estimates produced from the data collected by the ORS will be used by the SSA to update occupational requirements data for administering the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs.
The ORS occupational information will allow SSA adjudicators to clearly associate the assessment of a claimant's physical and mental functional capacity and vocational profile with work requirements. BLS will compute percentages of workers with various characteristics, such as skill and strength level. SSA will use this information to provide statistical support for the medical-vocational rules used at step 5 of sequential evaluation regarding the number of unskilled jobs that exist at each level of exertion in the national economy.
The Social Security Administration, Members of Congress, and representatives of the disability community have all identified collection of updated information on the requirements of work in today's economy as crucial to the equitable and efficient operation of the Social Security Disability (SSDI) program.
The ORS collects data from a sample of employers. These requirements of work data consist of information about the duties, responsibilities, and critical job tasks for a sample of occupations for each sampled employer.
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the Occupational Requirements Survey.
The ORS collects data on the requirements of work, as defined by the SSA's disability program:
(1) An indicator of “time to proficiency,” defined as the amount of time required by a typical worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information, and develop the facility needed for average job performance, comparable to the Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) used in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT).
(2) Physical Demand characteristics/factors of occupations, measured in such a way to support SSA disability determination needs, comparable to measures in Appendix C of the Selected Characteristics of Occupations (SCO).
(3) Environmental Conditions, measured in such a way to support SSA disability determination needs, comparable to measures in Appendix D of the SCO.
(4) Data elements that describe the mental and cognitive demands of work.
(5) Occupational task lists of occupations, defined as the critical job function and key job tasks, to validate the reported requirements of work, comparable to data identified in the Employment and Training Administration's (ETA's) O*NET Program.
The ORS data will be collected using a revised sample design. This two-stage stratified design includes new sample cell definitions and allocations to accommodate the goal to produce estimates for as many occupations as possible. Occupations for private industry establishments will be selected before the sample is fielded. Occupational selection for government units will generally occur after establishment contact. The probability of an occupation being selected after the sample is fielded will be proportionate to its employment within the establishment.
BLS will disseminate the data from the ORS on the BLS public website (
ORS collection will use several forms (having unique private industry and government collection versions). For those sampled establishments that are in the current National Compensation Survey (NCS), ORS will use NCS data and forms for those data elements that overlap.
ORS data are defined to balance SSA's adjudication needs with the ability of the respondent to provide data. With this clearance, BLS is: Replacing questions related to the mental and cognitive demands; adding a screening question for the presence of stooping, kneeling, crouching or crawling; modifying the categories collected for hearing; and eliminating “Push/Pull—Feet Only” collection.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.
All comments on the petitions must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before January 26, 2018.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(1) To comply with requirements for mine ventilation maps and mine maps in 30 CFR 75.372 and 75.1200, use of the most practical and accurate surveying equipment is necessary.
(2) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to the miners. Underground mining by its nature, and the size and complexity of mine plans, require that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner. The petitioner proposes the following as an alternative to the existing standard:
(a) Use nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment when equivalent permissible electronic surveying equipment is not available. Nonpermissible equipment will include portable battery-operated total station surveying equipment, mine transits, distance meters, and data loggers.
(b) All nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment to be used in or inby the last open crosscut will be examined by surveying personnel prior to use to ensure the equipment is being maintained in safe operating condition. These examinations will include:
(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case.
(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion.
(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery.
(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections.
(v) Checking the battery compartment cover to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(c) The results of such examinations will be recorded and retained for one year and made available to MSHA on request.
(d) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible
(e) Nonpermissible surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent for the area being surveyed. When methane is detected at such levels while the nonpermissible surveying equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn outby the last open crosscut.
(f) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(g) Batteries in the surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air outby the last open crosscut.
(h) Qualified personnel who use surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards associated with the use of nonpermissible surveying equipment in areas where methane could be present.
(i) The nonpermissible surveying equipment will not be put into service until MSHA has inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions in this petition.
Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plan to the District Manager. The revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions in the Proposed Decision and Order.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection as that afforded by the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) To comply with requirements for mine ventilation maps and mine maps in 30 CFR 75.372 and 75.1200, use of the most practical and accurate surveying equipment is necessary.
(2) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to the miners. Underground mining by its nature, and the size and complexity of mine plans, require that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner. The petitioner proposes the following as an alternative to the existing standard:
(a) Use nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment when equivalent permissible electronic surveying equipment is not available. Nonpermissible equipment will include portable battery-operated total station surveying equipment, mine transits, distance meters, and data loggers.
(b) All nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment to be used in return airways will be examined by surveying personnel prior to use to ensure the equipment is being maintained in safe operating condition. These examinations will include:
(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case.
(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion.
(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery.
(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections.
(v) Checking the battery compartment cover to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(c) The results of such examinations will be recorded and retained for one year and made available to MSHA on request.
(d) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible surveying equipment in return airways.
(e) Nonpermissible surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent for the area being surveyed. When methane is detected at such levels while the nonpermissible surveying equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn out of the return airways.
(f) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(g) Batteries in the surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air out of the return airway.
(h) Qualified personnel who use surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards associated with the use of nonpermissible surveying equipment in areas where methane could be present.
(i) The nonpermissible surveying equipment will not be put into service until MSHA has inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions in this petition.
Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plan to the District Manager. The revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions in the Proposed Decision and Order.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection as that afforded by the existing standard.
The petitioner states that:
(1) To comply with requirements for mine ventilation maps and mine maps in 30 CFR 75.372 and 75.1200, use of the most practical and accurate surveying equipment is necessary. To ensure the safety of the miners in active mines and to protect miners in future mines that may mine in close proximity to these same active mines, it is necessary to determine the exact location and extent of the mine workings.
(2) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to the miners. Underground mining by its nature, and the size and complexity of mine plans, require that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner. The petitioner proposes the
(a) Use nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment when equivalent permissible electronic surveying equipment is not available. Nonpermissible equipment will include portable battery-operated total station surveying equipment, mine transits, distance meters, and data loggers.
(b) All nonpermissible electronic surveying equipment to be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will be examined by surveying personnel prior to use to ensure the equipment is being maintained in safe operating condition. These examinations will include:
(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case.
(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion.
(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery.
(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections.
(v) Checking the battery compartment cover to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(c) The results of such examinations will be recorded and retained for one year and made available to MSHA on request.
(d) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible surveying equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings.
(e) Nonpermissible surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent for the area being surveyed. When methane is detected at such levels while the nonpermissible surveying equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn further than 150 feet from pillar workings.
(f) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(g) Batteries in the surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air more than 150 feet from pillar workings.
(h) Qualified personnel who use surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards associated with the use of nonpermissible surveying equipment in areas where methane could be present.
(i) The nonpermissible surveying equipment will not be put into service until MSHA has inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions in this petition.
Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plan to the District Manager. The revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions in the Proposed Decision and Order.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection as that afforded by the existing standard.
Notice.
Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Miner's Claim for Benefits under the Black Lung Benefit's Act (CM-911) and Employment History (CM-911A). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before February 26, 2018.
You may submit comments by mail, delivery service, or by hand to Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room S-3323, Washington, DC 20210; by fax to (202) 354-9647; or by Email to
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95).
I. Background: The Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), (30 U.S.C. 901
II.
* Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
* evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
* enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
* minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Legal Services Corporation.
Solicitation of proposals for the provision of civil legal services.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is a federally established and funded organization that funds civil legal aid organizations across the country and in the U.S. territories. Its mission is to expand access to justice by funding high-quality legal representation for low-income people in civil matters.
In anticipation of a congressional appropriation to LSC for Fiscal Year 2018, LSC hereby announces that it is reopening the basic field grants solicitation for calendar year 2018 funding for service area GU-1 in Guam. LSC is soliciting grant proposals from interested parties who are qualified to provide effective, efficient and high quality civil legal services to the eligible client population living in Guam.
The availability and the exact amount of congressionally appropriated funds, as well as the date, terms, and conditions of funds available for grants for calendar year 2018, have not been determined. LSC anticipates that the funding amount will be similar to current funding, which is $242,838.
See the
Legal Services Corporation—Notice of Funds Availability, 3333 K Street NW, Third Floor, Washington, DC 20007-3522.
The Office of Program Performance by email at
The Request for Proposals (RFP) containing the Notice of Intent to Compete (NIC) and grant application guidelines, proposal content requirements, service area description, and selection criteria, is currently available from
LSC is seeking proposals from: (1) Non-profit organizations that have as a purpose the provision of legal assistance to eligible clients; (2) private attorneys; (3) groups of private attorneys or law firms; (4) state or local governments; and (5) sub-state regional planning and coordination agencies that are composed of sub-state areas and whose governing boards are controlled by locally elected officials.
LSC will post all updates and/or changes to this notice at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Applied Sciences Advisory Committee (ASAC). This Committee functions in an advisory capacity to the Director, Earth Science Division, in the NASA Science Mission Directorate. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the applied sciences community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Thursday, February 1, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Friday, February 2, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 5H41, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. KarShelia Henderson, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355, fax (202) 358-2779, or
This meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. This meeting will also be available telephonically and via WebEx. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the USA toll free conference call number (888) 677-3055, passcode 4301862, followed by the # sign, to participate in this meeting by telephone. The WebEx link is
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA Headquarters security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; passport information (number, country, telephone); visa information (number, type, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees with U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) may provide full name and citizenship status no less than 3 working days in advance by contacting Ms. KarShelia Henderson via email at
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when agencies no longer need them for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the
NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by January 26, 2018. Once NARA finishes appraising the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send to you these requested documents in which to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA) using one of the following means:
You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.
Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by phone at 301-837-1799, or by email at
NARA publishes notice in the
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing records retention periods and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the agency to dispose of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it creates or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is expressly limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
Agencies may not destroy Federal records without Archivist of the United States' approval. The Archivist approves destruction only after thoroughly considering the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.
In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions
1. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Agency (DAA-0572-2017-0001, 10 items, 10 temporary items). Records relating to Single Family Housing Programs. Included are field activity reports, routine studies, loan application information, and financial documents for affordable housing for low income rural residents.
2. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Agency (DAA-0572-2017-0008, 10 items, 10 temporary items). Rural Business Cooperative Service records. Included are field activity reports, routine studies, loan application information, and capital investment documents for business programs in rural areas.
3. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2015-0016, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records related to civilian academic papers used in support of technical research projects.
4. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2016-0070, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to maintain applicant and interview information.
5. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2017-0014, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to maintain acquisitions information.
6. Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DAA-0374-2017-0013, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system for tracking location and condition of weapons systems.
7. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DAA-0330-2016-0010, 5 items, 3 temporary items). Items related to the processing of awards recommendations. Proposed for permanent retention are awards case files.
8. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary (DAA-0468-2018-0001, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Agency-wide policy and precedent reference files including directives case history files. Included are copies of operating procedures, staff level memoranda, documents duplicated in the official policy files, background materials on final issuances, and drafts of comments.
9. Department of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (DAA-0271-2017-0002, 12 items, 9 temporary items). Office records common throughout the program, including program subject files, claimant's correspondence, training records, accountability review records, quarterly rehabilitation reports, administrative directives, legal and legislative files, and work measurement reports. Proposed for permanent retention are record copies of publications and studies, directives, and published studies required by law or requested by Congress.
10. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (DAA-0406-2017-0001, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Outputs of an electronic information system used to inventory all tunnels on public roads. Proposed for permanent retention are system master files.
11. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (DAA-0058-2016-0018, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Small Business and Self-Employed Collections records to include installment agreements set up by taxpayers to pay off tax balances.
12. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (DAA-0058-2017-0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Copies of records relating to tax fraud cases and documents created to review the cases.
13. Federal Maritime Commission, Office of the General Counsel (DAA-0358-2017-0006, 7 items, 7 temporary items). Records relating to routine case files and legislative affairs.
14. National Archives and Records Administration, Research Services (N2-134-17-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Interstate Commerce Commission (I.C.C.) Operating Division Formal Dockets, 1887—1924, other than those covering important or controversial cases containing documentation that supplements the printed decisions. These records were accessioned to the National Archives but lack sufficient historical value to warrant continued preservation.
15. Peace Corps, Office of Global Operations (DAA-0490-2017-0008, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records of an electronic information system used to track volunteer applications, demographics, and language testing results.
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities will hold a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts Domestic Indemnity Panel.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 13, 2018, from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506.
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506, (202) 606 8322;
The purpose of the meeting is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, for exhibitions beginning before, on, or after April 1, 2018. Because the meeting will consider proprietary financial and commercial data provided in confidence by indemnity applicants, and material that is likely to disclose trade secrets or other privileged or confidential information, and because it is important to keep the values of objects to be indemnified, and the methods of transportation and security measures confidential, I have determined that that the meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. I have made this determination under the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close
The National Science Board's Committee on National Science and Engineering Policy (SEP), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 4:30-5:30 p.m. EST.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. An audio link will be available for the public. Members of the public must contact the Board Office to request the public audio link by sending an email to
Open.
Discussion of Policy Companion Statement to
Point of contact for this meeting is: Mateo Munoz (
Meeting information and updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) may be found at
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection, It's Time to Sign Up for Direct Deposit or Direct Express, RI 38-128.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 26, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this information collection, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0226) was previously published in the
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,
Form RI 38-128 is primarily used by OPM to give recent retirees the opportunity to waive Direct Deposit of their annuity payments. The form is sent only if the separating agency did not give the retiring employee this election opportunity. This form may also be used to enroll in Direct Deposit, which was its primary use before Public Law 104-134 was passed. This law requires OPM to make all recurring benefit payments electronically to beneficiaries who live where Direct Deposit is available. Beneficiaries who do not enroll in the Direct Deposit Program will be enrolled in Direct Express.
Office of Personnel Management.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 26, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Human Resources Strategy and Evaluation Solutions, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Coty Hoover, or via email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection was previously published in the
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. Whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and
3. Ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of the appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OPM's Human Resources Strategy and Evaluation Solutions performs assessment and related consultation activities for Federal agencies on a reimbursable basis. The assessments are authorized by various statutes and regulations: Section 4702 of Title 5, U.S.C; E.O. 12862; E.O. 13715; Section 1128 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law 108-136; 5 U.S.C. 1101 note, 1103(a)(5), 1104, 1302, 3301, 3302, 4702, 7701 note; E.O. 13197, 66 FR 7853, 3 CFR 748 (2002); E.O. 10577, 12 FR 1259, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; and Section 4703 of Title 5, United States Code.
This collection request includes surveys we currently use and plan to use during the next three years to measure agency performance, climate, engagement, and leadership effectiveness. OMB No. 3206-0252 covers a broad range of surveys all focused on improving organizational performance. Non-Federal respondents will almost never receive more than one of these surveys. All of these surveys consist of Likert-type, mark-one, and mark-all-that-apply items, and may include a small number of open-ended comment items. Administration of Organizational Assessment Surveys (OAS) typically consists of a customized set of 50-150 standard items pulled from an item bank of nearly 500 items. The surveys almost always include a small set of 5-10 custom items developed to meet the agency's specific needs. The OAS is a general survey that subsumes the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). OPM's Human Resources Strategy and Evaluation Solutions administers the FEVS for agencies to gather feedback from employee groups not covered by the official FEVS administration. Exit Surveys consist of approximately 60 items that assess reasons why employees decided to leave their organization. Customization is possible. The New Leaders Onboarding Assessment (NLOA) is a combined assessment consisting of approximately 130 items, including items measuring organizational climate, employee engagement, and leadership. New Employee Surveys consist of approximately 100 items that assess satisfaction with the hiring, orientation, and socialization of new employees. Training Needs Assessment Surveys consist of approximately 100 items that assess an agency's climate for training and employees' training preferences. Program Evaluation surveys evaluate the effectiveness of government initiatives, programs, and offices. Program Evaluation surveys are always customized to assess specific program elements. Program Evaluation surveys may contain from 20 to 200 items, with an average of approximately 100 items. The surveys included under OMB No. 3206-0252 are almost always administered electronically.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a currently approved collection, Leadership Assessment Surveys. OPM is requesting approval of the OPM Leadership 360
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 26, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW,
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Human Resources Strategy and Evaluation Solutions, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Coty Hoover, or via email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection was previously published in the
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. Whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and
3. Ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of the appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OPM's Human Resources Strategy and Evaluation Solutions performs assessment and related consultation activities for Federal agencies on a reimbursable basis. The assessments are authorized by various statutes and regulations: Section 4702 of Title 5, U.S.C; E.O. 12862; E.O. 13715; Section 1128 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law 108-136; 5 U.S.C. 1101 note, 1103(a)(5), 1104, 1302, 3301, 3302, 4702, 7701 note; E.O. 13197, 66 FR 7853, 3 CFR 748 (2002); E.O. 10577, 12 FR 1259, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; and Section 4703 of Title 5, United States Code.
This collection request includes surveys we currently use and plan to use during the next three years to measure Federal leaders' effectiveness. These surveys all measure leadership characteristics. Non-Federal respondents will almost never receive more than one of these surveys. All of these surveys consist of Likert-type, mark-one, and mark-all-that-apply items, and may include a small number of open-ended comment items. OPM's Leadership 360
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a currently approved collection, Customer Satisfaction Surveys. Approval of these surveys is necessary to collect information on Federal agency and program performance.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 26, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Human Resources Strategy and Evaluation Solutions, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Coty Hoover, or via email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection was previously published in the
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. Whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and
3. Ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of the appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OPM's Human Resources Strategy and Evaluation Solutions performs assessment and related consultation activities for Federal agencies on a reimbursable basis. The assessment is
This collection request includes surveys we currently use and plan to use during the next three years to measure agency performance in providing services to meet customer needs. These surveys consist of Likert-type, mark-one, and mark-all-that-apply items, and may include a small number of open-ended comment items. Administration of OPM's Customer Satisfaction Surveys (OMB No. 3206-0236) typically consists of approximately 15-20 standard items drawn from an item bank of approximately 50 items; client agencies usually add a small number of custom items to assess satisfaction with specific products and services. The survey is almost always administered electronically.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on the revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR), Alternative Annuity Election, RI 20-80.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until January 26, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0168) was previously published in the
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,
Form RI 20-80 is used for individuals who are eligible to elect whether to receive a reduced annuity and a lump-sum payment equal to their retirement contributions (alternative form of annuity) or an unreduced annuity and no lump sum.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under Sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and Rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by Sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and Rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with affiliated investment funds and accounts.
TCG BDC, Inc. (“BDC I”), TCG BDC II, Inc. (“BDC II”), TCG BDC
The application was filed on July 10, 2017, and amended on November 28, 2017, and December 12, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on January 16, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: 520 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor, New York, NY 10022.
Laura L. Solomon, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6915, or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Applicants request an order of the Commission under Sections 17(d) and 57(i) and Rule 17d-1 thereunder to permit, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the application (the “Conditions”), a Regulated Fund
“Adviser” means any Existing Adviser and any Future Adviser;
“BDC Downstream Fund” means with respect to any Regulated Fund that is a BDC, an entity (a) that the BDC directly or indirectly controls, (b) that is not controlled by any person other than the BDC (except a person that indirectly controls the entity solely because it controls the BDC), (c) that would be an investment company but for Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act, (d) whose investment adviser is an Adviser and (e) that is not a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub.
