Page Range | 24905-25325 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
83 FR 25102 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors | |
83 FR 24979 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
83 FR 25030 - Endangered Species; Receipt of Recovery Permit Applications | |
83 FR 24992 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request on Two Proposed Information Collection Requests | |
83 FR 24960 - Approval of TN Plan for Control of Emissions From Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units | |
83 FR 25000 - Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for the Commonwealth of Kentucky | |
83 FR 24952 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Nevada; Rescission of Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan for the Reid Gardner Generating Station | |
83 FR 24988 - Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and Federal Agency Crisis Declarations | |
83 FR 24942 - Defensin Proteins Derived From Spinach in Citrus Plants; Temporary Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance | |
83 FR 24948 - Filing Requirements for Information Returns Required on Magnetic Media (Electronically) | |
83 FR 24940 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Continuous Opacity Monitoring Requirements for Municipal Waste Combustors | |
83 FR 25020 - Solicitation of Written Comments on the Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Implementation Work Group Draft Report and Draft Recommendations for Consideration by the National Vaccine Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 25101 - Delegation of Authorities in Section 101(A)(27)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act To Approve Recommendations That Special Immigrant Status Be Granted to Aliens in Exceptional Circumstances and To Find That Granting Such Status Is in the U.S. National Interest | |
83 FR 25030 - Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Meeting | |
83 FR 24981 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program: Technical Assistance To Support Monitoring, Evaluation, Data Collection, and Dissemination of Best Practices | |
83 FR 24905 - Exercise of Time-Limited Authority To Increase the Fiscal Year 2018 Numerical Limitation for the H-2B Temporary Nonagricultural Worker Program | |
83 FR 24995 - Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations and Amendments To Terminate Uses | |
83 FR 25086 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 | |
83 FR 25062 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to District Committee Structure and Governance | |
83 FR 25061 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
83 FR 25023 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 25021 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 25002 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
83 FR 25024 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 25002 - Meeting of the Consumer Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 25000 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
83 FR 25060 - New Postal Product | |
83 FR 25055 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, Cascades Job Corps College and Career Academy Pilot Evaluation, New Collection | |
83 FR 25004 - Notice of Public Meeting Concerning Procurement Through Commercial e-Commerce Portals | |
83 FR 24982 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho Cleanup Project | |
83 FR 24973 - Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review | |
83 FR 24982 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah | |
83 FR 25003 - Office of Federal High-Performance Buildings; Green Building Advisory Committee; Notification of Upcoming Conference Calls | |
83 FR 25026 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Application by Refugee for Waiver of Inadmissibility Grounds | |
83 FR 25028 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Alien Change of Address Card | |
83 FR 25025 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals | |
83 FR 25027 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Medical Certification for Disability Exception | |
83 FR 24940 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans | |
83 FR 24983 - Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act | |
83 FR 25042 - Mary McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site Advisory Commission Notice of Public Meeting | |
83 FR 25102 - Drone Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 25102 - NextGen Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 25043 - Notice of the June 18, 2018, Meeting of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission | |
83 FR 24966 - Information Collection Request; Direct Loan Servicing-Special Programs | |
83 FR 25112 - 30-Day Notice of Application for New Information Collection Request | |
83 FR 25056 - Community Development Revolving Loan Fund | |
83 FR 24986 - New England Power Generators Association v. ISO New England Inc.; Notice of Complaint | |
83 FR 24988 - GlidePath Power Solutions LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Complaint | |
83 FR 24986 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
83 FR 24987 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
83 FR 24986 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
83 FR 25109 - Centers of Excellence for Domestic Maritime Workforce Training and Education | |
83 FR 24937 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Neponset River, Boston, MA | |
83 FR 25034 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews of 38 Species in the Southwest Region (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas) | |
83 FR 25032 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit Applications | |
83 FR 25101 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company | |
83 FR 24962 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Plain Language and Small Business Impacts of Motor Vehicle Safety | |
83 FR 25112 - Notice and Request for Comments | |
83 FR 24936 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Columbia River, Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA | |
83 FR 25100 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company | |
83 FR 25100 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the Commonwealth of Kentucky | |
83 FR 25100 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Mississippi | |
83 FR 24944 - Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2018 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Yellowtail Snapper | |
83 FR 25044 - Certain Modular LED Display Panels and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation; Institution of Investigation Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337 | |
83 FR 25043 - Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing the Same; Notice of Request for Submissions on the Public Interest | |
83 FR 25046 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
83 FR 24938 - Safety Zone; US 68/KY 80 Lake Barkley Bridge, Cumberland River, Canton, KY | |
83 FR 24977 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Casitas Pier Fender Pile Replacement | |
83 FR 24919 - Class Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule | |
83 FR 25005 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
83 FR 25113 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
83 FR 24974 - Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals | |
83 FR 24976 - Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals | |
83 FR 24920 - National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program | |
83 FR 24975 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; NOAA Satellite Ground Station Customer Questionnaire | |
83 FR 24978 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 25007 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
83 FR 25015 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Clinical Trial Sponsors: Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees | |
83 FR 24950 - Safety Zone; Appomattox River, Hopewell, VA | |
83 FR 24937 - Safety Zone; Chesapeake Bay, Virginia Beach, VA | |
83 FR 25013 - Assessment of Pressor Effects of Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
83 FR 25018 - Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management; International Council for Harmonisation; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
83 FR 24978 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21856 | |
83 FR 24920 - Withdrawal of Pleadings | |
83 FR 24983 - Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Application | |
83 FR 24985 - Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Application | |
83 FR 24984 - Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Gateway Expansion Project; Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, L.L.C. | |
83 FR 24971 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
83 FR 24968 - Solicitation of Commodity Board Topics and Contribution of Funding Under the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program | |
83 FR 25049 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
83 FR 25047 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
83 FR 25038 - Agency Information Collection Activities; National Land Remote Sensing Education, Outreach and Research Activity | |
83 FR 25268 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean | |
83 FR 25009 - Proposed Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Success Rates Reporting and Data Validation Procedures | |
83 FR 25001 - Disability Advisory Committee; Announcement of Next Meeting | |
83 FR 24977 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 24970 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Mississippi Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 24969 - Notice of Public Meeting of the West Virginia Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 24970 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 25041 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; E-Government Website Customer Satisfaction Surveys (Formerly American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) E-Government Website Customer Satisfaction Surveys) | |
83 FR 24971 - Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 25040 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Government Customer Satisfaction Surveys | |
83 FR 25023 - National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
83 FR 24979 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application Package for Learning Management System (LMS) Pre- and Post-Test Assessment Questions; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
83 FR 25081 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Margin Methodology | |
83 FR 25076 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-E To Exclude Certain Categories of Issuers From the Exchange's Annual Meeting Requirement | |
83 FR 25068 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Memorialize Its Order and Execution Information Into ISE Rule 718, Entitled “Data Feeds” | |
83 FR 25095 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Risk Protections | |
83 FR 25087 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Trade Acceptance and Novation Rules | |
83 FR 25093 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Peritus High Yield ETF | |
83 FR 25097 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, As Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Continue Listing and Trading Shares of the PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E | |
83 FR 25079 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt IM-7130-1 to Rule 7130 | |
83 FR 25074 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 7150 and 7245 | |
83 FR 24945 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Fishing Year 2018 | |
83 FR 25103 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review | |
83 FR 25014 - Recommended Content and Format of Complete Test Reports for Non-Clinical Bench Performance Testing in Premarket Submissions; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
83 FR 24980 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
83 FR 25029 - Announcement of Public Meeting of the North American Wetlands Conservation Council | |
83 FR 25021 - Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 | |
83 FR 24975 - Notice of Availability of a NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture Study Draft Report and Public Meeting | |
83 FR 24966 - Notice of Intent To Renew a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
83 FR 25066 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
83 FR 25071 - Pioneer ILS Interval Fund and Amundi Pioneer Asset Management, Inc.; Notice of Application | |
83 FR 25061 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
83 FR 25003 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
83 FR 25002 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
83 FR 25101 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review | |
83 FR 24967 - Notice of Intent To Renew a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
83 FR 24954 - Air Plan Approval; Washington; Regional Haze Progress Report | |
83 FR 24972 - Steel Wire Garment Hangers From Taiwan and Vietnam: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders | |
83 FR 25104 - Allocation of Public Transportation Emergency Relief Funds in Response to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria | |
83 FR 25012 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
83 FR 25039 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Law and Order on Indian Reservations-Marriage and Dissolution Applications | |
83 FR 24990 - Public Water System Supervision Program; Supplemental Primary Enforcement Responsibility Approval for the Navajo Nation | |
83 FR 25302 - Elimination of Trichinae Control Regulations and Consolidation of Thermally Processed, Commercially Sterile Regulations | |
83 FR 25102 - Renewal of Defense Trade Advisory Group Charter | |
83 FR 25116 - Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset to Affected Domestic Producers |
Agricultural Research Service
Farm Service Agency
Food Safety and Inspection Service
National Agricultural Library
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Economic Development Administration
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
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.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security and Employment and Training Administration and Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
Temporary rule.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, has decided to increase the numerical limitation on H-2B nonimmigrant visas to authorize the issuance of up to an additional 15,000 through the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. This increase is based on a time-limited statutory authority and does not affect the H-2B program in future fiscal years. The Departments are promulgating regulations to implement this determination.