2. Each of BDC I, BDC II and BDC III, is a closed-end management investment company incorporated in Maryland that either has elected, or, in the case of BDC III, intends to elect, to be regulated as a BDC under the Act.
“Independent Party” means, with respect to a BDC Downstream Fund, (i) if the BDC Downstream Fund has a board of directors (or the equivalent), the board or (ii) if the BDC Downstream Fund does not have a board of directors (or the equivalent), a transaction committee or advisory committee of the BDC Downstream Fund.
3. CGMSIM, a Delaware limited liability company that is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act, serves as the investment adviser to BDC I, BDC II, BDC III, certain Existing Affiliated Funds (as identified in Schedule A to the application) and will serve as a sub-adviser to a Future Regulated Fund that will be a closed-end management investment company (the “Future RIC”). OC Adviser, a Delaware limited liability company that is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act, is under common control with CGMSIM, and will serve as the investment adviser to the Future RIC that will be sub-advised by CGMSIM.
4. Each Existing Affiliated Fund is a separate and distinct legal entity and each would either be an investment company but for Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act or relies on Rule 3a-7 under the Act. A complete list of the Existing Affiliated Funds is included in Schedule A to the application.
5. Each of BDC I Sub and 2015-1 Issuer, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BDC I (the “Existing Wholly-Owned Investment Subs”), formed for the purpose of procuring financing or otherwise holding investments.
6. TCG Securities, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Carlyle, is registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). TCG Capital Markets, a Delaware limited liability company and a majority-owned subsidiary of Carlyle, intends to register with the Commission as a broker-dealer under the Exchange Act. TCG Senior Funding, a Delaware limited liability company and a majority-owned subsidiary of Carlyle, was formed to originate and sell loans and will be advised by CGMSIM.
7. Each Applicant is directly or indirectly controlled by Carlyle, a publicly traded company. Carlyle owns controlling interests in the Advisers and, thus, may be deemed to control the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds. Applicants state that Carlyle is a holding company and does not currently offer investment advisory services to any person and is not expected to do so in the future. Applicants state that as a result, Carlyle has not been included as an Applicant.
8. Applicants state that an Existing Regulated Fund or a Future Regulated Fund may, from time to time, form one or more Wholly-Owned Investment Subs.
9. Applicants state that each of CGMSIM and Carlyle CLO Manager is,
10. Applicants represent that they have established processes for allocating initial investment opportunities, opportunities for subsequent investments in an issuer and dispositions of securities holdings reasonably designed to treat all clients fairly and equitably. Further, Applicants represent that these processes will be extended and modified in a manner reasonably designed to ensure that the additional transactions permitted under the Order will both (i) be fair and equitable to the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds and (ii) comply with the Conditions.
11. Specifically, applicants state that each of CGMSIM and Carlyle CLO Manager is, and each of OC Adviser and the Future Advisers will be, organized and managed such that the individual portfolio managers, as well as the teams and committees of portfolio managers, analysts and senior management (“Investment Teams” and “Investment Committees”), responsible for evaluating investment opportunities and making investment decisions on behalf of clients are promptly notified of the opportunities. If the requested Order is granted, the Advisers will establish, maintain and implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that, when such opportunities arise, the Advisers to the relevant Regulated Funds are promptly notified and receive the same information about the opportunity as any other Advisers considering the opportunity for their clients or as any Capital Markets Affiliates considering the opportunity for themselves. In particular, consistent with Condition 1, if a Potential Co-Investment Transaction falls within the then-current Objectives and Strategies
12. The Adviser to each applicable Regulated Fund will then make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for the Regulated Fund in light of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances. If the Adviser to a Regulated Fund deems the Regulated Fund's participation in such Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate, then it will formulate a recommendation regarding the proposed order amount for the Regulated Fund.
13. Applicants state that, for each Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund whose Adviser recommends participating in a Potential Co-Investment Transaction, the Adviser will submit a proposed order amount to the pre-trade compliance system, which will be reviewed by the Chief Risk Officer of each Regulated Fund. Applicants state further that each proposed order amount may be reviewed and adjusted, in accordance with the Advisers' written allocation policies and procedures, by a credit opportunity allocation committee to be established by the Advisers on which senior management and at least one legal/compliance person participate.
14. If the aggregate Internal Orders for a Potential Co-Investment Transaction do not exceed the size of the investment opportunity immediately prior to the submission of the orders to the underwriter, broker, dealer or issuer, as applicable (the “External Submission”), then each Internal Order will be fulfilled as placed. If, on the other hand, the aggregate Internal Orders for a Potential Co-Investment Transaction exceed the size of the investment opportunity immediately prior to the External Submission, then the allocation of the opportunity will be made pro rata on the basis of the size of the Internal Orders.
“Eligible Directors” means, with respect to a Regulated Fund and a Potential Co-Investment Transaction, the members of the Regulated Fund's Board eligible to vote on that Potential Co-Investment Transaction under Section 57(o) of the Act.
15. Applicants state that from time to time the Regulated Funds, Affiliated Funds and Capital Markets Affiliates may have opportunities to make Follow-On Investments
16. Applicants propose that Follow-On Investments would be divided into two categories depending on whether the prior investment was a Co-Investment Transaction or a Pre-Boarding Investment.
17. A Regulated Fund would be permitted to invest in Standard Review Follow-Ons either with the approval of the Required Majority under Condition 8(c) or without Board approval under Condition 8(b) if it is (i) a Pro Rata Follow-On Investment
“JT No-Action Letters” means
18. Applicants propose that Dispositions
19. A Regulated Fund may participate in a Standard Review Disposition either with the approval of the Required Majority under Condition 6(d) or without Board approval under Condition 6(c) if (i) the Disposition is a Pro Rata Disposition
20. Applicants represent that under the terms and Conditions of the Application, all Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds participating in a Co-Investment Transaction will invest at the same time, for the same price and with the same terms, conditions, class, registration rights and any other rights, so that none of them receives terms more favorable than any other. However, the settlement date for an Affiliated Fund in a Co-Investment Transaction may occur up to ten business days after the settlement date for the Regulated Fund, and vice versa.
21. Under Condition 15, if an Adviser, its principals, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser or its principals, and the Affiliated Funds (collectively, the “Holders”) own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting shares of a Regulated Fund (the “Shares”), then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party when voting on matters specified in the Condition. Applicants believe that this Condition will ensure that the Independent Directors will act independently in evaluating Co-Investment Transactions, because the ability of the Adviser or its principals to influence the Independent Directors by a suggestion, explicit or implied, that the Independent Directors can be removed will be limited significantly. The Independent Directors shall evaluate and approve any independent party, taking into account its qualifications, reputation for independence, cost to the shareholders, and other factors that they deem relevant.
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and Rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit participation by a registered investment company and an affiliated person in any “joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan,” as defined in the rule, without prior approval by the Commission by order upon application. Section 17(d) of the Act and Rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to Regulated Funds that are registered closed-end investment companies.
2. Similarly, with regard to BDCs, Section 57(a)(4) of the Act generally prohibits certain persons specified in Section 57(b) from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a company controlled by the BDC in contravention of Rules as prescribed by the Commission. Section 57(i) of the Act provides that, until the Commission prescribes rules under Section 57(a)(4), the Commission's rules under Section 17(d) of the Act applicable to registered closed-end investment companies will be deemed to apply to transactions subject to Section 57(a)(4). Because the Commission has not adopted any rules under Section 57(a)(4), Rule 17d-1 also applies to joint transactions with Regulated Funds that are BDCs.
3. Co-Investment Transactions are prohibited by either or both of Rule 17d-1 and Section 57(a)(4) without a prior exemptive order of the Commission to the extent that the Affiliated Funds, Capital Markets Affiliates and the Regulated Funds participating in such transactions fall within the category of persons described by Rule 17d-1 and/or Section 57(b), as applicable, vis-à-vis each participating Regulated Fund. Each of the participating Regulated Funds, Affiliated Funds and Capital Markets Affiliates may be deemed to be affiliated persons vis-à-vis a Regulated Fund within the meaning of Section 2(a)(3) by reason of common control because (i) CGMSIM controls BDC I, BDC II and BDC III and Carlyle CLO Manager and OC Adviser are, and any other Advisers will be, controlling, controlled by or under common control with CGMSIM and may be deemed to be a person related to a Regulated Fund, (ii) BDC Downstream Funds and Wholly-Owned Investment Subs are controlled by the Regulated Funds; and (iii) TCG Securities and any other Capital Markets Affiliate, as wholly- or majority-owned subsidiaries of Carlyle, and the Carlyle Proprietary Accounts are entities advised by the Advisers, which are or will be controlling, controlled by or under common control with CGMSIM. Thus, the Advisers and the entities they advise and Capital Markets Affiliates could be deemed to be a person related to the Regulated Funds in a manner described by Section 57(b) and related to the other Regulated Funds in a manner described by Rule 17d-1; and therefore the prohibitions of Rule 17d-1 and Section 57(a)(4) would apply respectively to prohibit the Affiliated Funds and Capital Markets Affiliates from participating in Co-Investment Transactions with the Regulated Funds.
4. In passing upon applications under Rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the company's participation in the joint transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
5. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief, in many circumstances the Regulated Funds would be limited in their ability to participate in attractive and appropriate investment opportunities. Applicants state that, as required by Rule 17d-1(b), the Conditions ensure that the terms on which Co-Investment Transactions may be made will be consistent with the participation of the Regulated Funds being on a basis that it is neither different from nor less advantageous than other participants, thus protecting the equity holders of any participant from being disadvantaged. Applicants further state that the Conditions ensure that all Co-Investment Transactions are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Funds and their shareholders and do not involve overreaching by any person concerned, including the Advisers. Applicants state that the Regulated Funds' participation in the Co-Investment Transactions in accordance with the Conditions will be consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and would be done in a manner that is not different from, or less advantageous than, that of other participants.
Applicants agree that the Order will be subject to the following Conditions:
1.
(a) The Advisers will establish, maintain and implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that each Adviser is promptly
(b) When an Adviser to a Regulated Fund is notified of a Potential Co-Investment Transaction under Condition 1(a), the Adviser will make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for the Regulated Fund in light of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.
2.
(a) If the Adviser deems a Regulated Fund's participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated Fund, it will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the Regulated Fund.
(b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the Advisers to be invested in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction by the participating Regulated Funds and any participating Affiliated Funds, collectively, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, the investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on the size of the Internal Orders, as described in Section III.A.1.b. of the application. Each Adviser to a participating Regulated Fund will promptly notify and provide the Eligible Directors with information concerning the Affiliated Funds' and Regulated Funds' order sizes to assist the Eligible Directors with their review of the applicable Regulated Fund's investments for compliance with these Conditions.
(c) After making the determinations required in Condition 1(b) above, each Adviser to a participating Regulated Fund will distribute written information concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction (including the amount proposed to be invested by each participating Regulated Fund, each participating Affiliated Fund and each participating Capital Markets Affiliate) to the Eligible Directors of its participating Regulated Fund(s) for their consideration. A Regulated Fund will enter into a Co-Investment Transaction with one or more other Regulated Funds, Affiliated Fund, or Capital Markets Affiliates only if, prior to the Regulated Fund's participation in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority concludes that:
(i) The terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Fund and its equity holders and do not involve overreaching in respect of the Regulated Fund or its equity holders on the part of any person concerned;
(ii) the transaction is consistent with:
(A) The interests of the Regulated Fund's equity holders; and
(B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
(iii) the investment by any other Regulated Fund(s), Affiliated Fund(s) or Capital Markets Affiliate(s) would not disadvantage the Regulated Fund, and participation by the Regulated Fund would not be on a basis different from, or less advantageous than, that of any other Regulated Fund(s), Affiliated Fund(s) or Capital Markets Affiliate(s) participating in the transaction; provided that the Required Majority shall not be prohibited from reaching the conclusions required by this Condition 2(c)(iii) if:
(A) The settlement date for another Regulated Fund or an Affiliated Fund in a Co-Investment Transaction is later than the settlement date for the Regulated Fund by no more than ten business days or earlier than the settlement date for the Regulated Fund by no more than ten business days, in either case, so long as: (x) The date on which the commitments of the Affiliated Funds and Regulated Funds are made is the same; and (y) the earliest settlement date and the latest settlement date of any Affiliated Fund or Regulated Fund participating in the transaction will occur within ten business days of each other; or
(B) any other Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund itself, gains the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have a board observer or any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company so long as: (x) The Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the selection of such director or board observer, if any; (y) the Adviser agrees to, and does, provide periodic reports to the Regulated Fund's Board with respect to the actions of such director or the information received by such board observer or obtained through the exercise of any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company; and (z) any fees or other compensation that any other Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund or any affiliated person of any other Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund receives in connection with the right of one or more Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds to nominate a director or appoint a board observer or otherwise to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will be shared proportionately among any participating Affiliated Funds and Capital Markets Affiliates (who may, in turn, share their portion with their affiliated persons) and any participating Regulated Fund(s) in accordance with the amount of each such party's investment; and
(iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Fund will not involve compensation, remuneration or a direct or indirect
3.
4.
“Close Affiliate” means the Advisers, the Regulated Funds, the Affiliated Funds, the Capital Markets Affiliates and any other person described in Section 57(b) (after giving effect to Rule 57b-1) in respect of any Regulated Fund (treating any registered investment company or series thereof as a BDC for this purpose) except for limited partners included solely by reason of the reference in Section 57(b) to Section 2(a)(3)(D).
“Remote Affiliate” means any person described in Section 57(e) in respect of any Regulated Fund (treating any registered investment company or series thereof as a BDC for this purpose) and any limited partner holding 5% or more of the relevant limited partner interests that would be a Close Affiliate but for the exclusion in that definition.
5.
6.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to such Regulated Fund, Affiliated Fund or Carlyle Proprietary Account, or such Carlyle Broker-Dealer Subsidiary, as applicable, will notify each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer of the proposed Disposition at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to participation by such Regulated Fund in the Disposition.
(b)
(c)
(i)(A) The participation of each Regulated Fund, Affiliated Fund and Capital Markets Affiliate in such Disposition is proportionate to its then-current holding of the security (or securities) of the issuer that is (or are) the subject of the Disposition;
(ii) each security is a Tradable Security and (A) the Disposition is not to the issuer or any affiliated person of the issuer; and (B) the security is sold for cash in a transaction in which the only term negotiated by or on behalf of the participating Regulated Funds, Affiliated Funds and Capital Markets Affiliates is price.
(d)
7.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to such Regulated Fund, Affiliated Fund or Carlyle Proprietary Account, or such Carlyle Broker-Dealer Subsidiary, as applicable, will notify each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer of the proposed Disposition at the earliest practical time;
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to participation by such Regulated Fund in the Disposition; and
(iii) the Advisers will provide to the Board of each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer all information relating to the existing investments in the issuer of the Regulated Funds, Affiliated Funds and Capital Markets Affiliates, including the terms of such investments and how they were made, that is necessary for the Required Majority to make the findings required by this Condition.
(b)
(i) The Disposition complies with Conditions 2(c)(i), (ii), (iii)(A), and (iv).
(ii) the making and holding of the Pre-Boarding Investments were not prohibited by Section 57 or Rule 17d-1, as applicable, and records the basis for the finding in the Board minutes.
(c)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
8.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to each such Regulated Fund, Affiliated Fund or Carlyle Proprietary Account, or such Carlyle Broker-Dealer Subsidiary, as applicable, will notify each Regulated Fund that holds securities of the portfolio company of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed investment, by such Regulated Fund.
(b)
(i)(A) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund, each Affiliated Fund and each Capital Markets Affiliate in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer or the security at issue, as appropriate,
(ii) it is a Non-Negotiated Follow-On Investment.
(c)
(d)
(i) The amount of the opportunity proposed to be made available to any Regulated Fund is not based on the Regulated Funds', the Affiliated Funds' and the Capital Markets Affiliates' outstanding investments in the issuer or the security at issue, as appropriate, immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Advisers to be invested in the Follow-On Investment by the participating Regulated Funds and any participating Affiliated Funds and Carlyle Proprietary Accounts and the amount proposed to be invested in the Follow-On Investment by any participating Carlyle Broker-Dealer Subsidiaries, collectively, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, then the Follow-On Investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on the size of the Internal Orders, as described in Section III.A.1.b. of the application.
(e)
9.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to each such Regulated Fund, Affiliated Fund or Carlyle Proprietary Account, or such Carlyle Broker-Dealer Subsidiary, as applicable, will notify each Regulated Fund that holds securities of the portfolio company of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time;
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed investment, by such Regulated Fund; and
(iii) the Advisers will provide to the Board of each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer all information relating to the existing investments in the issuer of the Regulated Funds, Affiliated Funds and Capital Markets Affiliates, including the terms of such investments and how they were made, that is necessary for the Required Majority to make the findings required by this Condition.
(b)
(c)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(d)
(i) The amount of the opportunity proposed to be made available to any Regulated Fund is not based on the Regulated Funds', the Affiliated Funds' and the Capital Markets Affiliates' outstanding investments in the issuer or the security at issue, as appropriate, immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Advisers to be invested in the Follow-On Investment by the participating Regulated Funds and any participating Affiliated Funds and Carlyle Proprietary Accounts and the amount proposed to be invested in the Follow-On Investment by any participating Carlyle Broker-Dealer
Subsidiaries, collectively, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, then the Follow-On Investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on the size of the Internal Orders, as described in Section III.A.1.b. of the application.
(e)
10.
(a) Each Adviser to a Regulated Fund will present to the Board of each Regulated Fund, on a quarterly basis, and at such other times as the Board may request, (i) a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated Funds or any of the Affiliated Funds or Capital Markets Affiliates during the preceding quarter that fell within the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies and Board-Established Criteria that were not made available to the Regulated Fund, and an explanation of why such investment opportunities were not made available to the Regulated Fund; (ii) a record of all Follow-On Investments in and Dispositions of investments in any issuer in which the Regulated Fund holds any investments by any Affiliated Fund or Capital Markets Affiliate or other Regulated Fund during the prior quarter; and (iii) all information concerning Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including investments made by other Regulated Funds, Affiliated Funds or Capital Markets Affiliates that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that the Independent Directors, may determine whether all Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions during the preceding quarter, including those investments that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, comply with the Conditions.
(b) All information presented to the Regulated Fund's Board pursuant to this Condition will be kept for the life of the Regulated Fund and at least two years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
(c) Each Regulated Fund's chief compliance officer, as defined in Rule 38a-1(a)(4), will prepare an annual report for its Board each year that evaluates (and documents the basis of that evaluation) the Regulated Fund's compliance with the terms and Conditions of the application and the procedures established to achieve such compliance. In the case of a BDC Downstream Fund that does not have a chief compliance officer, the chief compliance officer of the BDC that controls the BDC Downstream Fund will prepare the report for the relevant Independent Party.
(d) The Independent Directors (including the non-interested members of each Independent Party) will consider at least annually whether continued participation in new and existing Co-Investment Transactions is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
I.