This final rule is effective from May 31, 2018 through September 30, 2018, except for 20 CFR 655.66, which is effective from May 31, 2018 through September 30, 2021.
Regarding 8 CFR part 214: Kevin J. Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20529-2120, telephone (202) 272-8377 (not a toll-free call). Regarding 20 CFR part 655: William W. Thompson, II, Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor, Box #12-200, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 513-7350 (this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone numbers above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD).
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) establishes the H-2B nonimmigrant classification for a nonagricultural temporary worker “having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform . . . temporary [non-agricultural] service or labor if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country.” INA section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). Employers must petition DHS for classification of prospective temporary workers as H-2B nonimmigrants. INA section 214(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1). DHS must approve this petition before the beneficiary can be considered eligible for an H-2B visa. Finally, the INA requires that “[t]he question of importing any alien as [an H-2B] nonimmigrant . . . in any specific case or specific cases shall be determined by [DHS],
DHS regulations provide that an H-2B petition for temporary employment in the United States must be accompanied by an approved temporary labor certification (TLC) from the Department of Labor (DOL) issued pursuant to regulations established at 20 CFR part 655. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iii)(A), (C)-(E), (iv)(A);
In order to determine whether to issue a labor certification, the Departments have established regulatory procedures under which DOL certifies whether a qualified U.S. worker is available to fill the job opportunity described in the employer's petition for a temporary nonagricultural worker, and whether a foreign worker's employment in the job opportunity will adversely affect the wages or working conditions of
The INA also authorizes DHS to impose appropriate remedies against an employer for a substantial failure to meet the terms and conditions of employing an H-2B nonimmigrant worker, or for a willful misrepresentation of a material fact in a petition for an H-2B nonimmigrant worker. INA section 214(c)(14)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(14)(A). The INA expressly authorizes DHS to delegate certain enforcement authority to DOL. INA section 214(c)(14)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(14)(B);
The INA sets the annual number of aliens who may be issued H-2B visas or otherwise provided H-2B nonimmigrant status to perform temporary nonagricultural work at 66,000, to be distributed semi-annually beginning in October and in April.
Because of the intense demand for H-2B visas in recent years, the semi-annual visa allocation, and the regulatory requirement that employers apply for labor certification 75 to 90 days before the start date of work,
On March 23, 2018, the President signed the FY 2018 Omnibus which contains a provision (section 205 of Division M, hereinafter “section 205”) permitting the Secretary of Homeland Security, under certain circumstances and after consultation with the Secretary of Labor, to increase the number of H-2B visas available to U.S. employers, notwithstanding the otherwise established statutory numerical limitation. Specifically, section 205 provides that “the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of Labor, and upon the determination that the needs of American businesses cannot be satisfied in [FY] 2018 with U.S. workers who are willing, qualified, and able to perform temporary nonagricultural labor,” may increase the total number of aliens who may receive an H-2B visa in FY 2018 by not more than the highest number of H-2B nonimmigrants who participated in the H-2B returning worker program in any fiscal year in which returning workers were exempt from the H-2B numerical limitation.
In FY 2017, Congress enacted section 543 of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Public Law 115-31, which was a statutory provision materially identical to section 205 of the FY 2018 Omnibus pertaining to the FY 2017 H-2B visa allocation. Following consultation with the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Homeland Security determined that the needs of some American businesses could not be satisfied in FY 2017 with U.S. workers who were willing, qualified, and able to perform temporary nonagricultural labor. Based on this determination, on July 19, 2017, DHS and DOL jointly published a temporary final rule allowing an increase of up to 15,000 additional H-2B visas for those businesses that attested to a level of need such that, if they did not receive all of the workers requested on the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), they were likely to suffer irreparable harm,
As they did in implementing the FY 2017 Omnibus H-2B supplemental cap
Following consultation with the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that the needs of some American businesses cannot be satisfied in FY 2018 with U.S. workers who are willing, qualified, and able to perform temporary nonagricultural labor. In accordance with section 205 of the FY 2018 Omnibus, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that it is appropriate, for the reasons stated below, to raise the numerical limitation on H-2B nonimmigrant visas by up to an additional 15,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year. Consistent with such authority, the Secretary of Homeland Security has decided to increase the H-2B cap for FY 2018 by up to 15,000 additional visas for those American businesses that attest to a level of need such that, if they do not receive all of the workers under the cap increase, they are likely to suffer irreparable harm,
The Secretary of Homeland Security's determination to increase the numerical limitation is based on the conclusion that some businesses risk closing their doors in the absence of a cap increase. Some stakeholders have reported that access to additional H-2B visas is essential to the continued viability of some small businesses that play an important role in sustaining the economy in their states, while others have stated that an increase is unnecessary and raises the possibility of abuse, by, among other things, creating an incentive for employers who, unable to hire workers under the normal 66,000 annual cap, would misrepresent their actual need in order to hire H-2B workers from amongst the limited number of newly available visa numbers under the Omnibus.
The decision to direct the benefits of this cap increase to businesses that need workers to avoid irreparable harm, rather than directing the cap increase to any and all businesses seeking temporary workers, is consistent with the Secretary of Homeland Security's broad discretion under section 205. Section 205 provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security, upon satisfaction of the statutory business need standard, may increase the numerical limitation to meet such need.
First, DHS interprets section 205's reference to “the needs of American businesses” as describing a need different than the need required of employers in petitioning for an H-2B worker.
Second, this approach limits the increase in a way that is consistent with the implementation of the FY 2017 supplemental cap, and provides protections against adverse effects on U.S. workers that may result from a broader cap increase. Although there is not enough time remaining in FY 2018 to conduct more formal analysis of such effects and the calendar does not lend itself to such additional efforts, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that in the particular circumstances presented here, it is appropriate to tailor the availability of this temporary cap increase to those businesses likely to suffer irreparable harm,
Under this rule, employers must also meet, among other requirements, the
Accordingly, this rule increases the FY 2018 numerical limitation by up to 15,000 to ensure a sufficient number of visas to meet the level of demand in past years, but also restricts the availability of such visas by prioritizing only the most significant business needs. These provisions are each described in turn below.
DHS expects the increase of up to 15,000 visas
Under the most recent returning worker statute in FY 2016, 18,090 returning workers were approved for H-2B petitions, despite Congress having reauthorized the returning worker program with more than three-quarters of the fiscal year remaining. Of those 18,090 workers authorized for admission, 13,382 were admitted into the United States or otherwise acquired H-2B status. While section 205 does not limit the issuance of additional H-2B visas to returning workers, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consideration of the statute's reference to returning workers, determined that it would be appropriate to use these recent figures as a basis for the maximum numerical limitation under section 205.
The Secretary of Homeland Security also considered the number of H-2B workers who were approved under the FY 2017 supplemental H-2B cap.
To file an H-2B petition during the remainder of FY 2018, petitioners must meet all existing H-2B eligibility requirements, including having an approved, valid and unexpired TLC per 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6) and 20 CFR part 655 subpart A. In addition, the petitioner must submit an attestation in which the petitioner affirms, under penalty of perjury, that it meets the business need standard set forth above. Under that standard, the petitioner must be able to establish that if it does not receive all of the workers under the cap increase, it is likely to suffer irreparable harm, that is, permanent and severe financial loss. Although the TLC process focuses on establishing whether a petitioner has a need for workers, the TLC does not directly address the harm a petitioner may face in the absence of such workers; the attestation addresses this question. The attestation must be submitted directly to USCIS, together with Form I-129, the valid TLC, and any other necessary documentation. As in the rule implementing the FY 2017 temporary cap increase, the new attestation form is included in this rulemaking as Appendix A.
The attestation serves as prima facie initial evidence to DHS that the petitioner's business is likely to suffer irreparable harm.
In addition to the statement regarding the irreparable harm standard, the attestation will also state that the employer: Meets all other eligibility criteria for the available visas; will comply with all assurances, obligations, and conditions of employment set forth in the Application for Temporary Employment Certification (Form ETA 9142B and Appendix B) certified by the DOL for the job opportunity (which serves as the TLC); will conduct additional recruitment of U.S. workers, in accordance with this rulemaking; and will document and retain evidence of such compliance. The process under this regulation is similar to the process
The requirement to provide a post-TLC attestation to USCIS is sufficiently protective of U.S. workers given that the employer, in completing the TLC process, has already made one unsuccessful attempt to recruit U.S. workers. In addition, the employer is required to retain documentation, which must be provided upon request, supporting the new attestations, including a recruitment report for any additional recruitment required under this rule. Accordingly, USCIS may issue a denial or a request for additional evidence in accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b) or 8 CFR 214.2(h)(11) based on such documentation, and DOL's OFLC and WHD will be able to review this documentation and enforce the attestations during the course of an audit examination or investigation. Although the employer must have such documentation on hand at the time it files the petition, the Departments have determined that if employers were required to submit the attestations to DOL before seeking a petition from DHS or to complete all recruitment before submitting a petition, the attendant delays would render any visas unlikely to satisfy the needs of American businesses given processing timeframes and that there are only a few months remaining in this fiscal year.
In accordance with the attestation requirement, under which petitioners attest that they meet the irreparable harm standard, and the documentation retention requirements at 20 CFR 655.66, the petitioner must retain documents and records meeting their burden to demonstrate compliance with this rule, and must provide the documents and records upon the request of DHS or DOL, such as in the event of an audit or investigation. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to, the following types of documentation:
(1) Evidence that the business is or would be unable to meet financial or contractual obligations without H-2B workers, including evidence of contracts, reservations, orders, or other business arrangements that have been or would be cancelled absent the requested H-2B workers, and evidence demonstrating an inability to pay debts/bills;
(2) Evidence that the business has suffered or will suffer permanent and severe financial loss during the period of need, as compared to the period of need in prior years, such as: Financial statements (including profit/loss statements) comparing present period of need as compared to prior years; bank statements, tax returns or other documents showing evidence of current and past financial condition; and relevant tax records, employment records, or other similar documents showing hours worked and payroll comparisons from prior years to current year;
(3) Evidence showing the number of workers needed in previous seasons to meet the employer's temporary need as compared to those currently employed, including the number of H-2B workers requested, the number of H-2B workers actually employed, the dates of their employment, and their hours worked (for example, payroll records), particularly in comparison to the weekly hours stated on the TLC. In addition, for employers that obtain authorization to employ H-2B workers under this rule, evidence showing the number of H-2B workers requested under this rule, the number of workers actually employed, including H-2B workers, the dates of their employment, and their hours worked (for example, payroll records), particularly in comparison to the weekly hours stated on the TLC; and/or
(4) Evidence that the business is dependent on H-2B workers, such as: number of H-2B workers compared to U.S. workers needed prospectively or in the past; business plan or reliable forecast showing that, due to the nature and size of the business, there is a need for a specific number of H-2B workers.
These examples of potential evidence, however, will not exclusively or necessarily establish that the business meets the irreparable harm standard, and petitioners may retain other types of evidence they believe will satisfy this standard. If an audit or investigation occurs, DHS or DOL will review all evidence available to it to confirm that the petitioner properly attested to DHS that their business would likely suffer irreparable harm. If DHS subsequently finds that the evidence does not support the employer's attestation, DHS may deny or revoke the petition consistent with existing regulatory authorities and/or notify DOL. In addition, DOL may independently take enforcement action, including, among other things, to debar the petitioner from using the H-2B program generally for not less than one year or more than 5 years from the date of the final agency decision and may disqualify the debarred party from filing any labor certification applications or labor condition applications with DOL for the same period set forth in the final debarment decision.
To the extent that evidence reflects a preference for hiring H-2B workers over U.S. workers, an investigation by other agencies enforcing employment and labor laws, such as the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, may be warranted.
DHS, in exercising its statutory authority under INA section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), and section 205 of the FY 2018 Omnibus, is responsible for adjudicating eligibility for H-2B classification. As in all cases, the burden rests with the petitioner to establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. INA section 291, 8 U.S.C. 1361. Accordingly, as noted above, where the petition lacks initial evidence, such as a properly completed
Because of the particular circumstances of this regulation, and because the attestation plays a vital role in achieving the purposes of this regulation, DHS and DOL intend that the attestation requirement be non-severable from the remainder of the regulation. Thus, in the event the attestation requirement is enjoined or held invalid, the remainder of the regulation, with the exception of the retention requirements, is also intended to cease operation in the relevant jurisdiction, without prejudice to workers already present in the United States under this regulation, as consistent with law.
To petition for H-2B workers under this rule, the petitioner must file a Form-129 in accordance with applicable regulations and form instructions, an unexpired TLC, and the attestation described above.
To encourage timely filing of any petition seeking a visa under the FY 2018 Omnibus, DHS is notifying the public that the petition may not be approved by USCIS on or after October 1, 2018.
USCIS's current processing goals for H-2B petitions that can be adjudicated without the need for further evidence (
As with other Form I-129 filings, DHS encourages petitioners to provide a duplicate copy of Form I-129 and all supporting documentation at the time of filing if the beneficiary is seeking a nonimmigrant visa abroad. Failure to submit duplicate copies may cause a delay in the issuance of a visa to otherwise eligible applicants.
All employers are required to have an approved and valid TLC from DOL in order to file a Form I-129 petition with DHS, in accordance with 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iv)(A) and (D). Employers with an approved TLC will have already conducted recruitment, as set forth in 20 CFR 655.40-48, to determine whether U.S. workers are qualified and available to perform the work for which H-2B workers are sought. In addition to the recruitment already conducted, employers with current labor certifications containing a start date of work before April 15, 2018, must conduct a fresh round of recruitment for U.S. workers. As noted in the 2015 H-2B comprehensive rule, U.S. workers seeking employment in these jobs typically do not search for work months in advance, and cannot make commitments about their availability for employment far in advance of the work.
Therefore, employers with still valid TLCs with a start date of work before April 15, 2018, will be required to conduct additional recruitment, and attest that the recruitment will be conducted, as follows. The employer must place a new job order for the job opportunity with the State Workforce Agency (SWA), serving the area of intended employment. The job order must contain the job assurances and contents set forth in 20 CFR 655.18 for recruitment of U.S. workers at the place of employment, and remain posted for at least 5 days beginning not later than the next business day after submitting a petition for H-2B workers to USCIS.
The employer must hire any qualified U.S. worker who applies or is referred for the job opportunity until 2 business days after the last date on which the job order is posted. The 2 business day requirement permits a brief additional period of time to enable U.S. workers to contact the employer following the job order or newspaper advertisement. Consistent with 20 CFR 655.40(a), applicants can be rejected only for lawful job-related reasons.
DOL's WHD has the authority to investigate the employer's attestations, as the attestations are a required part of the H-2B petition process under this rule and the attestations rely on the employer's existing, approved TLC. Where a WHD investigation determines that there has been a willful misrepresentation of a material fact or a substantial failure to meet the required terms and conditions of the attestations, WHD may institute administrative proceedings to impose sanctions and remedies, including (but not limited to) assessment of civil money penalties, recovery of wages due, make whole relief for any U.S. worker who has been improperly rejected for employment, laid off or displaced, and/or debarment for 1 to 5 years.
DHS has the authority to verify any information submitted to establish H-2B eligibility before or after the petition has been adjudicated by USCIS.
DOL's OFLC has the existing authority to conduct audit examinations on adjudicated
Petitioners must also comply with any other applicable laws in their recruitment, such as avoiding unlawful discrimination against U.S. workers based on their citizenship status or national origin. Specifically, the failure to recruit and hire qualified and available U.S. workers on account of such individuals' national origin or citizenship status may violate INA section 274B, 8 U.S.C. 1324b.
This rule is issued without prior notice and opportunity to comment and with an immediate effective date pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d).
The APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The good cause exception for forgoing notice and comment rulemaking “excuses notice and comment in emergency situations, or where delay could result in serious harm.”
In this case, the Departments are bypassing advance notice and comment because of the exigency created by section 205 of Div. M of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (FY 2018 Omnibus), which went into effect on March 23, 2018 and expires on September 30, 2018. USCIS received more than enough petitions to meet the H-2B visa statutory cap for the second half of the FY 2018 during the first five business days that those petitions could be filed. Therefore, USCIS conducted a lottery on February 28, 2018 to randomly select a sufficient number of petitions to meet the cap. USCIS rejected and returned the petitions and associated filing fees to petitioners that were not selected, as well as all cap-subject petitions received after February
Courts have found “good cause” under the APA when an agency is moving expeditiously to avoid significant economic harm to a program, program users, or an industry. Courts have held that an agency may use the good cause exception to address “a serious threat to the financial stability of [a government] benefit program,”
Consistent with the above authorities, the Departments have bypassed notice and comment to prevent the “serious economic harm to the H-2B community,” including associated U.S. workers, that could result from ongoing uncertainty over the status of the numerical limitation,
The APA also authorizes agencies to make a rule effective immediately, upon a showing of good cause, instead of imposing a 30-day delay. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The good cause exception to the 30-day effective date requirement is easier to meet than the good cause exception for foregoing notice and comment rulemaking.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. The value equivalent of $100 million in 1995 adjusted for inflation to 2017 levels by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumer (CPI-U) is $161 million.
This rule does not exceed the $100 million expenditure in any 1 year when adjusted for inflation ($161 million in 2017 dollars), and this rulemaking does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply, and the Departments have not prepared a statement under the Act.
This temporary rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 804, 110 Stat. 847, 872 (1996), 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule has not been found to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic or export markets.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” although not an economically significant regulatory action. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this regulation. OMB considers this final rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
With this final rule, DHS is authorizing up to an additional 15,000 visas for the remainder of FY 2018, pursuant to the FY 2018 Omnibus, to be available to certain U.S. businesses under the H-2B visa classification. By the authority given under the FY 2018 Omnibus, DHS is increasing the H-2B cap for the remainder of FY 2018 for those businesses that: (1) Show that there are an insufficient number of qualified U.S. workers to meet their needs in FY 2018; and (2) attest that their businesses are likely to suffer
The H-2B visa classification program was designed to serve U.S. businesses that are unable to find a sufficient number of qualified U.S. workers to perform nonagricultural work of a temporary or seasonal nature. For an H-2B nonimmigrant worker to be admitted into the United States under this visa classification, the hiring employer is required to: (1) Receive a TLC from DOL and (2) file a Form I-129 with DHS. The temporary nature of the services or labor described on the approved TLC is subject to DHS review during adjudication of Form I-129.