The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1034 (Minimum Increments)
The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed new language is underlined; deleted text is in brackets.
(a) Except as provided in sub-paragraphs (i)(B) and (iii) below, all options on stocks, index options, and Exchange Traded Fund Shares quoting in decimals at $3.00 or higher shall have a minimum increment of $.10, and all options on stocks and index options quoting in decimals under $3.00 shall have a minimum increment of $.05.
(i)(A) No Change.
(B) For a pilot period scheduled to expire
The Exchange may replace any pilot issues that have been delisted with the next most actively traded multiply listed options classes that are not yet included in the pilot, based on trading activity in the previous six months. The replacement issues may be added to the pilot on the second trading day following
(C) No Change.
(ii)-(v) No Change.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend Phlx Rule 1034 to extend the Penny Pilot through June 30, 2018 or the date of permanent approval, if earlier,
Under the Penny Pilot, the minimum price variation for all participating options classes, except for the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock (“QQQQ”), the SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded Fund (“SPY”) and the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (“IWM”), is $0.01 for all quotations in options series that are quoted at less than $3 per contract and $0.05 for all quotations in options series that are quoted at $3 per contract or greater. QQQQ, SPY and IWM are quoted in $0.01 increments for all options series. The Penny Pilot is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2017.
The Exchange proposes to extend the time period of the Penny Pilot through June 30, 2018 or the date of permanent approval, if earlier, and to provide a revised date for adding replacement
This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the Penny Pilot Program; all classes currently participating in the Penny Pilot will remain the same and all minimum increments will remain unchanged. The Exchange believes the benefits to public customers and other market participants who will be able to express their true prices to buy and sell options have been demonstrated to outweigh the potential increase in quote traffic.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny Pilot for an additional six months through June 30, 2018 or the date of permanent approval, if earlier, and changes the date for replacing Penny Pilot issues that were delisted to the second trading day following January 1, 2018, will enable public customers and other market participants to express their true prices to buy and sell options for the benefit of all market participants. This is consistent with the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, this proposal is pro-competitive because it allows Penny Pilot issues to continue trading on the Exchange.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot and a determination of how the Pilot should be structured in the future; and will serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.
The Pilot is an industry-wide initiative supported by all other option exchanges. The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot will allow for continued competition between market participants on the Exchange trading similar products as their counterparts on other exchanges, while at the same time allowing the Exchange to continue to compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as part of the Pilot.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2017-104 and should be submitted on or before January 17, 2018.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from Section 15(a) of the Act and Rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements in Rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (“Disclosure Requirements”). The requested exemption would permit an investment adviser to hire and replace certain sub-advisers without shareholder approval and grant relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to the sub-advisers. The order would supersede a prior order.
The Hartford Mutual Funds, Inc.; The Hartford Mutual Funds II, Inc.; Hartford Series Fund, Inc.; Hartford HLS Series Fund II, Inc.; Hartford Funds Exchange-Traded Trust; Hartford Funds NextShares Trust; and Hartford Funds Master Trust (collectively, the “Hartford Companies”), each either a Maryland corporation or a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, and each of HIMCO Variable Insurance Trust (“HVI Trust”) and Lattice Strategies Trust (“LS Trust”), each a Delaware statutory trust and each also registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series (together, the “Trusts” and collectively with the Hartford Companies, the “Companies”); Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC (“HFMC”), a Delaware limited liability company; Hartford Investment Management Company (“HIMCO”), a Delaware corporation; and Lattice Strategies LLC (“Lattice”), a Delaware limited liability company, each registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (each, an “Adviser” and together with the Companies, the “Applicants”).
The application was filed October 13, 2015, and amended on March 21, 2016, September 30, 2016, February 10, 2017, and November 14, 2017.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on January 15, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Walter F. Garger, Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC and Lattice Strategies LLC, 690 Lee Road, Wayne, PA 19087; and Brenda J. Page, Hartford Investment Management Company, One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, CT 06155.
Stephan N. Packs, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6853, or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number of an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. HFMC will serve as the investment adviser to the Hartford Companies, HIMCO will serve as the investment adviser to the HVI Trust, and Lattice will serve as the investment adviser to the LS Trust, pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with, respectively, the Hartford Companies, the HVI Trust,
2. Applicants request an exemption to permit the Adviser, subject to Board approval, to hire certain Sub-Advisers pursuant to Sub-Advisory Agreements and materially amend existing Sub-Advisory Agreements without obtaining the shareholder approval required under Section 15(a) of the Act and Rule 18f-2 under the Act.
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the Application. Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards, appropriate disclosure to Fund shareholders and notification about sub-advisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to protect the interests of the Funds' shareholders.
4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants believe that the requested relief meets this standard because, as further explained in the Application, the Advisory Agreements will remain subject to shareholder approval, while the role of the Sub-Advisers is substantially similar to that of individual portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder approval of Sub-Advisory Agreements would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on the Funds. Applicants believe that the requested relief from the Disclosure Requirements meets this standard because it will improve the Adviser's ability to negotiate fees paid to the Sub-Advisers that are more advantageous for the Funds.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
This advance notice is filed in connection with proposed changes to OCC's margin methodology to move away from the existing monthly data source provided by its current vendor and towards obtaining and incorporating daily price and returns (adjusted for any corporate actions) data of securities to estimate accurate margins.
The proposed changes to OCC's Margins Methodology document are contained in confidential Exhibit 5 of the filing. The proposed changes are described in detail in Item III below. The proposed changes do not require any changes to the text of OCC's By-Laws or Rules. All terms with initial capitalization that are not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A and B below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received. OCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by OCC.
OCC's margin methodology, the System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations (“STANS”), is OCC's proprietary risk management system that calculates Clearing Member margin requirements.
A “risk factor” within OCC's margin system may be defined as a product or attribute whose historical data is used to estimate and simulate the risk for an associated product. The majority of risk factors utilized in the STANS methodology are total returns on individual equity securities. Other risk factors considered include: Returns on equity indexes; returns on implied volatility
Under OCC's current margin methodology, OCC obtains monthly price data for most of its equity-based products
In risk management, it is a common practice to establish a floor for volatility at a certain level in order to protect against procyclicality
OCC's current methodology for estimating covariance and correlations between risk factors relies on the same monthly data described above, resulting in a similar lag time between updates. In addition, correlation estimates are based off historical returns series, with estimates between a pair of risk factors being highly sensitive to the volatility of either risk factor in the chosen pair. The current approach therefore results in potentially less stable correlation estimates that may not be representative of current market conditions.
Finally, under OCC's existing margin methodology, theoretical price scenarios for “defaulting securities”
OCC proposes to modify its margin methodology by: (1) Obtaining daily price data for equity products (including daily corporate action-adjusted returns of equities where price and thus returns of securities are adjusted for any dividends issued, stock splits, etc.) for use in the daily estimation of econometric model parameters; (2) enhancing its econometric model for updating statistical parameters (
The purpose of the proposed changes is to enhance OCC's margin methodology to mitigate the issues described above that arise from the current monthly update and scale factor approach. Specifically, by introducing daily (as opposed to monthly) updates for price data (and thereby allowing for daily updates of statistical parameters in the model) and making other proposed model enhancements described herein, the proposed changes are designed to result in more accurate and responsive margin requirements and a model that is more stable and proactive during times of market volatility, with margins that are based off of the most recent market data. In addition, the proposed changes are intended to improve OCC's approach to estimating covariance and correlations between risk factors in an effort to achieve more stable and sensitive correlation estimations and improve OCC's methodology related to the treatment of defaulting securities by reducing the impact that illiquid securities with discontinuous data have on default variance estimates.
The proposed changes are described in further detail below.
OCC proposes to introduce daily updates for price data for equity products, including daily corporate action-adjusted returns of equities, Exchange Traded Funds (“ETFs”), Exchange Traded Notes (“ETNs”) and certain indexes. The daily price data would be obtained from a widely used external vendor, as is the case with the current monthly updates. The purpose of the proposed change is to ensure that OCC's margin methodology is reliant on data that is more representative of current market conditions, thereby resulting in more accurate and responsive margin requirements.
As described above, OCC currently obtains price data for all securities on a monthly basis from a third party vendor. After obtaining the monthly price data, additional time is required for OCC to process the data prior to installing into OCC's margin system. As a result, correlations and statistical parameters for risk factors at any point in time represent back-dated data and therefore may not be representative of the most recent market data. To mitigate pro-cyclicality within its margin methodology in the absence of daily updates, OCC employs the use of scale-factors to incorporate day-to-day market volatility across all associated asset classes. While the scale factors help to reduce procyclicality in the model, the scale factors do not necessarily capture the idiosyncratic risks of a given security, which may be different from the broad market risk represented by the scale factor.
OCC proposes to address these issues associated with its current margin methodology by eliminating its dependency on monthly price data, which arrives in arrears and requires additional time for OCC to process prior to installing into OCC's margin system, through the introduction of daily updates for price data for equity products. The introduction of daily price updates would enable OCC's margin methodology to better capture both market as well idiosyncratic risk by allowing for daily updates to the parameters associated with of the econometric model (discussed below) that capture the risk associated with a particular product, and therefore ensure that OCC's margin requirements are based on more current market conditions. As a result, OCC would also reduce its reliance on the use of scale factors to incorporate day-to-day market volatility, which, as noted above, give little room to capture the idiosyncratic risk of a given security and which may be different from the broad market risk represented by the scale factor. In addition, the processing time between receipt of the data and installation into the margin system would be reduced as the data review and processing for daily prices would be incorporated into OCC's daily price editing process.
In addition to introducing daily updates for price and corporate action-adjusted returns data, OCC is proposing enhancements to its econometric model for calculating statistical parameters for all qualifying risk factors that reflect the most recent data obtained (
These proposed model enhancements are described in detail below.
Under the proposal, the statistical parameters for the model would be updated on a daily basis using the new daily price data obtained by OCC (as described in section 1 above).
In addition to the daily update of statistical parameters, OCC proposes to include new features in its econometric model that are designed to take into account asymmetry in the conditional variance process. The econometric model currently used in STANS for all
OCC further proposes to change the statistical distribution used to model the returns of equity prices. OCC's current methodology uses a fat tailed distribution
OCC also proposes to introduce a second-day forecast for volatility into the model to estimate the two-day scenario distributions for risk factors.
Additionally, OCC proposes to modify its floor for volatility estimates. OCC currently imposes a floor on volatility estimates for its equity-based products using a 500-day look back period. OCC proposes to extend this look back period to 10-years (2520 days) in the enhanced model and to apply this floor to volatility estimates for other products (excluding implied volatility risk factor scenarios). The proposed model described herein is calibrated from historical data, and as a result, the level of the volatilities generated by the model will vary from time to time. OCC is therefore proposing to establish a volatility floor for the model using a 10-year look back period to reduce the risk of procyclicality in its margin model. OCC believes that using a longer 10-year look back period will ensure that OCC captures sufficient historical events/market shocks in the calculation of its anti-procyclical floor. The 10-year look back period also is in line with requirements of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (including regulations thereunder)
As described above, OCC's current methodology for estimating covariance and correlations between risk factors relies on the same monthly price data feeding the econometric model, resulting in a similar lag time between updates. In addition, correlation estimates are based off historical returns series, with estimates between a pair of risk factors being highly sensitive to the volatility of either risk factors in the chosen pair. The current approach therefore results in correlation estimates being sensitive to volatile historical data.
In order to address these limitations, OCC proposes to enhance its methodology for calculating correlation estimates by moving to a daily process for updating correlations (with a minimum of one week's lag) to ensure Clearing Member account margins are more current and thus more accurate. Moreover, OCC proposes to enhance its approach to modeling correlation estimates by de-volatizing
Finally, OCC proposes to enhance its methodology for estimating the defaulting variance in its model. OCC's margin system is dependent on market
OCC proposes that only optionable equity securities, which are typically more liquid, be considered while estimating the default variance. This limitation would eliminate from the estimation almost all illiquid securities with discontinuous data that could contribute to high conditional variance estimates and thus a high default variance. In addition, OCC proposes to estimate the default variance as the lowest estimate of the top 10% of the floored conditional variance across the risk factors. This change in methodology is designed to ensure that while the estimate is aggressive it is also robust to the presence of outliers caused by a few extremely volatile securities that influence the location parameter of a distribution. Moreover, as a consequence of the daily updates described above, the default variances would change daily and there would be no scale factor to amplify the effect of the variance on risk factor coverage.
In addition, OCC proposes to use a shorter time series to enable calibration of the model for all securities. Currently, OCC does not calibrate parameters for defaulting securities that have historical data of less than two years. OCC is proposing to shorten this time period to around 6 months (180 days) to enable calibration of the model for all securities within OCC systems. OCC believes that this shorter time series is sufficient to produce stable calibrated parameters.
Finally, OCC proposes that returns scenarios for defaulting securities, securities with insufficient historical data, be simulated using a default correlation with the driver RUT.
OCC believes that the proposed changes would reduce the nature and level of risk presented by OCC because they would result in a margin methodology that is more accurate, responsive, stable, and robust, thereby reducing risks to OCC, its Clearing Members, and the markets it serves.
As noted above, OCC's current margin methodology relies on monthly price data being obtained from a third party vendor. This data arrives monthly in arrears and requires additional time for OCC to process the data prior to installing into OCC's margin system. As a result, correlations and statistical parameters for risk factors at any point in time represent back-dated data and therefore may not be representative of the most recent market data. To mitigate procyclicality within its margin methodology in the absence of daily updates, OCC employs a scale factor approach to incorporate day-to-day market volatility across all associated asset classes throughout.
OCC proposes to enhance its margin methodology to introduce daily updates for equity price data, thereby allowing for daily updates of statistical parameters in its margin model for most risk factors. In addition, the proposed changes would introduce features to the model to better account for the asymmetric volatility phenomenon observed in financial markets and allow for conditional volatility forecast to be more sensitive to market downturns. The proposed changes would also introduce a new statistical distribution for modeling equity price returns that OCC believes would have a better goodness of fit and would more appropriately account for fat tails. Moreover, the proposed changes would introduce a second-day volatility forecast into the model to provide for more accurate and timely estimations of its two-day scenario distributions. OCC also proposes to enhance its econometric model by establishing a volatility floor using a 10-year look back period to reduce procyclicality in the margin model. OCC believes the proposed changes would result in more accurate and responsive margin requirements and a model that is more stable and proactive during times of market volatility, with risk charges that are based off of most recent market data.
In addition, the proposed changes are intended to improve OCC's approach to estimating covariance and correlations between risk factors in an effort to achieve more stable and sensitive correlation estimations and improve OCC's methodology related to the treatment of defaulting securities by reducing the impact that illiquid securities with discontinuous data have on default variance estimates.
The proposed methodology changes would be used by OCC to calculate margin requirements designed to limit its credit exposures to participants, and OCC uses the margin it collects from a defaulting Clearing Member to protect other Clearing Members from losses that may result from such a default. As a result, OCC believes the proposed changes would result in the reduction of risk for OCC, its Clearing Members, and the markets it serves.
OCC has discussed the proposed changes with its Financial Risk
The stated purpose of the Clearing Supervision Act is to mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.
• Promote robust risk management;
• promote safety and soundness;
• reduce systemic risks; and
• support the stability of the broader financial system.
The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act and the Act, which include Commission Rules 17Ad-22(b)(1), (b)(2) and (e)(6).
Rules 17Ad-22(b)(1) and (2)
As noted above, the proposed changes would introduce the use of daily price updates into OCC's margin methodology, which allows for daily updates to the statistical parameters in the model (
OCC would use the risk-based model enhancements described herein to measure its credit exposures to its participants on a daily basis and determine margin requirements based on such calculations. The proposed enhancements concerning daily price updates, daily updates of statistical parameters, and to more appropriately account for asymmetry in conditional variance would result in more accurate and responsive margin requirements and a model that is more stable and proactive during times of market volatility, with margin charges that are based off of the most recent market data. In addition, the proposed modifications to extend the look back period for determining volatility estimates for equity-based products from 500 days to 10 years will help to ensure that OCC captures sufficient historical events/market shocks in the calculation of its anti-procyclical floor. Additionally, the proposed changes would enhance OCC's margin methodology for calculating correlation estimates by moving to a daily process for updating correlations (with a minimum of one week's lag) so that Clearing Member account margins are more current and thus more accurate and using de-volatized returns to normalize returns across a variety of asset classes and make the correlation estimator less sensitive to sudden market jumps and therefore more stable. Finally, the proposed changes to OCC's methodology for the treatment of defaulting securities is designed to result in stable and realistic risk estimates for such securities The proposed changes are therefore designed to ensure that OCC sets margin requirements, using risk-based models and parameters, that would serve to limit OCC's exposures to potential losses from defaults by its participants under normal market conditions so that the operations of OCC would not be disrupted and non-defaulting participants would not be exposed to losses that they cannot anticipate or control. Accordingly, OCC believes the proposed changes are consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(b)(1) and (2).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)
As described in detail above, the proposed changes are designed to ensure that, among other things, OCC's margin methodology: (i) More appropriately accounts for asymmetry in conditional variance; (ii) more appropriately models the statistical distribution of price returns, (iii) more accurately models second-day volatility forecasts; (iv) improves OCC's approach to estimating covariance and correlations between risk factors to provide for stable and sensitive correlation estimations; and (v) improves OCC's methodology related to the treatment of defaulting securities by reducing the impact that illiquid securities with discontinuous data have on default variance estimates. These methodology enhancements would be used to calculate daily margin requirements for OCC's Clearing Members. In this way, the proposed changes are designed to consider, and produce margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market and to calculate margin sufficient to cover its potential future exposure to participants in the interval between the last margin collection and the close out of positions following a participant default.
Moreover, the proposed changes would introduce daily updates for price data for equity products, including daily corporate action-adjusted returns of equities, ETFs, ETNs, and certain indexes. This daily price data would be obtained from a widely used and reliable industry vendor. In this way, the proposed changes would ensure that OCC uses reliable sources of timely price data in its margin methodology, which better reflect current market conditions than the current monthly updates, thereby resulting in more accurate and responsive margin requirements.
For these reasons, OCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad 22(e)(6).
The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of: (i) The date the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date any additional information requested by the Commission is received. OCC shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60 days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60 days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission.
OCC shall post notice on its website of proposed changes that are implemented.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the advance notice is consistent with the Clearing Supervision 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.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2017-811 and should be submitted on or before January 17, 2018.
By the Commission.
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a New Matching Program.
In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces a new matching program with the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB).
The deadline to submit comments on the proposed matching
Interested parties may comment on this notice by either telefaxing to (410) 966-0869, writing to Mary Ann Zimmerman, Acting Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, 617 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, or email at
Interested parties may submit general questions about the matching program to Mary Ann Zimmerman, Acting Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, by any of the means shown above.
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the conditions under which computer matching involving the Federal government could be performed and adding certain protections for persons applying for, and receiving, Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such persons.
The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
(1) Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2) Obtain approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards of the participating Federal agencies;
(3) Publish notice of the matching program in the
(4) Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(5) Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and
(6) Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying a person's benefits or payments.
SSA has taken action to ensure that all of its matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended.