The H-2B cap for the second half of FY 2018 was reached on February 27, 2018. Normally, once the H-2B cap has been reached, petitioners must wait until the next half of the fiscal year, or the beginning of the next fiscal year, for additional cap-subject visas to become available. However, on March 23, 2018, the President signed the FY 2018 Omnibus that contains a provision (Sec. 205 of Div. M) authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security, under certain circumstances, to increase the number of H-2B visas available to U.S. employers, notwithstanding the established statutory numerical limitation. After consulting with the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined it is appropriate to exercise her discretion and raise the H-2B cap by up to an additional 15,000 visas for the remainder of FY 2018 for those businesses who would qualify under certain circumstances.
This temporary rule would impact those employers who file Form I-129 on behalf of the nonimmigrant worker they seek to hire under the H-2B visa program. More specifically, this rule would impact those employers who could establish that their business is likely to suffer irreparable harm because they cannot employ the H-2B workers
The costs for this form include filing costs and the opportunity costs of time to complete and file the form. The current filing fee for Form I-129 is $460 and the estimated time needed to complete and file Form I-129 for H-2B classification is 4.26 hours.
To estimate the total opportunity cost of time to petitioners who complete and file Form I-129, DHS uses the mean hourly wage rate of HR specialists of $31.84 as the base wage rate.
Calculation if an in-house lawyer files: $99.60 × (4.26 hours to file Form I-129 H-2B + 0.88 hour to file Form G-28) = $511.94 (rounded);
Calculation if an outsourced lawyer files: $170.55 × (4.26 hours to file Form I-129 H-2B + 0.88 hour to file Form G-28) = $876.63 (rounded).
Calculation if an in-house lawyer files: $511.94 + $460 (filing fee) = $971.94;
Calculation if outsourced lawyer files: $876.63 + $460 (filing fee) = $1,336.63.
As mentioned in
Calculation if an in-house lawyer files: $971.94 × 3,076 (population applying for H-2B visas) = $2,989,687.44 = $2,989,687 (rounded);
Calculation if an outsourced lawyer files: $1,336.63 × 3,076 (population applying for H-2B visas) = $4,111,473.88 = $4,111,474 (rounded).
Employers may use Request for Premium Processing Service (Form I-907) to request faster processing of their Form I-129 petitions for H-2B visas. The filing fee for Form I-907 is $1,225 and the time burden for completing the form is 0.5 hours. Using the wage rates established previously, the opportunity cost of time is $23.25 for an HR specialist to file Form I-907, $49.80 for an in-house lawyer to file, and $85.28 for an outsourced lawyer to file.
Calculation if an in-house lawyer files: $99.60 × (0.5 hours) = $49.80 (rounded);
Calculation if an outsourced lawyer files: $170.55 × (0.5 hours) = $85.28 (rounded).
Calculation if an in-house lawyer files: $49.80 + $1,225 = 1,274.80;
Calculation if outsourced lawyer files: $85.28 + $1,225 = $1,310.28.
The attestation form includes recruiting requirements, the irreparable harm standard, and document retention obligations. DOL estimates the time burden for completing and signing the form is 0.25 hour, and 1 hour for retaining documents and records relating to recruitment. The petitioner must retain documents and records of a new job order for the job opportunity placed with the State Workforce Agency (SWA) and one newspaper advertisement. DOL estimates that it would take up to one hour to file and retain documents and records relating to recruitment. Using the total per hour wage for an HR specialist ($46.49), the opportunity cost of time for an HR specialist to complete the attestation form and to retain documents relating to recruitment is $58.11.
Additionally, the form requires that the petitioner assess and document supporting evidence for meeting the irreparable harm standard, and retain those documents and records, which we assume will require the resources of a financial analyst (or another equivalent occupation). Using the same methodology previously described for wages, the total per hour wage for a financial analyst is $69.79.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics
As discussed previously, we believe that the estimated 3,076 remaining unfilled certifications for the latter half of FY 2018 would include all potential
Cost for HR Specialists: $46.49 (total per hour wage for an HR specialist) × 3,076 certifications × 1.25 hours = $178,754.
Cost for Financial Analysts: $69.79 (total per hour wage for a financial analyst) × 3,076 certifications × 5 hours = $1,073,370.
Employers will place a new job order for the job opportunity with the SWA serving the area of intended employment for at least 5 days beginning no later than the next business day after submitting a petition for an H-2B worker and the attestation to USCIS. DOL estimates that an HR specialist (or another equivalent occupation) would spend 1 hour to prepare a new job order and submit it to the SWA.
Employers will also place one newspaper advertisement during the period of time the SWA is actively circulating the job order for intrastate clearance. DOL estimates that a standard job listing in an online edition of a newspaper is $250.
Therefore, the total cost for the attestation form is estimated to be $2,164,127.
DHS anticipates some additional costs in adjudicating the additional petitions submitted as a result of the increase in cap limitation for H-2B visas. However, DHS expects these costs to be covered by the fees associated with the forms.
The inability to access H-2B workers for these entities may cause their businesses to suffer irreparable harm. Temporarily increasing the number of available H-2B visas for this fiscal year may allow some businesses to hire the additional labor resources necessary to avoid such harm. Preventing such harm may ultimately rescue the jobs of any other employees (including U.S. employees) at that establishment.
This rule does 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order No. 13132, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999), this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988, 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 5, 1996).
DHS analyzes actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to them and if so what degree of analysis is required. DHS Directive (Dir) 023-01 Rev. 01 establishes the procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. The CEQ regulations allow federal agencies to establish, with CEQ review and concurrence, categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) which experience has shown do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(1)(iii), 1508.4. DHS Instruction 023-01 Rev. 01 establishes such Categorical Exclusions that DHS has found to have no such effect. Dir. 023-01 Rev. 01 Appendix A Table 1. For an action to be categorically excluded, DHS Instruction 023-01 Rev. 01 requires the action to satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the Categorical Exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect. Inst. 023-01 Rev. 01 section V.B (1)-(3).
This rule temporarily amends the regulations implementing the H-2B nonimmigrant visa program to increase the numerical limitation on H-2B nonimmigrant visas for the remainder of FY 2018 based on the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, consistent with the FY 2018 Omnibus. Generally, DHS believes that NEPA does not apply to a rule which changes the number of visas which can be issued because any attempt to analyze its impact would be largely, if not completely, speculative. The Departments cannot estimate with reasonable certainty which employers will successfully petition for employees in what locations and numbers. At most, it is reasonably foreseeable that an increase of up to 15,000 visas may be issued for temporary entry into the United States in diverse industries and locations. For purposes of the cost estimates contained in the economic analysis above, DHS bases its calculations on the assumption that all 15,000 will be issued. However, estimating the cost of document filings is qualitatively different from analyzing environmental impacts. Being able to estimate the costs per filing and number of filings at least allows a calculation. Even making that assumption, analyzing the environmental impacts of 15,000 visa recipients among a current U.S. population in excess of 323 million and across a U.S. land mass of 3.794 million square miles, would require a degree of speculation that causes DHS to conclude that NEPA does not apply to this action.
DHS has determined that even if NEPA were to apply to this action, this rule would fit within one categorical exclusion under Environmental Planning Program, DHS Instruction 023-01 Rev. 01, Appendix A, Table 1 and does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Specifically, the rule fits within Categorical Exclusion number A3(d) for rules that interpret or amend an existing regulation without changing its environmental effect.
This rule maintains the current human environment by helping to
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
More specifically, this rule includes a new form, Attestation for Employers Seeking to Employ H-2B Nonimmigrants Workers Under Section 205 of Division M of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Form ETA-9142-B-CAA-2 that petitioners submit to DHS. Petitioners will use this form to make the irreparable harm attestation described above. The petitioner would file the attestation with DHS. In addition, the petitioner may need to advertise the positions. Finally, the petitioner will need to retain documents and records proving compliance with this implementing rule, and must provide the documents and records to DHS and DOL staff in the event of an audit or investigation. The information collection requirements associated with this rule are summarized as follows:
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange programs, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Students.
Administrative practice and procedure, Employment, Employment and training, Enforcement, Foreign workers, Forest and forest products, Fraud, Health professions, Immigration, Labor, Longshore and harbor work, Migrant workers, Nonimmigrant workers, Passports and visas, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Unemployment, Wages, Working conditions.
For the reasons discussed in the joint preamble, part 214 of chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305 and 1372; sec. 643, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; Pub. L. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1477-1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 note and 1931 note, respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2.
(h) * * *
(6) * * *
(x)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the joint preamble, 20 CFR part 655 is amended as follows:
Section 655.0 issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(iii), 1101(a)(15)(H)(i) and (ii), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(6), 1182(m), (n) and (t), 1184(c), (g), and (j), 1188, and 1288(c) and (d); sec. 3(c)(1), Pub. L. 101-238, 103 Stat. 2099, 2102 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note); sec. 221(a), Pub. L. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, 5027 (8 U.S.C. 1184 note); sec. 303(a)(8), Pub. L. 102-232, 105 Stat. 1733, 1748 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note); sec. 323(c), Pub. L. 103-206, 107 Stat. 2428; sec. 412(e), Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note); sec. 2(d), Pub. L. 106-95, 113 Stat. 1312, 1316 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note); 29 U.S.C. 49k; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, as amended; Pub. L. 109-423, 120 Stat. 2900; 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i); and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iii).
Subpart A issued under 8 CFR 214.2(h).
Subpart B issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 1184(c), and 1188; and 8 CFR 214.2(h).
Subparts F and G issued under 8 U.S.C. 1288(c) and (d); sec. 323(c), Public Law 103-206, 107 Stat. 2428; and 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, 114-74 at section 701.
Subparts H and I issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and (b)(1), 1182(n) and (t), and 1184(g) and (j); sec. 303(a)(8), Public Law 102-232, 105 Stat. 1733, 1748 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note); sec. 412(e), Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681; 8 CFR 214.2(h); and 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, Public Law 114-74 at section 701.
Subparts L and M issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(c) and 1182(m); sec. 2(d), Public Law 106-95, 113 Stat. 1312, 1316 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note); Public Law 109-423, 120 Stat. 2900; and 8 CFR 214.2(h).
An employer filing a petition with USCIS under 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(x) to employ H-2B workers from May 31, 2018 through September 14, 2018 must meet the following requirements:
(a) The employer must attest on Form ETA-9142-B-CAA-2 that without the ability to employ all of the H-2B workers requested on the petition filed pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(x), its business is likely to suffer irreparable harm (that is, permanent and severe financial loss), and that the employer will provide documentary evidence of this fact to DHS or DOL upon request.
(b) An employer with a start date of work before April 15, 2018 on its approved Temporary Labor Certification must conduct additional recruitment of U.S. workers as follows:
(1) The employer must place a new job order for the job opportunity with the State Workforce Agency, serving the area of intended employment. The employer must follow all applicable State Workforce Agency instructions for posting job orders and receive applications in all forms allowed by the State Workforce Agency, including online applications (sometimes known as “self-referrals”). The job order must contain the job assurances and contents set forth in 20 CFR 655.18 for recruitment of U.S. workers at the place of employment, and remain posted for at least 5 days beginning not later than the next business day after submitting a petition for H-2B worker(s); and
(2) The employer must place one newspaper advertisement using an online or print format on any day of the week meeting the advertising requirements of 20 CFR 655.41, during the period of time the State Workforce Agency is actively circulating the job order for intrastate clearance; and
(3) The employer must hire any qualified U.S. worker who applies or is referred for the job opportunity until 2 business days after the last date on which the job order is posted under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Consistent with 20 CFR 655.40(a), applicants can be rejected only for lawful job-related reasons.
(c) This section expires on October 1, 2018.
(d)
(a) An employer that files a petition with USCIS to employ H-2B workers in fiscal year 2018 under authority of the temporary increase in the numerical limitation under section 205 of Division M, Public Law 115-141 must maintain for a period of 3 years from the date of certification, consistent with 20 CFR 655.56 and 29 CFR 503.17, the following:
(1) A copy of the attestation filed pursuant to regulations governing that temporary increase;
(2) Evidence establishing that employer's business is likely to suffer irreparable harm (that is, permanent and severe financial loss), if it cannot employ H-2B nonimmigrant workers in fiscal year 2018; and
(3) If applicable, evidence of additional recruitment and a recruitment report that meets the requirements set forth in 20 CFR 655.48(a)(1), (2), and (7).
DOL or DHS may inspect these documents upon request.
(b) This section expires on October 1, 2021.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
By virtue of my signature below, I
(A) I am an employer with an approved labor certification from the Department of Labor seeking permission to employ H-2B nonimmigrant workers for temporary employment in the United States.
(B) I was granted temporary labor certification from the Department of Labor (DOL) for my business's job opportunity, which required that the worker(s)
(C) I attest that if my business cannot employ all the H-2B nonimmigrant workers requested on my Form I-129 petition before the end of this fiscal year (September 30, 2018) in the job opportunity certified by DOL, my business is likely to suffer irreparable harm (that is, permanent and severe financial loss).
(D) I attest that my business has a bona fide temporary need for all the H-2B nonimmigrant workers requested on the Form I-129 petition, consistent with 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(ii).
(E) If my current labor certification contains a start date of work before April 15, 2018, I will complete a new assessment of the United States labor market in advance of H-2B nonimmigrant workers coming to the United States to begin employment before October 1, 2018, as follows:
1. I will place a new job order for the job opportunity with the State Workforce Agency (SWA) serving the area of intended employment that contains the job assurances and contents set forth in 20 CFR 655.18 for recruitment of U.S. workers at the place of employment for at least 5 days beginning not later than the next business day after submitting a petition for an H-2B nonimmigrant worker(s) and this accompanying attestation to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
2. I will place one newspaper advertisement, which may be published online or in print, on any day of the week, meeting the advertising requirements of 20 CFR 655.41, during the period of time the SWA is actively circulating the job order for intrastate clearance; and
3. I will offer the job to any qualified and available U.S. worker who or is referred for the job opportunity until 2 business days after the last date on which the job order is posted. I understand that consistent with 20 CFR 655.40(a), applicants can be rejected only for lawful job-related reasons.
(F) I agree to retain a copy of this signed attestation form, the additional recruitment documentation, including a recruitment report that meets the requirements for recruitment reports set forth in 20 CFR 655.48(a)(1), (2) & (7), together with evidence establishing that my business meets the standard described in paragraph (C) of this attestation, for a period of 3 years from the date of certification, consistent with the document retention requirements under 20 CFR 655.66, 20 CFR 655.56, and 29 CFR 503.17. Further, I agree to provide this documentation to a DHS or DOL official upon request.
(G) I agree to comply with all assurances, obligations, and conditions of employment set forth in the
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct:
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notification of waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for positive airway pressure devices.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is granting a class waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule (NMR) for Positive Airway Pressure Devices and Supplies Manufacturing. This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) devices, Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) devices, and other products intended to treat sleep apnea by keeping a person's airways open during sleep.
This action is effective July 2, 2018.
Carol J. Hulme, Program Analyst, by telephone at 202-205-6347; or by email at
Section 8(a)(17) and 46 of the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17) and 657, and SBA's implementing regulations require that recipients of Federal supply contracts (except those valued between $10,000 and $250,000) set aside for small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), women-owned small business (WOSB), economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB), historically underutilized business zones (HUBZones) or participants in the SBA's 8(a) Business Development (BD) program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor of the product. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule (NMR). 13 CFR 121.406(b). Sections 8(a)(17)(B)(iv)(II) and 46(a)(4)(B) of the Act authorize SBA to waive the NMR for a “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors available to participate in the Federal market.
As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.1202(c), in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or been awarded a contract to supply the class of products within the last 24 months. The SBA defines “class of products” based on a combination of (1) the six digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, (2) the four digit Product Service Code (PSC), and (3) a description of the class of products.
On February 27, 2017, SBA received a request to waive the NMR for Positive Airway Pressure Devices and Supplies under NAICS codes 339112 (surgical and medical instrument manufacturing) and 339113 (surgical appliance and supplies manufacturing), and PSC 6515 (medical and surgical instrument, equipment and supplies). According to that request, along with supporting documentation, there were no small business manufacturers or processors of CPAP devices in the Federal market.
On September 18, 2017 (82 FR 43637), the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a Notice of Intent to grant a class waiver for CPAP, BiPAP and other sleep apnea devices.
As revealed by the two comments submitted in response to the document, there are no small business manufacturers or processors of this product in the Federal market. The first comment, dated October 19, 2017, did not include domestic small business manufacturers capable of meeting the requirement. The second comment did not identify any manufacturers.
Therefore, in the absence of a small business manufacturer of these products, a class waiver is necessary to allow otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply the product of any manufacturer on a Federal contract set aside for small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), women-owned small business (WOSB), economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB), historically underutilized business zones (HUBZones) or participants in the SBA's 8(a) Business Development (BD) program.
More information on the NMR and Class Waivers can be found at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Final rule; errata notification.
This document contains corrections to the final rule (RM18-7-000) which published in the
Effective June 22, 2018.
Vince Mareino, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6167,
1. On May 17, 2018, the Commission issued a Final Rule in the above captioned proceeding.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This final rule repeals the performance management measure that assessed the percent change in tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO
This final rule is effective July 2, 2018.
For technical information: Michael Culp, Office of Planning, Environment and Realty, (202) 366-9229; for legal information: Christopher Richardson, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1383, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published at 82 FR 46427 on October 5, 2017.