SSA and RRB
The legal authority for SSA to conduct this matching activity is sections 1144 and 1860D-14 of the Social Security Act (Act) (42 U.S.C. 1320b-14 and 1395w-114).
This matching agreement establishes the conditions under which the RRB will disclose to SSA information necessary to verify an individual's self-certification of eligibility for the Extra Help with Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Costs program (Extra Help). It will also enable SSA to identify individuals who may qualify for Extra Help as part of the agency's Medicare outreach efforts.
The individuals whose information is involved in this matching program are individuals who self-certify for Extra Help or may qualify for Extra Help. SSA matches RRB's information with its Medicare Database File, which includes claimants, applicants, beneficiaries, ineligible spouses and potential claimants for Medicare Part A, Medicare Part B, Medicare Advantage Part C, Medicare Part D and for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage subsidies.
RRB will transmit its annuity payment data monthly from its RRB-22 system of records. The file will consist of approximately 600,000 electronic records.
RRB will transmit its Post Entitlement System file daily. The number of records will differ each day, but consist of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 records each month.
RRB will transmit files on all Medicare eligible Qualified Railroad Retirement Beneficiaries from its RRB-20 and RRB-22 systems of records to report address changes and subsidy changing event information monthly. The file will consist of approximately 520,000 electronic records. The number of people who apply for Extra Help determines in part the number of records matched.
SSA's comparison file will consist of approximately 90 million records obtained from MDB.
SSA will conduct the match using each individual's Social Security number, name, date of birth, RRB claim number, and RRB annuity payment amount in both RRB and MDB files.
RRB will provide SSA with data from its RRB-22 system of records,
SSA will match RRB's data with its Medicare Database (MDB) File, system of records No. 60-0321, published on July 25, 2006 (71 FR 42159), and amended on December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69723).
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that two objects to be included in the exhibition “Jasper Johns: `Something Resembling Truth,' ” 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 Broad, Los Angeles, California, from on or about February 10, 2018, until on or about May 13, 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
On November 22, 2017, New Orleans Public Belt Railroad Corporation (NOPB Corp.),
NOPB Corp. describes the lines and trackage rights it seeks to acquire as follows:
1. The Public Belt main line from the connection with BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) at milepost J8.3 at West Bridge Junction in Avondale, La. to milepost J1.1 at Southport Junction in Jefferson, La. and from milepost J0.3 at Lampert Junction in Jefferson to milepost J0.0 at the Jefferson/Orleans Parish, La. border, a total distance of approximately 7.5 miles in two sections connected by the overhead trackage rights described in Segment #6 below. The West Belt Junction-Southport Junction section of this Segment #1 includes the Huey P. Long Bridge.
2. The Public Belt main line from a milepost equation at the Jefferson/Orleans Parish border where milepost J0.0 = milepost 0.26 to the connection with CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) at milepost 14.2 at Almonaster in New Orleans, a distance of approximately 13.94 miles.
3. The Burma West Lead in New Orleans from milepost 14.2 at Almonaster to the end of track at milepost 15.3, a distance of approximately 1.1 miles.
4. The Burma East Lead in New Orleans from the connection with CSXT at milepost 14.4 east of the Industrial Canal to the end of track at milepost 16.3, a distance of approximately 1.9 miles.
5. The Bulk Terminal Lead in New Orleans from the connection with CSXT at milepost G0.0 east of the Industrial Canal to milepost G1.5, a distance of approximately 1.5 miles.
6. Overhead trackage rights on Illinois Central Railroad Company (IC) from IC milepost 449.9 at East Bridge Junction in Shrewsbury, La. through Southport Junction (Public Belt milepost J1.1) to IC milepost 921.14 at Lampert Junction (Public Belt milepost J0.3), a distance of approximately 2.6 miles.
7. Overhead trackage rights on IC from IC Station 120+0.00 (Public Belt milepost 3.4) at Nashville Avenue to IC Station 175+68.09 (Public Belt milepost 4.4) at Valence Street in New Orleans, including the connection to the NOPB locomotive maintenance facility lead track at IC Station 163+80.0 (Public Belt milepost 4.2) near Upperline Street, a distance of approximately 1.05 miles.
8. Overhead trackage rights on CSXT from the connection with Segment #2 at CSXT milepost 801.5 at Almonaster in New Orleans across the Port-owned Industrial Canal bridge to the connections with Segments #4 and #5 at CSXT milepost 801.2 in New Orleans, a distance of approximately 0.3 miles.
9. Temporary overhead trackage rights on IC from IC milepost 906.4 at East Bridge Junction in Shrewsbury to IC Milepost 900.8 at Orleans Junction in New Orleans and from IC milepost 444.2 at Orleans Junction to IC milepost 443.5 at Frellsen Junction in New Orleans, a distance of approximately 6.3 miles.
NOPB Corp. will also acquire Public Belt's ownership or operating interests in all yard, industry, wharf, and lead tracks associated with the above line segments, including the Southern Recycling Lead, East Bridge Yard, Pacific Fruit Express Yard, Cotton Warehouse Yard, Race Yard, French Market Station, Pauline Yard, Claiborne Yard, France Yard, North Bulk Terminal Yard, and South Bulk Terminal Yard. Upon completion of the transaction, NOPB Corp. will be a Class III switching and terminal railroad and will continue to provide local and intermediate switching service in place of Public Belt.
NOPB Corp. certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier.
The transaction may be consummated on or after January 17, 2018, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36149, 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 Thomas J. Litwiler, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Dr., Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606-2832.
According to NOPB Corp., this action is excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b)(1).
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments and notice of public hearing.
Each year, the Office of the United States Trade Representative conducts a Special 301 review to identify countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. Based on this review, the United States Trade Representative (Trade Representative) determines which, if any, of these countries to identify as Priority Foreign Countries. USTR requests written comments that identify acts, policies, or practices that may form the basis of a country's identification as a Priority Foreign Country or placement on the Priority Watch List or Watch List. USTR also requests notices of intent to appear at the public hearing.
USTR strongly encourages electronic submissions made through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Sung Chang, Director for Innovation and Intellectual Property, at 202-395-7548 or
Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 2242), commonly known as the “Special 301” provisions, requires the Trade Representative to identify countries that deny adequate and effective IPR protections or fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. The Trade Act requires the Trade Representative to determine which, if any, of these countries to identify as Priority Foreign Countries. Acts, policies or practices that are the basis of a country's identification as a Priority Foreign Country can be subject to the procedures set out in sections 301-305 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2411-2415),
In addition, USTR has created a “Priority Watch List” and “Watch List” to assist the Administration in pursuing the goals of the Special 301 provisions Placement of a trading partner on the Priority Watch List or Watch List indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement or market access for persons that rely on intellectual property protection. Trading partners placed on the Priority Watch List are the focus of increased bilateral attention concerning the problem areas.
USTR chairs the Special 301 Subcommittee (Subcommittee) of the Trade Policy Staff Committee. The Subcommittee reviews information from many sources, and consults with and makes recommendations to the Trade Representative on issues arising under Special 301. Written submissions from the public are a key source of information for the Special 301 review process. In 2018, USTR will conduct a public hearing as part of the review process and will allow hearing participants to provide additional information relevant to the review. At the conclusion of the process, USTR will publish the results of the review in a Special 301 Report.
USTR requests that interested persons identify through the process outlined in this notice those countries whose acts, policies, or practices deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection.
Section 182 also requires the Trade Representative to identify any act, policy or practice of Canada that affects cultural industries, was adopted or expanded after December 17, 1992, and is actionable under Article 2106 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). USTR invites the public to submit views relevant to this aspect of the review.
Section 182 requires the Trade Representative to identify all such acts, policies, or practices within 30 days of the publication of the NTE Report. In accordance with this statutory requirement, USTR will publish the annual Special 301 Report on or about April 30, 2018.
To facilitate the review, written comments should be as detailed as possible and provide all necessary information to identify and assess the
The Special 301 Subcommittee will convene a public hearing on February 27, 2018, in Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F Street NW, Washington, DC, at which interested persons, including representatives of foreign governments, may appear to provide oral testimony. If necessary, the hearing may continue on the next business day. Because the hearing will take place in Federal facilities, attendees must show photo identification and will be screened for security purposes. Please consult
Notices of intent to testify and hearing statements from the public are due on February 8, 2017, and from foreign governments on February 22, 2018. The submissions must be in English and should include: (1) The name, address, telephone number, fax number, email address, and firm or affiliation of the individual wishing to testify, and (2) a hearing statement that is relevant to the Special 301 review.
All submissions must be in English and sent electronically via
USTR requests that you provide comments in an attached document, and that you name the file according to the following protocol, as appropriate: Commenter Name, or Organization_2018 Special 301_Review_Comment, or Notice of Intent to Testify or Hearing Testimony. Please include the following information in the “Type Comment” field: “2018 Special 301 Review” and whether the submission is a comment, a request to testify at the hearing, or hearing testimony. Please submit documents prepared in (or compatible with) Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) formats. If you prepare the submission in a compatible format, please indicate the name of the relevant software application in the “Type Comment” field. For further information on using the
Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the comment itself, rather than submitting them as separate files.
For any comments submitted electronically that contains business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is business confidential. A filer requesting business confidential treatment must certify that the information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Additionally, the submitter should type “Business Confidential” in the “Type Comment” field.
Filers of comments containing business confidential information also must submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. Filers submitting comments containing no business confidential information should name their file using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. The non-business confidential version will be placed in the docket at
As noted, USTR strongly urges commenters to submit comments through
USTR will place comments in the docket and they will be open to public inspection, except business confidential information. You can view comments on the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Fifty Fourth RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Fifty Fourth RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary.
The meeting will be held January 25, 2018 10 a.m.-1 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Karan Hofmann at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Fifty Fourth RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
2. Review/Approve Previous Meeting Summary
3. Report on TSA Participation
4. Report on Document Distribution Mechanisms
5. Report on the New Guidelines and Other Safe Skies Reports
6. Discussion on DO-230I
7. Action Items for Next Meeting
8. Time and Place of Next Meeting
9. Any Other Business
10. Adjourn
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.
Notice and request for nominations.
FinCEN is inviting the public to nominate financial institutions, trade groups, and non-federal regulators or law enforcement agencies for membership on the Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group. New members will be selected for three-year membership terms.
Nominations must be received by January 26, 2018.
Nominations must be emailed to
FinCEN Resource Center at 800-767-2825.
The Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act of 1992 required the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group (BSAAG) consisting of representatives from federal regulatory and law enforcement agencies, financial institutions, and trade groups with members subject to the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 CFR 1000-1099
BSAAG membership is open to financial institutions, trade groups, and non-federal regulators and law enforcement agencies. Membership is granted to organizations, not to individuals. Organizational members will be selected to serve a three-year term and must designate one individual to represent that member at plenary meetings. The designated representative should be knowledgeable about Bank Secrecy Act requirements and must be able and willing to make the necessary time commitment to participate on committees throughout the year by phone and attend biannual plenary meetings held in Washington, DC in May and October.
It is important to provide complete answers to the following items, as nominations will be evaluated on the information provided through this application process. There is no formal application; interested organizations may submit their nominations via email or email attachment. Nominations should consist of:
Organizations may nominate themselves, but nominations for individuals who are not representing an organization will not be considered. Members will not be remunerated for their time, services, or travel. In making the selections, FinCEN will seek to complement current BSAAG members in terms of affiliation, industry, and geographic representation. The Director of FinCEN retains full discretion on all membership decisions. The Director may consider prior years' applications when making selections and does not limit consideration to institutions nominated by the public when making selections.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Subscription for Purchase and Issue of U.S. Treasury Securities, State and Local Government Series.
Written comments should be received on or before February 26, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for additional information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street, Room 4006-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On December 20, 2017, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before January 26, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Quintana by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before January 26, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Quintana by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule: request for comments
NMFS has received a request from the United States Air Force (USAF), 96th Civil Engineer Group/Environmental Planning Office (96 CEG/CEIEA) at Eglin Air Force Base (hereafter referred to as Eglin AFB) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting testing and training activities in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR) in the Gulf of Mexico over the course of five years, from February 4, 2018 to February 3, 2023. Pursuant to regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is proposing regulations to govern that take, and requests comments on the proposed regulations.
Comments and information must be received no later than January 26, 2018.
You may submit comments on this document by either of the following methods:
•
•
Robert Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8408. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
This proposed rule, to be issued under the authority of the MMPA, would establish a framework for authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to military aircraft testing and training activities at EGTTR. We received an application from Eglin AFB requesting 5-year regulations and authorization for the take by Level A and Level B harassment of two marine mammal species. The regulations would be valid from February 4, 2018, through February 3, 2023. Please see
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region for up to five years if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings and issues regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking pursuant to that activity, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I provide the legal basis for issuing this proposed rule containing five-year regulations, and for any subsequent Letters of Authorization (LOA) issued pursuant to those regulations. As directed by this legal authority, this proposed rule contains mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Section 319, Public Law 108-136, November 24, 2003) (NDAA of 2004) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations and amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(B)): (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment).
Following is a summary of some of the major provisions in this proposed rule for Eglin AFB's proposed EGTTR activities. We have preliminarily determined that Eglin AFB's adherence to the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures listed below would achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammals. They include:
• Monitoring will be conducted by personnel who have completed Eglin's Marine Species Observer Training Course, which was developed in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service;
• For each live mission, at a minimum, pre- and post-mission monitoring will be required. Monitoring will be conducted from a given platform depending on the specific mission. The purposes of pre-mission monitoring are to (1) evaluate the mission site for environmental suitability and (2) verify that the zone of influence (ZOI) is free of visually detectable marine mammals and potential marine mammal indicators. Post-mission monitoring is designed to determine the effectiveness of pre-mission mitigation by reporting sightings of any dead or injured marine mammals;
• Mission delay will be implemented during live ordnance mission activities if protected species, large schools of fish, or large flocks of birds are observed feeding at the surface within the ZOI. Mission activities may not resume until
• Mission delay will be implemented if daytime weather and/or sea conditions preclude adequate monitoring for detecting marine mammals and other marine life. EGTTR missions may not resume until adequate sea conditions exist for monitoring;
• If unauthorized takes of marine mammals (
• Use of aerial-based monitoring which provides an excellent viewing platform for detection of marine mammals at or near the surface;
• Use of video-based monitoring via live high-definition video feed. Video monitoring typically facilitates data collection for the mission but can also allow remote viewing of the area for determination of environmental conditions and the presence of marine species up to the release time of live munitions;
• Use of vessel-based monitoring; and
• Ramp-up procedures for gunnery operations.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
The U.S. Air Force developed an EA in 2015 titled
On September 16, 2015, NMFS received a request for regulations from Eglin AFB for the taking of marine mammals incidental to testing and training activities in the EGTTR (defined as the area and airspace over the Gulf of Mexico controlled by Eglin AFB, beginning at a point three nautical miles (NM) off the coast of Florida) for a period of five years. Eglin AFB worked with NMFS to revise the model used to calculate take estimates and submitted a revised application on April 15, 2017.
On August 24, 2017, we published a notice of receipt of Eglin AFB's application in the
Eglin AFB proposes taking marine mammals incidental to EGTTR activities by Level A and Level B harassment of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (
Eglin AFB proposes to conduct military aircraft missions within the EGTTR that involve the employment of multiple types of live (explosive) and inert (non-explosive) munitions against various surface targets. Munitions may be delivered by multiple types of aircraft including, but not limited to, fighter jets, bombers, and gunships. Munitions consist of bombs, missiles, rockets, and gunnery rounds. The targets may vary, but primarily consist of stationary, towed, or remotely controlled boats, inflatable targets, or marking flares. Detonations may occur in the air, at the water surface, or approximately 10 feet (ft) below the surface. Mission activities proposed in the EGTTR have the potential to expose cetaceans to sound or pressure levels
Testing and training missions would be conducted during any time of the year. Missions that involve inert munitions and in-air detonations may occur anywhere in the EGTTR. Aside from gunnery operations, mission activities that release live ordnance resulting in surface or subsurface detonations would be conducted at a pre-determined location approximately 17 miles offshore of Santa Rosa Island, in a water depth of about 35 meters (m) (115 ft).
Due to the total number and variability in types of air-to-surface test and training missions included in this LOA request, missions may occur during any season or month. Missions involving the use of live bombs, missiles, and rockets will occur during daylight hours. However, some activities, such as gunnery training, may occur during day or night. Missions are typically conducted on weekdays, with multiple weapons releases typically occurring per day. The LOA would be valid from February 4, 2018 through February 3, 2023.
All activities will take place within the EGTTR, which is defined as the airspace over the Gulf of Mexico controlled by Eglin AFB, beginning at a point 3 NM from shore. This airspace is controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration, but scheduled by Eglin AFB. The EGTTR is subdivided into blocks consisting of Warning Areas W-155, W-151, W-470, W-168, and W-174, as well as Eglin Water Test Areas 1 through 6 (See Figure 1-2 in Application). Most of the blocks are further sub-divided into smaller airspace units for scheduling purposes (for example, W-151A, B, C, and D). Warning Area W-155 is controlled by the U.S. Navy but is used occasionally to support missions scheduled through Eglin. Over 102,000 square nautical miles (nmi
The inshore and offshore boundaries of W-151 are roughly parallel to the shoreline contour. The shoreward boundary is 3 nmi from shore, while the seaward boundary extends approximately 85 to 100 nmi offshore, depending on the specific location. W-151 covers a surface area of approximately 10,247 nmi
W-151A, which occurs directly south of Eglin AFB, extends approximately 60 nmi offshore and has a surface area of 2,565 nmi
Eglin AFB proposes to conduct the following actions in the EGTTR: (1) 86th Fighter Weapons Squadron (86 FWS) Maritime Weapons System Evaluation Program (WSEP) test missions that involve the use of multiple types of live and inert munitions (bombs and missiles) detonated above, at, or slightly below the water surface; (2) Advanced Systems Employment Project actions that involve deployment of a variety of pods, air-to-air missiles, bombs, and other munitions (all inert ordnances in relation to EGTTR); (3) Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) training, including air-to-surface gunnery missions involving firing live gunnery rounds at targets on the water surface in EGTTR, small diameter bomb (SDB) and Griffin/Hellfire missile training involving the use of live missiles and SDBs in the EGTTR against small towed boats, and CV-22 tiltrotor aircraft training involving the firing of 0.50 caliber (cal.)/7.62 mm ammunition at flares floating on the EGTTR water surface; (4) 413th Flight Test Squadron (FLTS) Precision Strike Program (PSP) activities involving firing munitions at flare targets on the EGTTR water surface and Stand-Off Precision Guided Munitions (SOPGM) testing involving captive-carry, store separation, and weapon employment tests; (5) 780th Test Squadron (TS) activities involving precision strike weapon (PSW) test missions (launch of munitions against targets in the EGTTR) and Longbow Littoral Testing (data collection on tracking and impact ability of the Longbow missile on small boats); (6) 96th Test Wing Inert Missions (developmental testing and evaluation for wide variety of air-delivered weapons and other systems using inert bombs); and (7) 96 Operations Group (OG) missions, which involve the support of air-to-surface missions for several user groups within EGTTR.