The purpose of this deregulatory action is to repeal the requirement that State departments of transportation (State DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) assess the performance of the National Highway System (NHS) under the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) by measuring the percent change in tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO
This final rule repeals the GHG measure. By repealing this measure, FHWA will no longer require State DOTs and MPOs to undertake administrative activities to establish targets, calculate their progress toward their selected targets, report to FHWA, and determine a plan of action to make progress toward their selected targets if
This final rule is a deregulatory action estimated to result in cost savings of $10.89 million, which rounds to $10.9 million discounted at 7 percent over 9 years. This equates to annualized cost savings of $1.67 million at a 7 percent discount rate, or $1.64 million at a 3 percent discount rate. Table 1 displays the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) A-4 Accounting Statement as a summary of the cost savings associated with repealing the GHG measure.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141) transforms the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP) by establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94) continued these requirements. Performance management increases the accountability and transparency of the FAHP and provides a framework to support improved investment decisionmaking through a focus on performance outcomes for key national transportation goals.
As part of this mandate, FHWA issued a set of three related national performance management measure rules for State DOTs and MPOs to use to assess performance. In these rules, FHWA established performance measures in 12 areas generalized as follows: (1) Serious injuries per VMT; (2) fatalities per VMT; (3) number of serious injuries; (4) number of fatalities; (5) pavement condition on the Interstate System; (6) pavement condition on the non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS); (7) bridge condition on the NHS; (8) performance of the Interstate System; (9) performance of the non-Interstate NHS; (10) freight movement on the Interstate System; (11) traffic congestion; and (12) on-road mobile source emissions.
The third performance management measures NPRM (PM3 NPRM) was published on April 22, 2016 (81 FR 23806).
The FHWA published the third performance measure final rule (PM3 Final Rule) on January 18, 2017, at 82 FR 5971.
On October 5, 2017, FHWA published an NPRM proposing to repeal the GHG measure (82 FR 46427),
The FHWA initiated this rulemaking after reviewing existing and pending regulations pursuant to Executive Order 13771 and 13777. On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13771, titled, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” which requires Federal agencies to take proactive measures to reduce the costs associated with complying with Federal regulations. In addition, on February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, titled, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which requires Federal agencies to designate a Regulatory Reform Officer and a Regulatory Reform Task Force to carry out the initiatives described in that Executive Order.
The objective of our review was to determine whether changes would be appropriate to eliminate duplicative regulations and streamline regulatory processes. Based upon this review, DOT identified the GHG measure of the PM3 Final Rule as being potentially duplicative of existing efforts in some States, and as potentially imposing unnecessary burdens on State DOTs and MPOs that were not contemplated by Congress. In addition, when the GHG measure was adopted, there were numerous comments regarding FHWA's legal authority to adopt the measure. Due to those concerns and because the performance management statute (23 U.S.C. 150) does not require a GHG measure, FHWA decided to reconsider its legal interpretation of the statute under which the GHG measure was adopted. All of these concerns contributed to the decision to publish the NPRM proposing to repeal the GHG measure.
The FHWA's decision to repeal is based on the combined effects of three primary factors. These are: (1) Reconsideration of the legal authority under which the GHG measure was promulgated; (2) the cost of the GHG measure when considered in relation to the lack of demonstrated benefits; and (3) the potential duplication between information produced by the GHG measure and information produced by other initiatives related to measuring CO
FHWA adopted the GHG measure as a matter of discretion in interpreting 23 U.S.C. 150(c), as the statute does not explicitly address CO
The FHWA also considered alternatives to the repeal of the GHG measure. This consideration included whether FHWA should retain the measure as adopted in the PM3 Final Rule, or adopt a modified version of the GHG measure within the framework of the national performance management program. The FHWA did not identify an alternative that would address its concerns with the GHG measure. For more information about the alternatives considered, including comments received on this topic and FHWA's responses, please see Section V.E.
As noted above, in addition to the comments received, FHWA's decision to repeal the GHG measure is based on three primary factors.
When FHWA adopted the GHG measure in January 2017, we noted that we had received comments from supporters and opponents addressing FHWA's legal authority to adopt such a measure.
In the PM3 Final Rule, FHWA concluded that it had the discretion to interpret the term “performance” as it relates to the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS, pursuant to the Secretary's authority set forth in 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(ii)(IV)-(V). FHWA's prior interpretation of the term “performance” included “environmental performance” and, consequently, FHWA determined that the adoption of the GHG measure was thus not outside the scope of section 150.
As outlined in the PM3 Final Rule, FHWA supported its discretion to broadly interpret the term “performance” with four arguments.
What is notable about these four arguments, however, is that none of them points to any statutory provision that specifically directs or requires FHWA to adopt a GHG measure. Instead they encourage State DOTs and MPOs to consider a variety of ways to incorporate environmental considerations under their existing authority. Further, even though FHWA has taken other actions, such as issuing reports and guidance regarding GHG emissions and climate change, those actions were not taken to fulfill the statutory mandate of section 150, and therefore, do not lead to the conclusion that FHWA is required to adopt a GHG measure. Since those actions were taken to fulfill other statutory obligations and policy goals, they do not lead to the conclusion that FHWA must adopt a comprehensive performance requirement, such as the GHG measure.
It is true that section 150 establishes seven national goals for the Federal-aid Highway program (FAHP), including “environmental sustainability.”
Furthermore, in exercising its discretion previously, FHWA failed to fully consider the provisions in the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) statute, 23 U.S.C. 119, when it originally decided to rely on the section 150(b) national goal of environmental sustainability to establish the GHG measure. The FHWA did not evaluate whether the national goals language in section 119(d)(1)(A) imposed limitations on how FHWA would meet the national goals enumerated in section 150 when establishing NHPP performance measures under section 150(c)(3). Section 119(d)(1)(A) defines eligibility criteria for projects funded under NHPP. While the provision references
The structure of section 150 itself supports a narrower construction of the section 150 performance measures authorization than previously adopted by FHWA. Congress specifically directed the Secretary of Transportation to “limit performance measures only to those described in [section 150(c)]” in establishing the performance measures. One of those authorized performance measures, section 150(c)(5), directs the Secretary to establish measures for States to use in assessing on-road mobile source emissions. After reconsideration, FHWA believes that because Congress specifically designated a part of section 150(c) for on-road mobile source emissions measures, it is reasonable to conclude that Congress did not intend the other parts of section 150(c) to be used to address other similar or related performance measures, such as the GHG measure. At the same time, by placing the on-road mobile source emissions provision in section 150(c)(5), Congress limited the types of emissions that could be the subject of a performance measure to those listed in the CMAQ statute (23 U.S.C. 149(b)). CO
Moreover, consistent with our reinterpretation of the statutory language of subsection 150(c), FHWA believes the better approach is to focus on implementing the CMAQ Program, as Congress directed, through FHWA's establishment of performance measures for States to assess on-road mobile source emissions pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(5). One reason is that the CMAQ statute reflects a more localized approach that is based on each State's nonattainment and maintenance areas for the covered pollutants.
Finally, although FHWA has decided to repeal the GHG measure, many sources of information exist regarding GHGs and their impact on the environment, on both regional and local levels, which State DOTs and MPOs can continue to draw upon in evaluating their transportation projects. In addition, there are other comprehensive statutory schemes, such as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which exist to address issues such as the environment and energy conservation.
Reducing regulatory burdens is a FHWA priority. FHWA is giving particular attention to opportunities to reduce burdens imposed by existing regulations through consideration of their repeal, replacement, or modification. Our efforts are guided by a number of Executive Orders, including Section 5 of Executive Order 12688, Section 2 of Executive Order 13777, and Section 3 of Executive Order 13783, titled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.”
After considering the comments received in this rulemaking and the revised regulatory impact assessment (RIA), FHWA has decided that the GHG measure imposes unnecessary regulatory burdens on State DOTs and MPOs with no predictable benefits. FHWA is concerned about the potential the GHG measure has to cause adverse impacts on overall State DOT and MPO efforts to implement the national performance management program. FHWA assigns a high priority to the successful implementation of the national performance management program. The removal of the GHG measure from the program reduces the number of measures the State DOTs and MPOs must address, and allows those entities to focus their resources on implementing the remaining measures. We heard from commenters that the GHG measure would impose additional resource requirements that would either adversely affect the ability of State DOTs and MPOs to implement the national performance management program, or take focus away from the core mission of FHWA.
These costs include the resources needed to obtain and review the required data, to calculate the measure, and to coordinate and select a CO
Other types of costs are harder to predict with reasonable certainty, such as the GHG measure's potentially adverse impact in rural States. While the GHG measure did not require States to reduce CO
While the RIA for this final rule estimated marginally lower total costs than the RIA in the NPRM, FHWA reaches the same conclusion regarding the costs and burdens of the GHG measure. That analysis, summarized in Section VI.A. of this document, found that the aggregate costs to State DOTs and MPOs to implement the GHG measure would be $10.9 million over 9 years, discounted at 7 percent.
While some commenters argued that the GHG measure would produce wide-ranging benefits, it is important to recognize that the measure itself did not require reductions in CO
FHWA also considered whether the GHG measure is duplicative, as raised by some commenters. In addition, the recent executive mandates to reduce regulatory costs and burdens mean FHWA must consider whether the information the measure would produce duplicates information produced by others.
FHWA considered that there are other existing methods for producing nearly the same information as would result from the implementation of the GHG measure, using publicly available data and methodologies, if that information is desired. FHWA also recognized that the repeal of the measure would not affect the ability of State DOTs and MPOs to create their own CO
Other Federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE), have undertaken regulatory and other efforts to address CO
In light of these circumstances, FHWA now concludes that the GHG measure in the performance management program is unnecessary. The information available through DOE informs State DOTs and MPOs whether transportation CO
Pursuant to the mandates of Executive Order 13771, Executive Order 13777, and Executive Order 13783, FHWA concluded that the data needed to support the GHG measure is at least somewhat duplicative of the EPA and
FHWA believes the repeal of the GHG performance measure will reduce the existing duplication, streamline the regulations, and reduce the potential for the confusion that can arise when multiple Federal and State entities impose different requirements for categorizing and measuring CO
In the context of the national performance management program, FHWA believes the GHG performance measure can be repealed without harm to the overall effectiveness of the national performance management program. As described in the performance management statute, the purpose of the program is to provide a means to the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds by refocusing on national transportation goals, increasing the accountability and transparency of the FAHP, and improving project decisionmaking through performance-based planning and programming. The program is broad-based, and FHWA has substantial discretion in determining which types of performance measures will be given priority and adopted as national measures. After the repeal of the GHG measure, the remaining 17 national performance measures will fully meet the 23 U.S.C. 150 requirements, and serve the interests of the FAHP. The transparency and accountability effects of the national measures are unaffected by the repeal. The repeal of the GHG measure will permit State DOTs and MPOs to reallocate resources they would have used to implement the GHG measure, providing a potential benefit to implementation efforts for the remaining measures.
FHWA received 251 comment submissions to the public docket on the proposed NPRM to repeal the GHG measure. Many submittals were signed by multiple organizations or representatives. This section of the preamble provides a response to the most significant issues raised in the comments received.
As part of the rulemaking that was finalized in January 2017, FHWA estimated the incremental costs associated with the new requirements for a GHG measure that represented a change to current practices of DOT, State DOTs, and MPOs. The 9-year, discounted cost to comply with the GHG measure was estimated at $10.9 million in the PM3 Final Rule.
Commenters who supported the repeal of the GHG measure cited two primary reasons related to its costs. First, commenters argued that requiring the GHG measure diverts resources during a time of limited State resources, which could potentially affect their ability to deliver projects and programs, implement existing performance measures, and provide other transportation investments. Second, commenters argued that FHWA underestimated additional burdens of complying with the GHG measure requirement, though no further detail on those additional costs was provided.
Commenters who stated that the measure should be retained cited a number of reasons as well. These commenters felt that the benefits would outweigh the costs of the measure and that FHWA overestimated the cost of compliance. Some commenters noted that several States and MPOs are already tracking CO
Several commenters also discussed that the proposed repeal did not take into account the benefits of keeping the GHG measure, such as foregone benefits associated with reduced household transportation costs, congestion, and delay. One commenter provided an analysis claiming that even minimal reductions in CO
Finally, several commenters
FHWA reviewed the comments relating to the costs and benefits associated with keeping the GHG measure, including establishing performance targets, assessing and reporting on progress toward meeting
Regarding comments relating to the cost and burden of the GHG measure, FHWA carefully considered whether to adjust its analysis of the relative costs of the GHG measure and assessment of the measure's burden on States and MPOs. With respect to the comments that specifically addressed the estimated hours to calculate the GHG-related system performance metrics and measures, FHWA carefully considered them while preparing this final rule's RIA, refined the estimate of the number of hours it would take State DOTs to calculate the GHG measure, and conducted multiple sensitivity analyses. Commenters stated that the burden to establish performance targets or to assess and report on progress toward meeting those targets would be minimal. Comments regarding other factors that could reduce the overall burden to States and MPOs, such as future technology improvements and mutual assistance among States, were also considered. The final rule's RIA estimated marginally lower total costs than the NPRM's RIA, but this does not lead FHWA to a different conclusion regarding the costs and burdens of the GHG measure.
FHWA reviewed comments regarding the fact that some States are already preparing a similar (or the same) GHG measure, independent of the rule, and that FHWA should therefore lower its estimated costs of implementing the GHG measure. The NPRM's accompanying RIA already assumed that some States are doing so, estimating that 42 of 52 States would have additional costs related to the GHG measure. None of the comments received specified a different estimate and this conclusion remains unchanged in the RIA for the final rule.
While reviewing the comments that the total cost of the GHG measure is small relative to total annual expenditures on transportation, FHWA noted that it is required to look at the total costs of implementing the GHG measure and balance them against the total benefits directly due to that measure, not against another metric, such as overall transportation spending. Similarly, comments about the total costs per State or MPO on a per entity basis are not pertinent and do not address the fact that FHWA is required to analyze overall costs against overall benefits, not total costs relative to other costs, expenses, revenues, or other measures.
In reviewing public comments and estimated costs of the proposed rule, FHWA considered the fact that alternative ways exist in which the same information could be collected but with less burden on States and MPOs. Data to calculate the GHG measure by State is already publicly available and can be calculated by a single person for all States at once, rather than having each State perform individual calculations. Under this scenario, overall efficiencies should lower the total costs of calculating the GHG measure.
FHWA reviewed the comments on the forgone benefits of repealing the GHG measure requirement. FHWA carefully considered the comments that the GHG measure would lead to decreases in CO
FHWA also carefully considered the comments stating that the GHG measure would lead to reductions in household transportation costs, congestion and delay, and transportation infrastructure and maintenance costs. In order for these benefits to be attributable to the GHG measure, the implementation of the GHG measure would need to result in different investment decisions by State and local agencies that would allow people to travel faster and more cheaply and that would be more cost effective to build and maintain. FHWA is not confident that including the GHG measure with other performance management metrics will result in transportation investments that are more efficient to develop, operate, and use. The comment that the GHG measure would also help foster a more competitive and growing economy is related to the above arguments; it is based on the presumption that the measure would result in transportation investment choices that are more efficient for the economy, which is not evident at this time. States wishing to compare themselves to their peers can do so independent of the presence of the GHG measure since the necessary data for all States is already publicly available.
Regarding the comments that the NPRM's RIA does not include a quantitative assessment of the potential benefits of keeping the GHG measure, FHWA notes that the RIA is not required to include quantitative analysis (of either costs or benefits) if the agency does not have the necessary data and metrics to do so. OMB Circular A-4 states that some important benefits and costs may be difficult or impossible to quantify or monetize, given current data
Twenty-eight commenters discussed whether the GHG measure, including the methodology adopted in the PM3 Final Rule, provides meaningful utility for assessment of environmental performance of the NHS. Twenty-three
Commenters who stated that the measure should be repealed cited three primary reasons. First, these commenters noted that State DOTs and MPOs have little to no ability to reduce CO
Second, two submissions
Third, another commenter
The commenters who stated that the GHG measure should be retained because it does provide utility
FHWA received 22 comments related to the resource burdens associated with the GHG measure. Twelve of the comments stated that the costs and resource burdens would be minimal, while ten of the comments noted that measure would be burdensome.
Seven State DOTs
Many other commenters, including six State DOTs,
In considering the potential burden of the GHG measure, many States and planning agencies have accurately noted that establishing the target and calculating the measure would not require many additional resources, though the burden would vary by State and MPO depending on previous experience with the topic and the data. However, FHWA is concerned that even a marginal increase in effort generated by the GHG measure could cause some States and MPOs to reduce resources devoted to the other national performance measures.
While the measure could help foster a structure for analyzing potential reductions at the State or local level, FHWA finds persuasive other commenters' concern that such a situation has adverse impacts. Those commenters
FHWA agrees that more rural or preservation-focused States that are not building as much new infrastructure may have fewer options for reducing emissions. There are some available options, such as transportation system management and fuel switching strategies, for example, that may be appropriate for States to use voluntarily.
Seven agencies submitted comments related to whether repealing the measure would be appropriate to eliminate duplication of efforts, or to eliminate duplicative regulations and streamline the regulatory processes. Several State DOTs and MPOs
One State DOT said that the GHG performance measure should be repealed because it is duplicative of other government efforts to estimate and regulate air emissions.
One State DOT,
Other Federal agencies, such as EPA and DOE, have undertaken regulatory and other efforts to address CO
FHWA fully considered the comments relating to duplication, as well as the potential impacts on the national performance management program if FHWA repeals the GHG performance measure. As noted in the PM3 Final Rule,
States and MPOs are free to continue to adopt their own measures for CO
Five commenters addressed the level of precision associated with the original rule, and whether the measure impedes the ability of State DOTs and MPOs to use the measure and associated targets in evaluating system performance and making investment decisions. All five
FHWA has decided to repeal the GHG measure for reasons unrelated to the soundness of the measure's methodology. For those commenters who find that the methodology for the GHG measure is well-suited for use with a GHG performance measure, FHWA notes that State DOTs and MPOs may independently choose to adopt this methodology outside of the national performance management program.