During these activities, ordnances may be delivered by multiple types of aircraft, including bombers and fighter aircraft. The actions include air-to-ground missiles (AGM); air intercept missiles (AIM); bomb dummy units (BDU); guided bomb units (GBU); projectile gun units (PGU); cluster bomb units (CBU); wind-corrected munitions dispensers (WCMD); small-diameter bombs (SDB) and laser small diameter bombs (LSDB); high explosive incendiary units (HEI); joint direct attack munitions (JDAM) and laser joint direct attack munitions (LJDAM); research department explosives (RDX); joint air-to-surface stand-off missiles (JASSM); high altitude anti-submarine warfare weapons (inert); high-speed maneuverable surface targets; and gunnery rounds. Net explosive weight (NEW) of the live munitions ranges from 0.1 to 945 pounds (lb).
The EGTTR testing and training missions are classified as military readiness activities and involve the firing or dropping of air-to-surface weapons. Depending on the requirements of a given mission, munitions may be inert (contain no or very little explosive charges) or live (contain explosive charges). Live munitions may detonate above, at, or slightly below the water surface. In most cases, missions consisting of live bombs, missiles, and rockets that detonate at or below the water surface will occur at a site in W-151A that has been designated specifically for these types of activities. Typically, test data collection is conducted from an instrumentation barge known as the Gulf Range Armament Test Vessel (GRATV) anchored on-site, which provides a platform for cameras and weapon-tracking equipment. Therefore, the mission area is referred to as the GRATV target location. Alternative site locations may be selected, if necessary, within a 5-mile radius around the GRATV point. Missions that involve inert munitions and in-air detonations may occur anywhere in the EGTTR but are typically conducted in W-151.
For this LOA request, descriptions of mission activities that involve in-water detonations include a section called Mission-Day Categorization. This subsection describes the mission-day scenario used for acoustic modeling and is based on the estimated number of weapons released per day. This
Note that additional testing and training activities are planned for the EGTTR that will not result in any acoustic impacts to marine mammals and, therefore, not require any acoustic analyses. Examples include the firing of 0.50 caliber and 7.62 gunnery rounds that do not contain explosives, use of airburst-only detonations, and operations involving simulated weapons delivery. Those activities are described in detail in the Application but are not discussed here.
The 86 FWS would continue to use multiple types of live and inert munitions in the EGTTR against small boat targets for the Maritime WSEP Operational Testing Program. The purpose of the testing is to continue the development of tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) for USAF strike aircraft to counter small maneuvering surface vessels in order to better protect vessels or other assets from small boat threats. Damage effects of these munitions must be known to generate TTPs to engage small moving boats. The test objectives are to (1) develop TTPs to engage small boats in all weather and (2) determine the impact of TTPs on Combat Air Force training. The test results would be used to develop publishable TTPs for inclusion in Air Force TTP 3-1 series manuals. Maritime WSEP testing is considered a high national defense priority. Incidental Harassment Authorizations have been issued for 2015 (80 FR 17394, April 1, 2015), 2016 (81 FR 7307, February 11, 2016) and 2017 (82 FR 10747, February 15, 2017) Maritime WSEP activities, but these activities will now be part of this new rulemaking to avoid annual IHAs.
Proposed aircraft and munitions associated with Maritime WSEP activities are shown in Table 1. Because the focus of the tests would be weapon/target interaction, no particular aircraft would be specified for a given test as long as it met the delivery requirements. Various USAF active duty units, National Guard, Navy, and USAF reserve units would participate as interceptors and weapons release aircrews, with multiple types of aircraft typically operating within the same airspace.
Tests would be conducted at the GRATV target location in various sea states and weather conditions, up to a wave height of 4 ft. Live munitions would be deployed against static (anchored), towed, and remotely controlled boat targets. Static and controlled targets would consist of stripped boat hulls with plywood simulated systems and, in some cases, heat sources. Moving targets would be towed by remotely controlled High Speed Maneuverable Surface Target (HSMST) boats. Damaged boats would be recovered for data collection. Test data collection would be conducted from the GRATV. HSMST boats would be remotely controlled from a facility on Eglin main base and would follow set track lines with specific waypoints at least 2 to 3 nautical miles (NM) away from the GRATV. Additional air assets such as chase aircraft or unmanned aerial vehicles would transit to the target area and set up flight orbits to provide aerial video of the mission site including weapon impacts on boat targets and assisting with range clearing activities. Missions would be controlled and monitored from the Eglin Central Control Facility (CCF) on the main base.
Live munitions would be set to detonate either in the air, instantaneously upon contact with a target boat, or after a slight delay (up to 10 millisecond) after impact, which would correspond to a water depth of about 5 to 10 ft. The annual number, height or depth of detonation, explosive material, and net explosive weight (NEW) of each live munition associated with Maritime WSEP is provided in Table 2. The quantity of live munitions tested is considered necessary to provide the intended level of tactics and weapons evaluation, including a number of replicate tests sufficient for an acceptable confidence level regarding munitions capabilities.
In addition to the live munitions described above, 86 FWS also proposes to expend inert munitions in W-151. The expected number of each munition type expended during a typical year is included in Table 2. Use of inert munitions was analyzed in the 2002
Mission-day categorizations of weapon releases listed in Table 3 were developed based on historical mission data, project engineer input, and future Maritime WSEP requirements. Categories of missions were grouped first using historical weapon releases per day (refer to Maritime Strike and Maritime WSEP annual reports for 2015 and 2016). Next, the most recent weapons evaluation needs and requirements were considered to develop three different scenarios: Categories A, B, and C. Mission-day Category A represents munitions with larger NEW (192 to 945 pounds) with both surface and subsurface detonations. This category includes future requirements and provides flexibility for the military mission. To date, Category A levels of activity have not been conducted under the 86 FWS Maritime WSEP missions and is considered a worst-case scenario. Category B represents munitions with medium levels of NEW (20 to 86 pounds) including surface and subsurface detonations. Category B was developed using actual levels of weapon releases during Maritime WSEP missions (refer to Maritime WSEP annual reports for 2015 and 2016). Category C represents munitions with smaller NEW (0.1 to 13 pounds) and includes surface detonations only.
A human safety zone will be established around the test area prior to each mission and will be enforced by up to 25 safety boats. The size of this zone may vary, depending upon the particular munition and delivery method used in a given test. A composite safety footprint has been developed for previous tests using live munitions. This composite safety footprint consisted of a circle with a 29 mile-wide diameter circle (14.5 mile-wide radius), which was converted to an octagon shape for ease of support vessel placement and range clearance.
Potential post-test activities consist of Air Force Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) personnel detonating in place any munitions components or items remaining on the target boats that would be considered unexploded ordnance (UXO), debris retrieval, and post-mission protected species surveys. Unexploded bombs, missiles, or other similarly large items would sink to the seafloor and would not be recovered or detonated. However, smaller unexploded items such as cluster bomb submunitions could remain intact on target boats. Once the area has been cleared by the Eglin EOD team, the range will be re-opened for the debris clean-up team and the protected species survey vessels (when live munitions are used). Depending on the specific weapon system used and the location or position of the UXO, the test area could be closed for an extended period of time.
The proposed Advanced Systems Employment Project (ASEP) action includes evaluating upgrades to numerous research and development, as well as Air Force hardware and software, initiatives. F16, F15E, and BAC1-11 aircraft would be used to deploy a variety of pods, air-to-air missiles, bombs, and other munitions. Many of the missions are conducted over Eglin land ranges. However, inert instrumented MK-84 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) bombs would be expended in W-151 under the Proposed Action. Bombs would be dropped on target boats located 20 to 25 miles offshore. A maximum of 12 over-water missions could be conducted annually, although the number could be as low as 4. There would be no live ordnance associated with ASEP actions in the EGTTR.
The Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) conducts various training activities with multiple types of munitions in nearshore waters of the EGTTR (W-151). Training activities include air-to-surface gunnery and small diameter bomb/Griffin/Hellfire missile proficiency training. The following subsections describe the proposed actions included in Eglin AFB's LOA request.
Air-to-surface gunnery missions involve firing of live gunnery rounds from the AC-130 aircraft at targets on the water surface in the EGTTR. Ordnance used in this training includes 25 mm high explosive incendiary (HEI), 30 mm HEI, 40 mm HEI, and 105 mm HEI rounds. NEW ranges from about 0.07 to 4.7 pounds. The Air Force has developed a 105 mm training round (TR) that contains less than 10 percent of the amount of explosive material contained in the 105 mm full up (FU) round. The TR variant was developed as a means to mitigate acoustic impacts on marine mammals that could not be adequately surveyed at night by aircraft sensors. Today's AC-130 sensors allow for effective nighttime visual surveys but with reduced explosive material the TR rounds remain a valuable mitigation for reducing acoustic impacts.
Water ranges within the EGTTR that are typically used for gunnery operations include W-151A, W-151B, W-151C, and W-151D. However, W-151A is the most frequently used water range due to its proximity to Hurlburt Field (where the gunnery flights originate). AC-130s normally transit from Hurlburt Field to the water ranges at a minimum of 4,000 ft above surface level. Potential target sites are typically established at least 15 miles from the coast (beyond the 12 nmi territorial sea boundary). Such a location places most mission activities over shallower continental shelf waters where marine mammal densities are typically lower and thus avoids the slope waters where more sensitive species (
Missions using an inflatable target proceed under the same general protocol. A tow boat transits to a potential target site located at least 15 miles from the coast. The AC-130 then arrives at the site and, as with missions using flares, the aircrew scans an appropriate area around the potential target area (5 nmi radius for non-mission vessels and protected species) using visual observation and the aircraft's sensors. An alternative area would be selected if any protected marine species or non-mission vessels were detected within the search area. Once the scan is complete, the 20-foot target is inflated and deployed into the water. The tow boat then proceeds to pull the target, which is attached to a 2,200-foot cable. The target continues to float even when struck by ordnance and deflated. After the mission, the tow boat recovers any debris produced by rounds
After target deployment, the firing sequence is initiated. A typical gunship mission lasts approximately five hours without air-to-air refueling, and six hours when refueling is accomplished. A typical mission includes 1.5 to 2 hours of live fire. This time includes clearing the area and transiting to and from the range. Actual firing activities typically do not exceed 30 minutes. The number and type of munitions deployed during a mission varies with each type of mission flown. The 105-mm TR variants are used during nighttime training. Live fire events are continuous, with pauses during the firing usually well under a minute and rarely from two to five minutes.
Gunnery missions could occur any season of year, during daytime or nighttime hours. The quantity of live rounds expended is based on estimates provided by AFSOC regarding the annual number of missions and number of rounds per mission. The 105 mm FU rounds would typically be used during daytime missions, while the 105 mm TR variants would be used at night.
On March 5, 2014, NMFS issued a 5-year LOA in accordance with the MMPA for AFSOC's air-to-surface gunnery activities which is currently valid through March 4, 2019. This LOA request would supersede that authorization for AC-130 air-to-surface gunnery activities for another five years (2018-2023); it incorporates the updated approach to analysis requested by NMFS. No significant changes to these mission activities are anticipated in the foreseeable future. Table 4 shows the annual number of missions and gunnery rounds currently authorized under the existing LOA which will be carried forward for this LOA request.
Two mission-day scenarios were developed to represent the average number of gunnery rounds expended during daytime and nighttime AC-130 air-to-surface gunnery missions; category D for daytime missions and category E for nighttime missions. Eglin AFB coordinated with the AFSOC Planning Office to confirm that annual allotments provided in Table 5 would still meet their training needs and averaged the annual number of each gunnery round with the annual number of mission days proposed for daytime and nighttime. The mission-day scenarios developed for AC-130 air-to-surface gunnery missions are shown in Table 5.
The United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has requested the 413th Flight Test Squadron (413 FLTS) to demonstrate the feasibility and capability of the Precision Strike Package and the Stand-Off Precision Guided Munitions (SOPGM) missile system on the AC-130 aircraft. SOCOM, in conjunction with A3 Operations at Wright-Patterson AFB, is fielding the new AC-130J for flight characterization, as well as testing and evaluation. AFSOC is integrating some of the same weapons on the AC-130W. Therefore, the activities described below for the 413 FLTS may involve either of these aircraft variants.
The proposed AC-130J gunnery testing associated with the 413 FLTS's Precision Strike Package would be similar to that described above for AFSOC AC-130 gunnery training in terms of location and general procedures. Testing would occur in W-151A and would involve firing either (1) PGU-44/B (105 mm HE] with FMU-153/B point detonation/delay fuse) or PGU-43B Target Practice (TP) rounds (105 mm TR) from a 105 mm M102 (U.S. Air Force designation M137A1) light-weight Howitzer cannon, or (2) PGU-13 HEI, PGU-46 HEI rounds, or PGU-15 TP rounds (inert) from a 30 mm GAU-23/A gun system. A MK-25 flare would be dropped prior to firing and used as a
413 FLTS mission day scenarios were developed based on the number of mission days planned annually. Up to eleven mission days are planned for 413 FLTS operations annually. The total number of munitions were averaged over each day and are shown in Table 6. All missions would be conducted shoreward of the continental shelf break/200 m isobath as shown in Figure 1-7 in the Application).
Stand off precision guided missiles (SOPGMs) are proposed for use in testing feasibility of these missiles on AC-130 aircraft. Weapons include AGM-176 Griffin missiles, AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, GBU-39/B SDBs, and GBU-39B/B Laser Small Diameter Bombs (LSDBs). Initial actions would consist of various ground tests. After ground testing is completed, captive carry, store separation, and weapon employment tests would be conducted. Captive-carry missions would be conducted with an Instrumented Measurement Vehicle (IMV) to collect environmental data or an inert telemetry (TM) missile in order to evaluate the integration of the SOPGM with the AC-130J. Store separation missions would require a TM missile with an inert warhead and a live motor, if applicable, to verify that the weapon can be employed without significant risk to the aircraft.
Weapon employment missions would be flown using any combination of inert and/or live weapons for a final end-to-end check of the system. Missions could be conducted over land or water ranges, with water ranges used for SDB/LSDB and Griffin missile tests. It is expected that over-water testing would be conducted at the GRATV target location. Similar to preceding mission descriptions, pre- and post-test surveys will be conducted within the applicable human and protected species safety zones.
Table 7 shows the mission-day scenarios and annual number of munitions expended annually for SOPGM testing. The 413 FLTS provided the number of munitions required over a span of four years. The numbers in the table represent the average per year (total number of munitions divided by four).
Testing activities conducted by the 780th Test Squadron (780 TS) include Precision Strike Weapon, Longbow missile littoral testing, and several other various future actions.
The U.S. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center and U.S. Navy, in cooperation with the 780 TS, conducts Precision Strike Weapon (PSW) test missions utilizing resources within the Eglin Military Complex, including sites in the EGTTR. The weapons used in testing are the AGM-158 A and B (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), and the GBU-39/B (SDB I).
The JASSM is a precision cruise missile designed for launch from outside area defenses against hardened, medium-hardened, soft, and area type targets. The JASSM has a range of more than 200 nmi and carries a 1,000-pound warhead. The JASSM has approximately 240 pounds of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent NEW. The specific explosive used is AFX-757, a type of plastic bonded explosive (PBX). The JASSM would be launched more than 200 nmi from the target location. Platforms for the launch would include B-1, B-2, B-52, F-16, F-18, and F-15E aircraft. Launch from the aircraft would occur at altitudes greater than 25,000 ft. The JASSM would cruise at altitudes greater than 12,000 ft for the majority of the flight profile until making the terminal maneuver toward the target.
The SDB is a guided bomb that is an important element of the Air Force's Global Strike Task Force. The SDB I carries a 217-pound warhead with approximately 37 pounds NEW. The explosive used is AFX-757. The SDB I may be launched from over 50 nmi away from the target location. Platforms for the launch include F-15E, F-16, and AC-130W aircraft. Launch from the aircraft occurs at altitudes greater than 5,000 ft above ground level (AGL). The SDB I then commences a non-powered glide to the intended target.
Up to two live and four inert JASSM missiles per year may be launched to impact a target at the GRATV target location. The JASSM missile would detonate upon impact with the target. Although impact would typically occur about 5 ft (1.5 m) above the water surface, detonations are assumed to occur at the water surface for purposes of impacts analysis.
Additionally, up to 6 live and 12 inert SDBs could also be deployed against targets in the same target area. Two SDB-Is could be launched simultaneously during two of the live
• Detonation upon impact with the target.
• Height of burst (HOB) test, which involves detonation 7 to 14 ft (2.2 to 4.5 m) in the air above the surface target.
There would generally be only one detonation per test event and thus no more than one detonation in any 24-hour period. In instances of a simultaneous SDB launch scenario, two bombs are deployed from the same aircraft at nearly the same time to strike the same target. It is expected that the bombs would strike the target within five seconds or less of each another. Under this scenario, the detonations are considered a single event (NEW is doubled) for the purpose of acoustic modeling and marine species impacts analysis. Modeling both detonations as a single event results in a conservative impact estimate. PSW munitions are shown in Table 8.
Based on availability, one of two potential target types would be used during PSW tests. The first is a Container Express (CONEX) target that consists of up to five containers (each of which is 8 ft 6 in. length, 6 ft 3 in. in width and 6 ft 10.5 in. in height), strapped, braced, and welded together to form a single structure. The CONEX target would be constructed on land and shipped to the target location two to three days prior to the test. The other target type would be a barge target (125 ft in length, 30 ft in width and 12 ft in height), which would also be stationed at the target location two to three days prior to the test. During an inert mission, the JASSM would pass through the target and the warhead would sink to the bottom of the Gulf. Immediately following impact, the JASSM recovery team would pick up surface debris originating from the missile and target. Depending on the test schedule, the target could remain in the Gulf of Mexico for up to one month at a time. If the target is significantly damaged, and it is deemed impractical and unsafe to retrieve it, the target remains could be sunk through coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard or Tyndall AFB. Coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be required prior to sinking a target. PSW test activities would occur in W-151 at the GRATV target location. Targets are located in approximately 115 to 120 ft of water, about 17 miles offshore of Test Area A-3 on Santa Rosa Island (actual distance could range from 15 to 24 miles offshore). This area is the same as the Maritime WSEP test site, which is located 17 miles offshore. Test missions could occur during any time of the year but during daylight hours only.
In addition to the above description, future (Phase 2) testing of the SDB is planned by the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) as shown in Table 9. AFOTEC proposes to expend two live and one inert GBU-53 (SDB II) weapons in the EGTTR. The live weapons would be deployed against moving boats with a length of 30 to 40 ft, while the inert weapon would be used against a smaller fiberglass boat.
The 780 TS/OGMT missions have been categorized based on the number of weapons released per day, assuming three mission days are planned annually. Representative mission days are shown in Table 10.
The 780 TS plans to conduct other various testing activities that involve targets on the water surface in the EGTTR. Many of the missions would target small boats or barges. Weapons would primarily be delivered by aircraft, although a rail gun would be used for one test. Live warheads would be used for some missions, while others would involve inert warheads with a live fuse (typically contains a very small NEW). Total future munitions for 780 TS are listed in Table 11. As with the preceding missions using live weapons, safety zone enforcement and pre- and post-mission marine species monitoring would be required.
The 780 TS/OGMT future missions primarily consist of one-day test events for each type of munition. Inert munitions and munitions being detonated as airbursts were not included in the development of these scenarios because no in-water acoustic impacts are anticipated. Therefore representative mission days were developed for live munitions resulting in surface detonations, as shown in Table 12.
The 96 Operations Group (OG), which conducts the 96 TW's primary missions of developmental testing and evaluation of conventional munitions, and command and control systems, anticipates support of air-to-surface missions for several user groups on an infrequent basis. As the organization that oversees all users of Eglin ranges, they have the authority to approve new missions that could be conducted in the EGTTR. Specific details on mission descriptions under this category have not been determined, as this is meant to capture future unknown activities. Sub-surface detonations would be at 5 to 10 ft below the surface. Projected annual munitions expenditures and detonation scenarios are listed in Table 13.
The 96 OG future missions have been categorized based on the number of weapons released per day, instead of treating each weapon release as a separate event. This approach is meant to satisfy NMFS requests for analysis and modeling of accumulated energy from multiple detonations over a 24-hour timeframe. Eglin AFB used all available information to determine these daily estimates, including historic release reports; however, these scenarios may not represent exact weapon releases because military needs and requirements are in a constant state of flux. The mission day scenarios for 96 OG annually are shown in Table 14.
Categories of missions for 96 OG were grouped (similar to Maritime WSEP) first using historical weapon releases per day. Next, the most recent weapons evaluation needs and requirements were considered to develop three different scenarios: Categories R, S, and T. Mission-day Category R represents munitions with larger NEW (192 to 945 pounds) and both surface and subsurface detonations. This category includes future requirements and provides flexibility for the military mission. To date, Category R levels of activity have not been conducted under 96 OG missions, and is considered a worst-case scenario. Category S represents munitions with medium levels of NEW (20 to 86 pounds) including surface and subsurface detonations. Category T represents munitions with smaller NEW (0.1 to 13 pounds) and includes surface detonations only.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see “Proposed Mitigation” and “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting”).
Sections 3 and 4 of the Application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
Table 15 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the EGTTR that could be subjected to acoustic impacts and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent
As described below, two marine mammal species (with 7 managed stocks) temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed authorizing it.
An additional 19 cetacean species could occur within the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, mainly occurring at or beyond the shelf break (
Of these species, only the sperm whale is listed as endangered under the ESA and as depleted throughout its range under the MMPA. Sperm whale occurrence within W-151A is unlikely because almost all reported sightings have occurred in water depths greater than 200 m (656.2 ft). The uncommon Bryde's whale occurs in waters at a depth of 100-300 m and has been proposed for listing under the ESA. However, trained observers will be vigilant in watching for these whales and ensuring they are not in the ZOI during mission activities. As such, Eglin AFB is not anticipating or requesting take for these species.
Because marine mammals from the other 19 species with potential occurrence within the northeast Gulf of Mexico listed above are unlikely to occur within the W-151A area, or are likely to move away from the target area in response to proposed mitigation measures, Eglin AFB has not requested authorization for, nor are we proposing to authorize take for them. Thus, we do not consider these species further in this notice.
Below we offer a brief introduction to the two species and relevant stocks that are likely to be affected by testing and training activities in the EGTTR. We provide a summary of available information regarding population trends and threats, and describe any information regarding local occurrence.
This species is not listed under the ESA but is protected under the MMPA. Along the United States east coast and northern Gulf of Mexico, the bottlenose dolphin stock structure is well studied. There are currently 34 stocks identified by NMFS in northern Gulf of Mexico including the Continental Shelf stock, Northern Coastal stock, Oceanic stock,
Genetic, photo-identification, and tagging data support the concept of relatively discrete bay, sound, and estuary stocks (Waring
Of the 31 stocks of Bay, Sound and Estuary (BSE) bottlenose dolphins recognized by NMFS, only 11 met the criteria for small and resident populations as a biologically important area. The Choctawhatchee Bay Stock has published data suggesting small and resident populations; however, it was one of the 21 remaining stocks that did not meet the biologically important area criteria (LaBrecque
The bottlenose dolphin is the most widespread and common cetacean in coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico (Würsig
Three coastal stocks have been identified in the northern Gulf of Mexico, occupying waters from the shore to the 20-m (66-ft) isobath: Eastern Coastal, Northern Coastal, and Western Coastal stocks. The Western Coastal stock inhabits nearshore waters from the Texas/Mexico border to the Mississippi River Delta. The Northern Coastal stock's range is considered to be from the Mississippi River Delta to the Big Bend region of Florida (approximately 84° W). The Eastern Coastal stock is defined from 84° W to Key West, Florida. Of the coastal stocks, the Northern Coastal Stock is geographically associated with the GRATV target location. PBR is 60 individuals. Prior to 2012, this stock was not considered strategic. However, beginning February 1, 2010 an Unusual Mortality Event of unprecedented size and duration has been ongoing (Litz
The Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic stock is provisionally defined as bottlenose dolphins inhabiting waters from the 200-m (656-ft) isobath to the seaward extent of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. This stock is believed to consist of the offshore form of bottlenose dolphins. The continental shelf stock may overlap with the oceanic stock in some areas and may be genetically indistinguishable. PBR is 42 individuals, and the stock is not considered strategic.
Sounds emitted by bottlenose dolphins have been classified into two broad categories: Pulsed sounds (including clicks and burst-pulses) and narrow-band continuous sounds (whistles), which usually are frequency modulated. Clicks and whistles have a dominant frequency range of 110 to 130 kiloHertz (kHz) and a source level of 218 to 228 decibels (dB) referenced to one microPascal-meter (dB re 1 μPa-m peak-to-peak) (Au, 1993) and 3.4 to 14.5 kiloHertz (kHz) and 125 to 173 dB re 1 μPa-m peak-to-peak, respectively (Ketten, 1998). Whistles are primarily associated with communication and can serve to identify specific individuals (
Bottlenose dolphins can hear within a broad frequency range of 0.04 to 160 kHz (Au, 1993; Turl, 1993). Electrophysiological experiments suggest that the bottlenose dolphin brain has a dual analysis system: one specialized for ultrasonic clicks and another for lower-frequency sounds, such as whistles (Ridgway, 2000). Scientists have reported a range of highest sensitivity between 25 and 70 kHz, with peaks in sensitivity at 25 and 50 kHz (Nachtigall
The Atlantic spotted dolphin occurs in two forms that may be distinct subspecies (Perrin
The most recent abundance estimate is 37,611 individuals in the northern Gulf of Mexico (outer continental shelf and oceanic waters) and is derived from fall surveys in 2000-2011 and spring/summer surveys in 2003-2004. According to the 2016 Stock Assessment Report, since these data are more than 8 years old, the current best population estimate is unknown (Hayes
A variety of sounds including whistles, echolocation clicks, squawks, barks, growls, and chirps have been recorded for the Atlantic spotted dolphin. Whistles have dominant frequencies below 20 kHz (range: 7.1 to 14.5 kHz), but multiple harmonics extend above 100 kHz, while burst pulses consist of frequencies above 20 kHz (dominant frequency of approximately 40 kHz) (Lammers
Hearing ability for the Atlantic spotted dolphin is unknown. However, odontocetes are generally adapted to hear in relatively high frequencies (Ketten, 1997).
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
• Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with best hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing from 10 to less than 100 kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz, with best hearing between 1-50 kHz;
• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, with best hearing between 2-48 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
Two marine mammal species (common bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Both species are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans.
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination” section considers the content of this section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, and the “Proposed Mitigation” section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
The proposed Eglin AFB mission activities have the potential to incidentally take marine mammals by exposing them to impulsive noise and pressure waves generated by live ordnance detonation at and below the surface of the water. Exposure to energy or pressure resulting from these detonations could result in Level A harassment (PTS and slight lung injury) and by Level B harassment (temporary threshold shift (TTS) and behavioral harassment).
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks of a sound wave. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the “loudness” of a sound, and is typically measured using the dB scale. A dB is the ratio between a measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the context of underwater sound pressure to 1 μPa. One pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the sound level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 μPa). The received level is the sound level at the listener's position. Note that we reference all underwater sound levels in this document to a pressure of 1 μPa, and all airborne sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 μPa.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson
•
•
•
•
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
The sounds produced by proposed military operations in the EGTTR are considered impulsive, which is one of two general sound types, the other being non-pulsed. The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (
Impulsive sound sources (
Please refer to the information given previously (
Richardson
We briefly describe certain non-auditory physical effects which are categorized as Level A harassment as defined in the MMPA. These blast related effects include slight lung injury and gastrointestinal (GI) tract injury (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012).
The threshold for slight lung injury is based on a level of lung injury from which all exposed animals are expected to survive (zero percent mortality) (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012). Similar to the mortality determination, the metric is positive impulse and the equation for determination is that of the Goertner injury model (1982), corrected for atmospheric and hydrostatic pressures and based on the cube root scaling of body mass (Richmond
Gastrointestinal (GI) tract injuries are correlated with the peak pressure of an underwater detonation. GI tract injury thresholds are based on the results of experiments in the 1970s in which terrestrial mammals were exposed to small charges. The peak pressure of the shock wave was found to be the causal agent in recoverable contusions (bruises) in the GI tract (Richmond
Marine mammals may experience auditory impacts when exposed to high-intensity sound, or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods. They may experience hearing threshold shift (TS) which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak
When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear (
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals. PTS data exists only for a single harbor seal (Kastak
When a live or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto shore and is incapable of returning to sea, the event is termed a “stranding” (16 U.S.C. 1421h(3)). Marine mammals are known to strand for a variety of reasons, such as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery interaction, ship strike, unusual oceanographic or weather events, sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors sustained concurrently or in series (
Temporary threshold shift (TTS) is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, and none of the data published at the time of this writing concern TTS elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of sound.
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and in interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Currently, TTS data exist only for four species of cetaceans ((bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale (
Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior (
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone to the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors, and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure (
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in subtler ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruptions of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall
An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
Auditory masking occurs when sound disrupts behavior by masking or interfering with an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (
Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes, but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals caused by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's oceans from pre-industrial periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially chronic and lower-frequency signals (
Explosive detonations at the water surface send a shock wave and sound energy through the water and can release gaseous by-products, create an oscillating bubble, or cause a plume of water to shoot up from the water surface. The shock wave and accompanying noise are of most concern to marine animals. Depending on the intensity of the shock wave and size, location, and depth of the animal, an animal can be injured, killed, suffer non-lethal physical effects, experience hearing related effects with or without behavioral responses, or exhibit temporary behavioral responses (
The effects of underwater detonations on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including the size, type, and depth of the animal; the depth, intensity, and duration of the sound; the depth of the water column; the substrate of the habitat; the standoff distance between activities and the animal; and the sound propagation properties of the environment. Thus, we expect impacts to marine mammals from EGTTR activities to result primarily from acoustic pathways. As such, the degree of the effect relates to the received level and duration of the sound exposure, as influenced by the distance between the animal and the source. The further away from the source, the less intense the exposure should be.
The potential effects of underwater detonations from the proposed EGTTR mission activities may include one or more of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, and masking (Richardson
In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species could result from physiological and behavioral responses to both the type and strength of the acoustic signature (Viada
Non-lethal injury includes slight injury to internal organs and the auditory system; however, delayed lethality can be a result of individual or cumulative sublethal injuries (DoN 2001). Immediate lethal injury would be a result of massive combined trauma to internal organs as a direct result of
Because the few available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound, it is difficult to quantify exactly how sound from military operations at the EGTTR would affect marine mammals. It is likely that the onset of surface detonations could result in temporary, short term changes in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area. These behavioral changes may include (Richardson
The biological significance of any of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However generally, one could expect the consequences of behavioral modification to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant behavioral modifications that could potentially lead to effects on growth, survival, or reproduction include:
• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
• Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and
• Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to predict (Southall
While it may occur temporarily, we do not expect auditory masking to result in detrimental impacts to an individual's or population's survival, fitness, or reproductive success. Dolphin movement is not restricted within EGTTR area, allowing for movement out of the area to avoid masking impacts, and the sound resulting from the detonations is short in duration. Also, masking is typically of greater concern for those marine mammals that utilize low frequency communications, such as baleen whales and, as such, is not likely to occur for marine mammals in the EGTTR area.
The marine mammals most vulnerable to vessel strikes are slow-moving and/or spend extended periods of time at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within their tissues after deep dives (
Aircraft produce noise at frequencies that are well within the frequency range of cetacean hearing and also produce visual signals such as the aircraft itself and its shadow (Richardson
There are fewer reports of reactions of odontocetes to aircraft than those of pinnipeds. Responses to aircraft by pinnipeds include diving, slapping the water with pectoral fins or tail fluke, or swimming away from the track of the aircraft (Richardson
Another potential risk to marine mammals is direct strike by ordnance, in which the ordnance physically hits an animal. Although strike from an item at the surface of the water while the animals are at the surface is possible, the potential risk of a direct hit to an animal within the target area would be low. Marine mammals spend the majority of their time below the surface of the water, and the potential for one bomb or missile to hit that animal at that specific time is highly unlikely. The 2002
The primary sources of marine mammal habitat impact are noise and pressure waves resulting from live weapon detonations. However, neither the noise nor overpressure constitutes a long-term physical alteration of the water column or ocean floor. Further, these effects are not expected to substantially affect prey availability, are of limited duration, and are intermittent. Impacts to marine fish were analyzed in the
Other factors related to air-to-surface activities that could potentially affect marine mammal habitat include the introduction of metals, explosives and explosion by-products, other chemical materials, and debris into the water column and substrate due to the use of munitions and target vessels. The effects of each were analyzed under National Environmental Policy Act documentation (
Various metals would be introduced into the water column through expended munitions. The casings, fins, or other parts of large munitions such as bombs and missiles are typically composed primarily of steel but usually also contain small amounts of lead, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, copper, nickel, and several other metals (U.S. Navy, 2013). Many smaller caliber rounds contain aluminum, copper, and zinc. Aluminum is also present in some explosive materials such as tritonal and PBXN-109. Lead is present in batteries typically used in vessels such as the remotely controlled target boats. Many metals occur naturally in seawater at varying concentrations and some, such as aluminum, would not necessarily be detrimental to the substrate or water column. However, at high concentrations, a number of metals (
Munitions and other metal items would sink to the seafloor and would typically undergo one of three processes: (1) Enter the sediment where there is reduced oxygen content, (2) remain exposed on the ocean floor and begin to react with seawater, or (3) remain exposed on the ocean floor and become encrusted with marine organisms. The rate of deterioration would therefore depend on the specific composition of an item and its position relative to the seafloor/water column. Munitions located deep in the sediment would typically undergo slow deterioration. Some portion of the metal ions would become bound to sediment particles. Metal materials exposed to seawater would begin to slowly corrode. This process typically creates a layer of corroded material between the seawater and metal, which slows the movement of the metal ions into the adjacent sediment and water column. Therefore, elevated levels of metals in sediment would be restricted to a small zone around the munitions, and releases to the overlying water column would be diluted. A similar process would occur with munitions that become covered by marine growth. Direct exposure to seawater would be reduced, thereby decreasing the rate of corrosion.
Munitions that come to rest on the seafloor would slowly corrode and would release small amounts of metals to adjacent sediment and the water column. Metal particles that migrate into the water column would be diluted by diffusion and water movement. Elevated concentrations would be localized and would not be expected to significantly affect overall local or regional water quality. This expectation is supported by the results of two U.S. Navy studies related to munitions use and water quality, as summarized in U.S. Navy (2013). In one study, water quality sampling for lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc was conducted at a shallow bombing range in Pamlico Sound off North Carolina immediately following a bomb training event with inert practice munitions. With the exception of nickel, all water quality parameters tested were within the state limits. The nickel concentration was significantly higher than the state criterion, although the concentration did not differ significantly from a control site located outside the bombing range. This suggests that bombing activities may not have been responsible for the elevated nickel concentration. The second study, conducted by the U.S. Marine Corps, included sediment and water quality sampling for 26 munitions constituents at several water training ranges. Metals included lead and magnesium. No levels were detected above screening values used at the water ranges.
Chemical materials with potential to affect substrates and the water column include explosives, explosion by-products, and fuel, oil, and other fluids (including battery acid) associated with vessel operations and the use of remotely controlled target boats. Explosives are complex chemical mixtures that may affect water or sediment quality through the by-products of their detonation and the distribution of unconsumed explosives. Some of the more common types of explosive materials used in air-to-surface activities include tritonal and research department explosive (RDX). Tritonal is primarily composed of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT). Therefore, discussion in the remainder of this section will consider TNT and RDX to be representative of all explosives. During detonation, energetic compounds may undergo high-order (complete) detonation or low-order (incomplete) detonation, or they may fail to detonate altogether. High-order detonations consume almost all of the explosive material, with the remainder released into the environment as discrete particles. Analysis of live-fire detonations on terrestrial ranges have indicated that over 99.9 percent of TNT and RDX explosive material is typically consumed during a high-order detonation (USACE, 2003). Pennington
Various by-products are produced during and immediately after detonation of TNT and RDX. During the brief time that a detonation is in progress, intermediate products may include carbon ions, nitrogen ions, oxygen ions, water, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen gas, nitrous oxide, cyanic acid, and carbon dioxide (Becker, 1995). However, reactions quickly occur between the intermediates, and the final products consist mainly of carbon (
After detonation, the residual explosive materials and detonation by-products would be dispersed throughout the northern Gulf of Mexico by diffusion and by the action of wind, waves, and currents. A portion of the carbon compounds, such as CO and CO
Low-order detonations consume a lower percentage of the explosive; and, therefore, a portion of the material is available for release into the environment. If the ordnance fails to detonate, the entire amount of energetic compound remains largely intact and is released to the environment over time as the munition casing corrodes. The likelihood of incomplete detonations is not quantified; however, the portion of munitions that could fail to detonate (
After leaving the munition casing, explosive material would enter the sediment or water column. Similar to the discussion of explosive by-products above, chemical materials in the water column would be dispersed by currents and would eventually become uniformly distributed throughout the northern Gulf of Mexico. Explosive materials in the water column would also be subject to biotic (biological) and abiotic (physical and chemical) transformation and degradation, including hydrolysis, ultraviolet radiation exposure, and biodegradation. The results of a recent investigation suggest that TNT is rapidly degraded in marine environments by biological and photochemical processes (Walker
The results of studies of UXO in marine environments generally suggest that there is little overall impact to water quality resulting from the leaching of explosive material. Various researchers have studied an area in Halifax Harbor, Nova Scotia, where UXO was deposited in 1945. Rodacy
Hoffsommer
Additional materials produced during air-to-surface activities would include petroleum products (primarily fuel and oil in target boats), battery acid, and plastics. Increased use of remotely controlled target boats and mission support vessels would increase the potential for fuel, oil, and battery acid to be deposited in the water (primarily through destruction of target boats). When hydrocarbons enter the ocean, the lighter-weight components evaporate, degrade by sunlight, and undergo chemical degradation. Many constituents are also consumed by microbes. Higher-weight molecular compounds are more resistant to degradation and tend to persist after these processes have occurred. Microbial breakdown of PCBs has been documented in estuarine and marine sediments (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease, 2000). In addition, currents would disperse any hydrocarbons produced during test and training activities. It is anticipated that potential impacts to water quality due to petroleum-based products would be insignificant. Similarly, battery acid, while possibly having a temporary and local effect on the water column, would be quickly dispersed and diluted by water currents.
Debris deposited on the seafloor would include spent munitions fragments and possibly pieces of targets (fiberglass, plywood, etc.). Debris would not appreciably affect the sandy seafloor. Debris moved by water currents could scour the bottom, but sediments would quickly refill any affected areas, and overall effects to benthic communities would be minor. Large pieces of debris would not be as prone to movement on the seafloor and could result in beneficial effects by providing habitat for encrusting organisms, fish, and other marine fauna. Target boats have foam-filled hulls, and most of the pieces are designed to float in order to facilitate collection for a damage assessment. Overall, the quantity of material deposited on the seafloor would be small compared with other sources of debris in the Gulf of Mexico. Hardbottom habitats and artificial reefs would be avoided when possible through location of target sites and training missions and would not be likely to be affected by debris. There is a potential for some debris to be carried by currents and interact with the substrate, but damage to natural or artificial reefs is not expected and the impacts would not be significant.
Below is a summary of annual marine mammal monitoring reports required as part of LOAs and IHAs issued to Eglin AFB. AFSOC gunnery missions were scheduled over nine days in 2012, three days in 2013, 10 days in 2014, and eight days in 2015. There was no recorded
While we anticipate that the specified activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas due to temporary ensonification, this impact to habitat and prey species would be temporary and reversible. The main impact associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, previously discussed in this notice. Marine mammals are anticipated to temporarily vacate the area of live detonations. However, these events are usually of short duration, and animals are anticipated to return to the activity area during periods of non-activity. Thus, based on the preceding discussion, we do not anticipate that the proposed activity would have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this LOA, which will inform NMFS' consideration of the negligible impact determination.
For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of explosive sources has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns and TTS for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury and tissue damage (Level A harassment) to result. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent practicable. As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Thresholds have also been developed to identify the pressure levels above which animals may incur different types of tissue damage from exposure to pressure waves from explosive detonation.
The criteria and thresholds used to estimate potential pressure and energy impacts to marine mammals resulting from detonations were obtained from Finneran and Jenkins (2012). Criteria used to analyze impacts to marine mammals include mortality, harassment that causes or is likely to cause injury (Level A) and harassment that disrupts or is likely to disrupt natural behavior patterns (Level B). Each category is discussed below with additional details provided in Appendix A of the application.
Mortality risk assessment may be considered in terms of direct injury, which includes primary blast injury and barotrauma. The potential for direct injury of marine mammals has been inferred from terrestrial mammal experiments and from post-mortem examination of marine mammals believed to have been exposed to underwater explosions (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012; Ketten
Primary blast injuries result from the initial compression of a body exposed to a blast wave, and is usually limited to gas-containing structures (
Whereas a single mortality threshold was previously used in acoustic impacts analysis, species-specific thresholds are currently required. Thresholds are based on the level of impact that would cause extensive lung injury to one percent of exposed animals (
For the actions described in this proposed LOA, two species are expected to occur within the EGTTR Study Area: The bottlenose dolphin and the Atlantic spotted dolphin. Finneran and Jenkins (2012) provide known or surrogate masses for newborn calves of several cetacean species. For the bottlenose dolphin, this value is 14 kilograms (kg) (31 pounds). Values are not provided for the Atlantic spotted dolphin and, therefore, a surrogate species, the striped dolphin (
Potential injuries that may occur to marine mammals include blast related injury: Gastrointestinal (GI) tract injury and slight lung injury, and irrecoverable auditory damage. These injury categories are all types of Level A harassment as defined in the MMPA.
Two categories of Level B harassment are currently recognized: Temporary threshold shift (TTS) and behavioral impacts. Although TTS is a physiological impact, it is not considered injury because auditory structures are temporarily fatigued instead of being permanently damaged.
Behavioral impacts refer to disturbances that may occur at sound levels below those considered to cause TTS in marine mammals, particularly in cases of multiple detonations. During an activity with a series of explosions (not concurrent multiple explosions shown in a burst), an animal is expected to exhibit a startle reaction to the first detonation followed by a behavioral response after multiple detonations. At close ranges and high sound levels, avoidance of the area around the explosions is the assumed behavioral response in most cases. Other behavioral impacts may include decreased ability to feed, communicate, migrate, or reproduce, among others. Such effects, known as sub-TTS Level B harassment, are based on observations of behavioral reactions in captive dolphins and beluga whales exposed to pure tones, a different type of noise than that produced from an underwater detonation (Finneran and Schlundt, 2004; Schlundt
Table 16 outlines the explosive thresholds, based on the best available science, used by NMFS to predict the onset of disruption of natural behavior patterns, PTS, tissue damage, and mortality.
Bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphin density estimates used in this document were obtained from Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab Reports (Roberts
Two marine mammal density estimates were calculated for this proposed LOA. One density estimate is considered a large-scale estimate and is used for missions that could occur anywhere in W-151A, shoreward of the 200-m isobath. The mission sets that utilize the entire W-151A area include AFSOC's Air-to-Surface Gunnery Training Operations and 413 FLTS's AC-130J Precision Strike Package Gunnery Testing (Scenarios D, E, F, G, and H). The other density estimate is considered a fine-scale estimate and is used for missions that are proposed specifically around the GRATV target area. The mission sets that utilize the nearshore GRATV target location are 86th FWS Maritime WSEP, 413 FLTS AC-130J and AC-130W Stand-Off Precision Guided Munitions Testing, 780th TS Precision Strike Weapons, 780 TS/OGMT future missions, and 96th OG future missions (Scenarios A, B, C, and I through T). Using two different density estimates based on the mission locations accounts for the differences between inshore and offshore distribution of bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins, and provides more realistic take calculations.
Raster data provided online from the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab Report was imported into ArcGIS and overlaid onto the W-151A area. Density values for each species were provided in 10 x 10 km boxes. The large-scale estimates for W-151A were obtained by averaging the density values of these 100 km
Density estimates usually assume that animals are uniformly distributed within the prescribed area, even though this is likely rarely true. Marine mammals are often clumped in areas of greater importance, for example, in areas of high productivity, lower predation, safe calving, etc. Furthermore, assuming that marine mammals are distributed evenly within the water column does not accurately reflect behavior. Databases of behavioral and physiological parameters obtained through tagging and other technologies have demonstrated that marine animals use the water column in various ways. Some species conduct regular deep dives while others engage in much shallower dives, regardless of bottom depth. Assuming that all species are evenly distributed from surface to bottom can present a distorted view of marine mammal distribution in any region. Density is assumed to be two-dimensional, and exposure estimates are, therefore, simply calculated as the product of affected area, animal density, and number of events. The resulting exposure estimates are considered conservative, because all animals are presumed to be located at the same depth, where the maximum sound and pressure ranges would extend from detonations, and would, therefore, be exposed to the maximum amount of energy or pressure. In reality, it is highly likely that some portion of marine mammals present near the impact area at the time of detonation would be at various depths in the water column and not necessarily occur at the same depth corresponding to the maximum sound and pressure ranges.
A mission-day based analysis was utilized in order to model accumulated energy over a 24-hour timeframe where each mission-day scenario would be considered a separate event. As described previously, Eglin AFB developed multiple mission-day categories separated by mission groups and estimated the number of days each category would be executed annually. In total, there are 20 different mission-day scenarios included in the acoustic analysis Labeled A-T. Table 18 below summarizes the number of days each mission-day scenario, or event, would be conducted annually in the EGTTR.
Eglin AFB completed acoustic modeling to determine the distances from their explosive ordnance corresponding to NMFS' explosive thresholds. These distances were then used with each species' density to determine exposure estimates. Below is a summary of the methodology for those modeling efforts. Appendix A in the application provides additional details.
The maximum estimated range, or radius, from the detonation point to the point at which the various thresholds extend for all munitions proposed to be released in a 24-hour time period was calculated based on explosive acoustic characteristics, sound propagation, and sound transmission loss in the EGTTR. Results are shown in Table 19. These calculations incorporated water depth, sediment type, wind speed, bathymetry, and temperature/salinity profiles. Transmission loss was calculated from the explosive source depth down to an array of water depth bins (0 to 160 m). Impact volumes were computed for each explosive source (based on the total number of munitions released on a representative mission day). The impact volume is a cylinder extending from surface to seafloor, centered at the sound source with a radius set equal to the maximum range, Rmx, across all depths and azimuths at which the particular metric is still above the threshold. The total energy for all weapons released as part of a representative mission day was calculated to assess impacts from the accumulated energy resulting from multiple weapon releases within a 24-hour period. The number of animals impacted is computed by multiplying the area of a circle with radius Rmax, by the original animal density given in animal per km
The ranges presented above were used to calculate the total area (circle) of the zones of influence for each criterion/threshold. To eliminate “double-counting” of animals, impact areas from higher impact categories (
Acoustic analysis results indicate the potential for injury and non-injurious harassment (including behavioral harassment) to marine mammals in the absence of mitigation measures. Mortality was calculated as one (1) for bottlenose dolphins and zero (0) for Atlantic spotted dolphin. However, because the modeling is conservative and it did not include implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, the likelihood of mortality is small and the potential for Level A harassment takes would be significantly reduced. As such, NMFS is not proposing to authorize any take due to mortality.
Animals from the Northern Gulf of Mexico stock of spotted dolphins and the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental shelf stock of bottlenose dolphins are likely to be affected. There is also a chance that a limited number of bottlenose dolphins from the Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal stock could be affected. Animals from this stock are known to occur in waters greater than 20 m in depth. Even though the 20 m isopleth delineates the stock's range, it is an artificial boundary used for management purposes and is not ecologically based. However, most of the bottlenose dolphins potentially affected would be part of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental shelf stock.
In order to issue an LOA under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action).
The NDAA of 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military-readiness activities and the incidental take authorization process such that “least practicable adverse impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) and the likelihood of effective implementation (probability of being implemented as planned); and
(2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Eglin AFB has proposed potential practicable and effective mitigation measures, which include a careful balancing of the likely benefit of any particular measure to the marine mammals with the likely effect of that measure on personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the military-readiness activity. Proposed mitigation measures include the following:
Monitoring will be conducted from a given platform depending on the specific mission. The purposes of pre-mission monitoring are to (1) evaluate the mission site for environmental suitability and (2) verify that the ZOI is free of visually detectable marine mammals and potential marine mammal indicators. Air Force range clearing vessels and protected species survey vessels will be on-site at least two hours prior to the mission. Vessel-based surveys will begin approximately one and one-half hours prior to live weapon deployment. Surveys will continue for approximately one hour or until the entire ZOI has been adequately surveyed, whichever comes first. At approximately 30 minutes prior to live weapon deployment, marine species observers will be instructed to leave the mission site and remain outside the safety zone, which on average will be 15 miles from the detonation point.
The duration of pre-mission surveys will depend on the area required to be surveyed and survey platforms (vessels versus aircraft). All marine mammal sightings including the species (if possible), number, location, and behavior of the animals will be documented on report forms that will be submitted to Eglin AFB after each mission. Missions will be postponed, relocated, or cancelled based on the presence of protected species within the survey areas.
Post-mission monitoring is designed to determine the effectiveness of pre-mission mitigation by reporting sightings of any dead or injured marine mammals. Post-detonation monitoring surveys will commence once the mission has ended or, if required, as soon as the mission area is declared safe. Vessels will move into the survey area from outside the safety zone and monitor for at least 30 minutes. The duration of post-mission surveys will vary based on survey platform. Similar to pre-mission surveys, all sightings would be properly documented on report forms and submitted to Eglin AFB. Any authorized marine mammals that are detected in the ZOI during post-mission surveys will be counted as Level B takes.
If any marine mammals are killed or injured as a result of the mission, Eglin AFB would be contacted immediately. Observers would document the species or description of the animal, location, and behavior and, if practicable, take pictures and maintain visual contact with the animal. Eglin AFB must notify the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, or designee, by telephone (301-427-8401), and the Southeast Regional Office (phone within 24 hours of the injury or death) and await further instructions or the arrival of a response team on-site, if feasible. Activities shall cease and not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take.
Visibility is also a critical factor for flight safety issues when aerial surveys are being conducted. Therefore, a minimum ceiling of 305 m (1,000 ft) and visibility of 5.6 km (3 nmi) is required to support monitoring efforts and flight safety concerns.
Some missions will be delayed to allow survey platforms to evacuate the human safety zone after pre-missions surveys are completed. For these delayed missions, Eglin proposes to include a buffer around the survey area
The largest type of ammunition used during gunnery missions is a 105-mm round, which contains 4.7 pounds of high explosive (HE). This is several times more HE than that found in the next largest round (40 mm). As a mitigation technique, the Air Force developed a 105-mm TR that contains only 0.35 pounds of HE. The TR was developed to substantially reduce the risk of harassment during nighttime operations, when visual surveying for marine mammals is of limited effectiveness (however, monitoring by use of the AC-130's instrumentation is effective at night).
Ramp-up procedures refer to the process of beginning with the least impactive action and proceeding to more impactive actions. In the case of gunnery activities, ramp-up procedures entail beginning a mission with the lowest caliber munition and proceeding to the highest, which means the munitions would be fired in the order of 25 mm, 40 mm, and 105 mm. The rationale for the procedure is that this process may allow marine species to perceive steadily increasing noise levels and to react, if necessary, before the noise reaches a threshold of significance.
If use of gunship weapons is interrupted for more than 10 minutes, Eglin AFB would be required to reinitiate applicable protected species surveys in the ZOI to ensure that no marine mammal species entered into the ZOI during that time.
The AC-130 gunship weapons are used in two phases. First, the guns are checked for functionality and calibrated. This step requires an abbreviated period of live fire. After the guns are determined ready for use, the aircraft deploys a flare onto the surface of the water as a target, and the mission proceeds under various test and training scenarios. This second phase involves a more extended period of live fire and can incorporate use of one or any combination of the munitions available (25-mm, 40-mm, and 105-mm rounds).
A ramp-up procedure will be required for the initial calibration phase and, after this phase, the guns may be fired in any order. Eglin AFB believes this process will allow marine species the opportunity to respond to increasing noise levels. If an animal leaves the area during ramp-up, it is unlikely to return during the live-fire mission. This protocol provides a more realistic training experience for aircrews. In combat situations, gunship crews would not necessarily fire the complete ammunition load of a given caliber gun before proceeding to another gun. Rather, a combination of guns might be used as required by real-time situations. An additional benefit of this protocol is that mechanical or ammunition problems with an individual gun can be resolved while live fire continues with functioning weapons. This diminishes the possibility of pause in live fire lasting 10 minutes or more, which would necessitate reinitiation of protected species surveys.
Based on our evaluation of Eglin AFB's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, while also considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and the impact of effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The following monitoring options have been developed to support various types of air-to-surface mission activities that may be conducted in the EGTTR. Eglin AFB users covered by this proposed LOA must meet specific test or training objectives and safety requirements and have different assets available to execute the pre- and post-mission surveys. The monitoring options and mitigation measures described in the subsections below balance all mission-essential parameters with measures that will provide adequate protection to marine mammals. Monitors will search for both authorized and non-authorized marine mammal species. Monitors will be instructed to be extra vigilant in ensuring that species of concern, including the sperm whale (listed as endangered under the ESA) and Bryde's whale (proposed for listing under the ESA) are clear of the ZOI during testing and training activities.
Survey vessels will run pre-determined line transects, or survey routes, that will provide sufficient coverage of the survey area. Monitoring activities will be conducted from the highest point feasible on the vessels. There will be at least two dedicated observers on each vessel, and they will utilize optical equipment with sufficient magnification to allow observation of surfaced animals.
All sighting information from pre-mission surveys will be communicated to the Lead Biologist on a pre-determined radio channel to reduce overall radio chatter and potential confusion. After compiling all the sighting information from the other survey vessels, the Lead Biologist will inform Tower Control on Santa Rosa Island on whether the area is clear of protected species or not. If the range is not clear, the Lead Biologist will provide recommendations on whether the mission should be delayed or cancelled. For example, a mission delay would be recommended if a small number of protected species are in the ZOI but appear to be on a heading away from the mission area. The delay would continue until the Lead Biologist has confirmed that the animals are no longer in the ZOI and traveling away from the mission site. On the other hand, a mission cancellation could be recommended if one or more protected species in the ZOI are found and there is no indication that they would leave the area on their own within a reasonable timeframe. Tower Control on Santa Rosa Island will relay the Lead Biologist's recommendation to the Safety Officer. The Safety Officer and Test Director will collaborate regarding range conditions based on the information provided by the Lead Biologist and the status of range clearing vessels. The Safety Officer will have final authority on decisions regarding delays and cancellations of missions.
The Eglin Safety Officer, in cooperation with the Tower Control on Santa Rosa Island will coordinate and manage all range clearing efforts and be in direct communication with the survey vessel team, typically through the Lead Biologist. All support vessels will be in radio contact with one another and with Tower Control. The Safety Officer will monitor all radio communications, but Tower Control will relay messages between the vessels and the Safety Officer. The Safety Officer and Tower Control will also be in continual contact with the Test Director throughout the mission and will convey information regarding range clearing progress and protected species survey status. Final decisions regarding mission execution, including possible mission delay or cancellation based on protected species sightings or civilian boat traffic interference, will be the responsibility of the Safety Officer, with concurrence from the Test Director.
For non-mission aircraft, the pilot will be instructed in protected marine species survey techniques and will be familiar with marine species expected to occur in the area. One person in the aircraft will act as data recorder and is responsible for relaying the location, species (if possible), direction of movement, and number of animals sighted to the Lead Biologist. The aerial team will also identify protected species indicators such as large schools of fish and large, active groups of birds. Pilots will fly the aircraft in such a manner that the entire ZOI (and a buffer, if required) is monitored. Marine mammal sightings from the aerial survey team will be compiled by the Lead Biologist and communicated to the Test Director or Safety Officer. Similar to survey vessel requirements, all non-mission personnel will be required to exit the human safety zone before the mission can commence. As a result, the ZOI may not be monitored up to immediate deployment of live weapons. Due to this fact, the aerial team may be required to survey an additional buffer zone unless other monitoring assets, such as live video monitoring, can be employed.
Some mission aircraft have the capability to conduct aerial surveys immediately prior to releasing munitions. In those instances, aircrews that have completed the marine species observer training will make several passes over the target area to ensure the area is clear of all protected species. For mission aircraft in this category, aircrews will operate at reasonable and safe altitudes (dependent on the aircraft) appropriate to either visually scan the sea surface or utilize available instrumentation and sensors to detect protected species. Typical missions in this category are air-to-surface gunnery operations from AC-130 and CV-22 gunships. In some cases, other aerial platforms may be available to supplement monitoring activities for pre-mission surveys and during the missions.
The primary platform for video monitoring would be through the GRATV. Four video cameras are typically positioned on the GRATV (anchored on-site) to allow for real-time monitoring and data collection during the mission. The cameras will also be used to monitor for the presence of protected species. All cameras have a zoom capability of up to at least a 300-mm equivalent. At this setting, when targets are at a distance of 2 nmi from the GRATV, the field of view would be 195 ft by 146 ft. Video observers can detect an item with a minimum size of 1 square foot up to 4,000 m away. The GRATV will typically be located about 183 m (600 ft) from the target area; this range is well within the zooming capability of the video cameras.
Supplemental video monitoring can also be accomplished through the employment of additional aerial assets, when available. Eglin's aerostat balloon provides aerial imagery of weapon impacts and instrumentation relay. When utilized, it is tethered to a boat anchored near the GRATV but outside weapon impact areas. The balloon can be deployed to an altitude up to 2,000 ft above sea level. It is equipped with a high-definition camera system that is remotely controlled to pivot and focus on a specific target or location within the mission site. The video feed from the camera system is transmitted to CCF. Eglin may also employ other assets such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft to provide real-time imagery or relay targeting pod videos from mission aircraft. Unmanned aerial vehicles may also be employed to provide aerial video surveillance. While each of these platforms may not be available for all missions, they typically can be used in combination with each other and with the GRATV cameras to supplement marine mammal monitoring efforts.
Even with a variety of platforms potentially available to supply video feeds to CCF, the entire ZOI may not be visible for the entire duration of the mission. However, the targets and immediately surrounding areas will typically be in the field of view of the GRATV cameras and the observer will be able to identify any protected species that may enter the target area before weapon releases. In addition, the observer will be able to determine if any animals were injured immediately following the detonations. Should a protected marine species be detected on the live video, the weapon release can be stopped almost immediately because the video camera observer is in direct contact with Test Director and Safety Officer at CCF.
Eglin AFB and NMFS discussed the possibility of employing PAM as a required mitigation measure during EGTTR activities. However, human safety concerns and the inability to make mission go/no-go decisions in a timely manner are the most immediate obstacles for Eglin AFB implementing real-time PAM during live weapon missions in the EGTTR.
Eglin's current boat and aerial pre- and post-mission visual surveys have been successful in preventing impacts to marine mammals because no unauthorized takes have occurred as a result of these procedures under previous incidental take authorizations. Until Eglin AFB is confident that this first step toward a rudimentary PAM study is successfully implemented, the Air Force cannot commit to PAM as a mitigation measure, which would add multiple layers of complexities required to detect and localize marine mammals during a live mission event. Furthermore, Eglin would need to gain better understanding of PAM capabilities so mission-appropriate procedures could be developed for making go/no-go decisions in a timely manner. Given the level of success with current mitigation procedures and the high level of unknowns associated with
During the low-altitude orbits and climb, the aircrew will visually scan the sea surface within the aircraft's orbit circle for the presence of marine mammals. The surface scan will primarily be conducted by the flight crew in the cockpit and personnel stationed in the tail observer bubble and starboard viewing window. During nighttime missions, crews will use night vision goggles during observation. In addition to visual surveys, aircraft optical and electronic sensors will also be used for site clearance. AC-130 gunships are equipped with low-light TV cameras and infrared detection sets (IDSs). The TV cameras operate in a range of visible and near-visible light. Infrared systems are capable of detecting differences in temperature from thermal energy (heat) radiated from living bodies or from reflected and scattered thermal energy. In contrast to typical night-vision devices, visible light is not necessary for object detection. Infrared systems are equally effective during day or night use. The IDS is capable of detecting very small thermal differences. CV-22 aircraft have similar visual scanners and operable sensors; however, they operate at a much lower altitudes than the AC-130 gunships, and no HE rounds will be fired from these aircraft.
If any marine mammals are detected during pre-mission surveys or during the mission, activities will be immediately halted until the ZOI area is clear of all marine mammals, or the mission will be relocated to another target area. If the mission is relocated, the pre-mission survey procedures will be repeated. In addition, if multiple firing missions are conducted within the same flight, clearance procedures will precede each mission.
Gunship crews will conduct a post-mission survey beginning at the operational altitude and proceeding through a spiraling descent to the designated monitoring altitude. It is anticipated that the descent will occur over a three- to five-minute time period. During this time, aircrews will use similar equipment and instrumentation to scan the water surface for animals that may have been impacted during the gunnery mission. During daytime missions, visual scans will be used as well.
The following table lists known proponents and the monitoring platforms that may be employed for marine mammal monitoring before, during, and after live air-to-surface missions. As stated above, coordination with proponents before live missions will ensure these options are still available, as well as any changes to assets or mission capabilities for new proponents that would fall under this authorization. Eglin Natural Resources will ensure all practical measures will be implemented to the maximum extent possible to comply with the mitigation and monitoring requirements while meeting mission objectives
In addition to monitoring for marine species before and after missions, the following monitoring and reporting measures will be required.
• Within a year before the planned missions, all protected species observers will receive the Marine Species Observer Training Course developed by Eglin in cooperation with NMFS.
• Eglin AFB will track use of the EGTTR and protected species observation results through the use of protected species observer report forms.
• A summary annual report of marine mammal observations and mission activities will be submitted to the NMFS Southeast Regional Office and the NMFS Office of Protected Resources 90 days after completion of mission activities each year or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent LOA for projects at the EGTTR, whichever comes first. A final report shall be prepared and submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This annual report must include the following information:
○ Date and time of each mission.
○ A complete description of the pre-mission and post-mission activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of mission activities on marine mammal populations.
○ Results of the visual monitoring, including numbers by species/stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result of the missions, and number of marine mammals (by species if possible) that may have been harassed due to presence within the activity zone.
○ If any dead or injured marine mammals are observed or detected prior to mission activities, or injured or killed during mission activities, a report must be made to the NMFS Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network at 877-433-8299, the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 301-427-8401 and the Florida Marine Mammal Stranding Hotline at 888-404-3922 within the next business day.
○ Any unauthorized impacts on marine mammals must be immediately reported to the National Marine Fisheries Service's Southeast Regional Administrator, at 727-842-5312, and the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 301-427-8401.
NMFS may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with Eglin AFB regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring measures for these regulations.
Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA include: (1) Results from Eglin AFB's acoustic monitoring study; (2) results from monitoring during previous year(s); (3) results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies; and (4) any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs.
If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
NMFS has defined negligible impact as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar. There is little information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any of these species or stocks that would lead to a different analysis for this activity.
For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the following factors, Eglin AFB's specified activities are not likely to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, serious injury, or death. Because the exposure model was conservative and calculated a single bottlenose dolphin death, along with the required mitigation and monitoring measures not incorporated into the model, NMFS does not anticipate or propose to authorize any take by mortality. The takes from Level B harassment would be due to disturbance of normal behavioral patterns and TTS. The potential takes from Level A harassment would be due to PTS and slight lung injury (not gastrointestinal tract injury).
NMFS has determined that direct strike by ordnance is highly unlikely. Although strike from a munition at the surface of the water while the animals are at the surface is possible, the potential risk of a direct hit to an animal within the target area would be low. The Air Force (2002 PEA) estimated that a maximum of 0.2 marine mammals could potentially be struck by projectiles, falling debris, and inert munitions each year.
Disruption of normal behavioral patterns constituting Level B harassment would be limited to reactions such as startle responses, movements away from the area, and short-term changes to behavioral state. These impacts are expected to be temporary and of limited duration due to the likely avoidance of the action area by marine mammals, short period of individual explosions themselves (versus continual sound source operation), and relatively short duration of the EGTTR operations (
Level B harassment in the form of TTS was modeled to occur in both
NMFS expects that successful implementation of the required aerial-based, vessel-based and video-based mitigation measures would reduce take by Level A harassment in some instances. Marine mammals would likely begin to move away from the immediate target area once bombing begins, decreasing exposure to the full amount of acoustic energy. There have also been no marine mammal observations in the ZOI according to monitoring reports from previous years. Therefore, we anticipate that, because of the mitigation measures, low observation rate of marine mammals in the target area, and the likely limited duration of exposures, any PTS incurred would be in the form of only a small degree of PTS, rather than total deafness.
Other than for mortality, the take numbers proposed by NMFS do not consider mitigation or avoidance. Therefore, NMFS expects that Level A harassment is unlikely to occur at the numbers proposed for Authorization. However, since it is difficult to quantify the degree to which the mitigation and avoidance will reduce the number of animals that might incur Level A harassment (
Impacts to habitat are not anticipated. Noise and pressure waves resulting from live weapon detonations are not likely to result in long-term physical alterations of the water column or ocean floor. These effects are not expected to substantially affect prey availability, are of limited duration, and are intermittent. Impacts to marine fish were analyzed in the
While animals may be impacted in the immediate vicinity of the target area, because of the short duration of the actual individual explosions themselves (versus continual sound source operation) combined with the relatively short duration of daily operations (
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality is anticipated or authorized and only 11 instances of Level A harassment are authorized. Remaining impacts would be within the non-injurious TTS or behavioral effects zones (Level B harassment consisting of generally temporary modifications in behavior);
• Effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring requirements which are designed and expected to avoid exposures that may cause serious injury and minimize the likelihood of PTS, TTS, or more severe behavioral responses;
• Adverse impacts to habitat are not expected; and
• Results from previous monitoring reports did not record any marine mammal takes associated with military readiness activities occurring in the EGTTR.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed marine mammal species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
NMFS does not expect the issuance of these regulations or the associated LOAs to result in any impacts to small entities pursuant to the RFA. Because this action, if adopted, would directly affect Eglin AFB and not a small entity, NMFS concludes the action would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is necessary, and none has been prepared.
This action does not contain any collection of information requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Exports, Fish, Imports, Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 218 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin AFB) and those persons it authorizes to conduct activities on its behalf, for the taking of marine mammals as outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and incidental to testing and training missions in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR).
(b) The taking of marine mammals by Eglin AFB pursuant to a Letter of Authorization (LOA) is authorized only if it occurs at the EGTTR in the Gulf of Mexico.
Regulations in this subpart are effective February 4, 2018 through February 3, 2023.
Under a Letter of Authorization (LOA) issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.66, the Holder of the LOA (herein after Eglin AFB) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals by Level A and Level B harassment associated with EGTTR activities within the area described in § 218.60, provided the activities are in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of these regulations in this subpart and the appropriate LOA.
Notwithstanding takings contemplated in § 218.60 and authorized by an LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.66, no person in connection with the activities described in § 218.60 of this chapter may:
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.66.
(b) Take any marine mammal not specified in such LOAs;
(c) Take any marine mammal specified in such LOAs in any manner other than as specified;
(d) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such marine mammal; or
(e) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the species or stock of such marine mammal for taking for subsistence uses.
When conducting activities identified in § 218.60, the mitigation measures contained in the LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.66 must be implemented. These mitigation measures shall include but are not limited to the following general conditions:
(a) If daytime weather and/or sea conditions preclude adequate monitoring for detecting marine mammals and other marine life, EGTTR operations must be delayed until adequate sea conditions exist for monitoring to be undertaken.
(b) Restrictions on time of activities.
(1) Missions involving the use of live bombs, missiles and rockets will only occur during daylight hours.
(2) Missions during daylight hours will occur no earlier than two hours after sunrise and no later than two hours prior to sunset.
(c) Required delay of live ordnance mission activities will occur if a protected species, large schools of fish or large flocks of birds feeding at the surface are observed within the ZOI.
(1) Protected species marine mammal(s) is confirmed to be outside of the ZOI on a heading away from the target area; or
(2) Protected species marine mammal(s) is not seen again for 30 minutes and presumed to be outside the Level A harassment ZOI.
(3) Large groupings of fish or birds leading to required delay are confirmed outside of the ZOI.
(d) Gunnery operations shall require employment of the following mitigation measures.
(1) Use of 105-mm training rounds (TR) during nighttime missions.
(2) Ramp-up procedures requiring the use of the lowest caliber munition and proceeding to the highest, which means the munitions would be fired in the order of 25 mm, 40 mm, and 105 mm.
(3) Any pause in live fire activities greater than 10 minutes shall require reinitiation of protected species surveys.
(4) Missions shall be conducted within the 200-m isobaths to provide greater protection to several species.
(e) If one or more sperm or baleen whales are detected during pre-mission monitoring activities, mission activities will be aborted/suspended for the remainder of the day.
(f) Additional mitigation measures as contained in an LOA.
(a) Holders of LOAs issued pursuant to § 218.66 for activities described in § 218.60(a) are required to cooperate with NMFS, and any other Federal, state, or local agency with authority to monitor the impacts of the activity on marine mammals. If the authorized activity identified in § 218.60(a) is thought to have resulted in the mortality or injury of any marine mammals or take of marine mammals not identified in § 218.60(b), then the Holder of the LOA must notify the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, or designee, by telephone (301)427-8401, and the Southeast Regional Office (phone within 24 hours of the injury or death).
(b) Monitoring will be conducted by personnel who have completed Eglin's Marine Species Observer Training Course, which was developed in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
(c) The Holder of the LOA will use mission reporting forms to track their use of the EGTTR for testing and training missions and to track marine mammal observations.
(d) Depending on the mission category, visual aerial-based, vessel-based, or video-based marine mammal surveys shall be conducted before and after live ordnance mission activities each day.
(e) Vessel-based surveys will begin approximately one and one-half hours prior to live weapon deployment and shall be completed 30 minutes prior to the start of mission.
(f) Surveys will continue for approximately one hour or until the entire ZOI has been adequately surveyed, whichever comes first.
(g) Post-mission monitoring surveys shall commence once the mission has ended or as soon as the mission area is declared safe.
(h) Vessel-based post-mission surveys shall be conducted for 30 minutes after completion of live ordnance missions.
(i) Any authorized marine mammals that are detected in the ZOI during post-mission surveys shall be counted as Level B takes.
(j) A minimum of two dedicated observers shall be stationed on each vessel.
(k) Observers shall utilize optical equipment with sufficient magnification to allow observation of surfaced animals.
(l) The size of the survey area for each mission shall be determined according to the radius of impact for the given threshold of each munition/detonation scenario. These ranges shall be monitored during pre-mission surveys for each activity.
(m) Some missions shall be delayed to allow survey platforms to evacuate the human safety zone after pre-missions surveys are completed.
(n) Any aerial-based pre-mission surveys shall be conducted by observers aboard non-mission aircraft or mission aircraft who have completed the Marine Species Observer Training.
(o) Gunship standard procedures initiated prior to initiation of live-firing events shall require at least two complete orbits around the survey mission site at the appropriate airspeed and monitoring altitude and include the following:
(1) Monitoring for marine mammals shall continue throughout the mission by mission crew.
(2) Where applicable aircraft optical and electronic sensors shall be used for marine mammal observation.
(3) If any marine mammals are detected during pre-mission surveys or during the mission, activities will be immediately halted until the ZOI area is clear of all marine mammals, or the mission will be relocated to another target area. If the mission is relocated, the pre-mission survey procedures will be repeated.
(4) If multiple firing missions are conducted within the same flight, standard clearance procedures will precede each mission.
(5) Gunship crews will conduct a post-mission survey beginning at the operational altitude and proceeding through a spiraling descent to the designated monitoring altitude.
(p) Video-based monitoring from the GRATV shall be conducted where appropriate via live high-definition video feed.
(1) Supplemental video monitoring shall be conducted through the employment of additional aerial assets including aerostats and drones when available.
(2) [Reserved]
(q) Acoustic Monitoring:
(1) Eglin AFB will conduct a passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) study as an initial step towards understanding acoustic impacts from underwater detonations, once funding is approved.
(2) The results of the PAM study will be submitted to NMFS OPR as a draft monitoring report within 90 days of completion of the study, will be incorporated into any subsequent LOA request or, if no request is made, no later than 90 days after expiration of the LOA.
(r) The Holder of the LOA is required to:
(1) Submit a draft report to NMFS OPR on all monitoring conducted under the LOA within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent LOA for projects at the EGTTR, whichever comes first. A final report shall be prepared and submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report must contain, at a minimum, the following information:
(i) Date and time of each EGTTR mission;
(ii) A complete description of the pre-mission and post-mission activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of EGTTR missions on marine mammal populations; and
(iii) Results of the monitoring program, including numbers by species/stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result of the EGTTR mission and number of marine mammals (by species if possible) that may have been harassed due to presence within the zone of influence.
(2) The draft report will be subject to review and comment by NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS. The draft report will be considered the final report for
(s) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
(1) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the LOA, such as an injury for species not authorized (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, Eglin AFB shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS. The report must include the following information:
(i) Time and date of the incident;
(ii) Description of the incident;
(iii) Environmental conditions (
(iv) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(v) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(vi) Fate of the animal(s); and
(vii) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
(2) Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Eglin AFB to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Eglin AFB may not resume their activities in the EGTTR until notified by NMFS.
(3) In the event that Eglin AFB discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(i) The report must include the same information identified in paragraph (p)(1) of this section. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with Eglin AFB to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.
(ii) In the event that Eglin AFB discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the LOA (
(4) Additional Conditions.
(i) The Holder of the LOA must inform the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301-427-8401) or designee prior to the initiation of any changes to the monitoring plan for a specified mission activity.
(ii) A copy of the LOA must be in the possession of the safety officer on duty each day that EGTTR missions are conducted.
(5) The LOA may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these regulations, Eglin AFB must apply for and obtain an LOA.
(b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of these regulations.
(c) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of these regulations, Eglin AFB must apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA.
(d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, Eglin AFB must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in § 218.67.
(e) The LOA will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Number of marine mammals, by species and age class, authorized to be taken;
(3) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (
(4) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(f) Issuance of an LOA shall be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under these regulations.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of an LOA will be published in the
(a) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.66 for the activity identified in § 218.60(a) will be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
(1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section); and
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were implemented.
(b) For an LOA modification or renewal request by the applicant that includes changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of authorized takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(c) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.66 for the activity identified in § 218.60(a) may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1) Adaptive Management—NMFS may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with Eglin AFB regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring set forth in the preamble for these regulations.
(2) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA are:
(i) Results from Eglin AFB's annual monitoring reports;
(ii) Results from other marine mammal and sound research or studies; or
(iii) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not
(3) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(4) Emergencies—If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified LOAs issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter and 218.60 of this chapter, an LOA may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in the
(a) The General Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5332(a)) at Schedule 1;
(b) The Foreign Service Schedule (22 U.S.C. 3963) at Schedule 2; and
(c) The schedules for the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs (38 U.S.C. 7306, 7404; section 301(a) of Public Law 102-40) at Schedule 3.
(a) The Executive Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5312-5318) at Schedule 5;
(b) The Vice President (3 U.S.C. 104) and the Congress (2 U.S.C. 4501) at Schedule 6; and
(c) Justices and judges (28 U.S.C. 5, 44(d), 135, 252, and 461(a)) at Schedule 7.
(a) Pursuant to section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, and my authority to implement an alternative level of comparability payments under section 5304a of title 5, United States Code, locality-based comparability payments shall be paid in accordance with Schedule 9 attached hereto and made a part hereof.
(b) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement these payments and to publish appropriate notice of such payments in the
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 |