FHWA considered alternatives to the repeal of the GHG measure, including alternatives suggested by commenters. This included consideration of whether FHWA should retain the measure as adopted in the PM3 Final Rule, or adopt a modified version of the GHG measure within the framework of the national performance management program.
The AMPO
The CMAP
The Western Connecticut Council of Governments
In addition to alternatives submitted by commenters, FHWA considered directly publishing CO
None of the alternatives provide a way to modify the GHG measure while retaining it as part of the national performance management program at this time. The alternative proposed by AMPO would have a Federal agency calculate the measure for each State DOT and MPO. FHWA agrees that a single Federal or private entity could calculate the measure based on fuel sales. However, the State DOTs and MPOs still would have to carry out the remaining activities required for the national performance management program. These include setting their CO
In addition, with respect to CMAP's comments on using MOVES to calculate the measure, FHWA considered this suggestion during the PM3 rulemaking. FHWA elected to use fuel sales to calculate the measure, instead of MOVES, because such a requirement to use MOVES would create an extra burden for State DOTs and MPOs that do not currently use that model. One of the reasons FHWA is repealing the GHG measure through this rulemaking is to reduce the burdens on State DOTs and MPOs. Switching to the use of MOVES would likely increase, not decrease, the burdens imposed on State DOTs and MPOs by the GHG measure.
FHWA interprets the Western Connecticut Council of Governments' comment as suggesting it might be more beneficial if the transportation air quality conformity program, rather than the national performance management program, were used to address CO
FHWA acknowledges the Western Connecticut Council of Governments' suggestion that the voluntary use of a GHG performance measures might prove useful, but FHWA does not believe a voluntary measure can be included in the national performance management program. Making the GHG measure voluntary would require FHWA to establish a new category for voluntary measures, create a set of procedures for voluntary measures, and exempt voluntary measures from certain parts of the existing performance management regulations in 23 CFR part 490. FHWA is also concerned that an attempt to accommodate voluntary performance measures in the national performance management program could cause confusion among stakeholders, including State DOTs, MPOs, and the public. Such confusion would be harmful to the national performance management program. FHWA encourages State DOTs and MPOs to continue to establish and use performance measures independent of the national performance management program, as many have done for a long time.
In addition to alternatives suggested by commenters, FHWA considered the alternative of having FHWA provide CO
Roughly one in ten commenters submitted opinions on FHWA's legal authority to establish this rule. Eleven commenters
Most of the comments received in this rulemaking stating that FHWA does not have legal authority to adopt a GHG measure recited the same reasons as comments received during the PM3 rulemaking.
Two joint submissions
Finally, the Michigan DOT
FHWA appreciates the many comments received in this rulemaking on the question of FHWA's legal authority. Please see our resolution of the legal authority issue above in Section IV.B.1.
Two submissions
FHWA does not believe that a GHG measure is mandated by 23 U.S.C. 150(c). As noted by commenters in this rulemaking, there is no explicit reference to a GHG measure in 23 U.S.C. 150(c). Thus, adoption of a GHG measure rested entirely on FHWA's discretion to interpret 23 U.S.C. 150(c). As discussed in the legal authority section in Section IV.B.1, FHWA has concluded, upon reconsideration, that the better reading of the statute does not encompass the GHG measure.
We received a joint comment from State Attorneys General
FHWA has examined the relevant data and other information, and carefully considered the comments received, as outlined in this document. FHWA has examined the facts and has provided a reasoned explanation for the repeal of the GHG measure consistent with APA requirements, as detailed throughout this preamble.
FHWA received comments
FHWA considered the comments stating FHWA should have provided a 90-day comment period for this rulemaking, questioning whether the proposed regulatory action and related matters were adequately described in the NPRM, and suggesting FHWA should have engaged in additional rulemaking to seek comments on certain topics not specified in the NPRM.
While FHWA sometimes uses a 90-day comment period in its rulemaking proceedings, that length of time is not required. In this instance, FHWA received not only comments asking for a longer comment period, but also comments asking for a quick decision so States could have certainty about the national performance measures. FHWA did provide a short extension of the 2017 comment period, from November 6 to November 15. However, FHWA
FHWA reviewed the NPRM in response to the suggestions that the NPRM did not meet APA requirements for notice of the proposed regulatory action. FHWA concluded the NPRM provides adequate notice of the proposal. The NPRM describes the history of the GHG measure, some of the concerns identified by commenters in the PM3 rulemaking, the reasons FHWA was proposing a repeal, and a request for comments on specific questions and on whether FHWA should take an action other than repeal (
Caltrans and the CARB
Repeal of the GHG measure does not require an EIS or the other reviews called for by the comment. The commenters incorrectly conclude that the repeal of the measure would “result in increased GHG emissions.”
As a matter of law, the 23 U.S.C. 150 performance measures are part of a congressionally mandated performance management system intended to provide a means to the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds by refocusing on national transportation goals, increasing the accountability and transparency of the FAHP, and improving project decisionmaking through performance-based planning and programming. The planning statutes incorporate performance management into the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes.
As previously described, the GHG measure relies on influencing the behavior of State DOTs and MPOs. It does not require any action by those entities to reduce CO
The impacts of Title 23-funded projects and programs selected by State DOTs and MPOs through the metropolitan and statewide planning process are subject to NEPA and other reviews listed in the comment prior to the project's implementation. That is the correct point in the process for such reviews, as that is the time when potential impacts can be determined with reasonable accuracy. Thus, there is no basis now for the reviews that the commenters seek. Rather than “escaping” evaluation as commenters contend, these issues can be addressed at an appropriate time in connection with the particular projects or programs. Please see Section VI.G. of this document for FHWA's regulatory analysis conducted pursuant to NEPA.
FHWA has determined that this action is a significant action within the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures. However, it is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will not be economically significant within the meaning of E.O. 12866 as discussed below. This action complies with E.O.s 12866, 13563, and 13771 to improve regulation. This action is considered significant because of widespread
FHWA considers this final rule to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action, resulting in $1.67 million in annualized cost savings at a 7 percent discount rate. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule are presented in the RIA, which may be accessed from the docket (docket number FHWA-2013-0054). The RIA evaluates the economic impact, in terms of costs and benefits, on Federal, State, and local governments, as well as private entities regulated under this action, as required by E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. However, the RIA is unable to quantify any changes from improved decisionmaking that would result in benefits if the GHG measure requirement were retained.
To estimate cost savings of this final rule, FHWA assessed the level of effort that would have been needed to comply with each section under the PM3 rule with respect to the now-repealed GHG measure. These costs are expressed in labor hours and the labor categories for those needed to implement the GHG measure. Level of effort by labor category is monetized with loaded wage rates to estimate total costs.
Table 2 displays the total cost savings of this final rule for the 9-year study period (2018-2026) and the corresponding annualized values.
The effects potentially caused by the national GHG performance measure established in the PM3 Final Rule were administrative activities (such as holding meetings and the use of energy to operate offices) that State DOTs and MPOs would undertake to establish targets, calculate their progress toward their selected targets, report to FHWA, and determine a plan of action to make progress toward their selected targets if they failed to make significant progress during a performance period.
This action complies with the principles of E.O. 13563. After evaluating the costs and benefits of the rule, FHWA believes that the cost savings from this rulemaking would exceed the forgone benefits. These changes are not anticipated to adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes will not create a serious inconsistency with any other agency's action or materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities and has determined that the action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule addresses the obligation of Federal funds to State DOTs for Federal-aid highway projects. The rule affects two types of entities: State governments and MPOs. State governments do not meet the definition of a small entity under 5 U.S.C. 601, which have a population of less than 50,000.
The MPOs are considered governmental jurisdictions, and to qualify as a small entity they would need to serve less than 50,000 people. The MPOs serve urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more. As discussed in the RIA, the rule is expected to impose costs on MPOs that serve populations exceeding 200,000. Therefore, the MPOs that incur economic impacts under this rule do not meet the definition of a small entity.
We hereby certify that this regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
FHWA has determined that this action does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $151 million or more in any 1 year (when adjusted for inflation) in 2012 dollars for either State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector. In addition, the definition of “Federal mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
FHWA has analyzed this action in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. FHWA has determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. FHWA has also determined that this action does not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction, for further information.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501,
FHWA has analyzed this action for the purpose of NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
The nature and potential effects of the GHG measure are described in detail in Section V.F.5. of this document. With respect to this rulemaking, changes in CO
FHWA's conclusion that the GHG measure would not be a legal cause of changes in CO
Pursuant to 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), this repeal qualifies as categorically excluded from preparation of an EIS or environmental assessment under NEPA. FHWA concluded that the repeal of the GHG measure will not involve reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts. The GHG measure imposed no limits or controls on CO
In making the determination that the repeal of the GHG measure qualifies for a categorical exclusion, FHWA considered whether the proposed regulatory action involves unusual circumstances. 23 CFR 771.117(b). Given FHWA's determination that the GHG measure is not reasonably causally connected to CO
FHWA has analyzed this action under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. FHWA does not anticipate that this action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630.
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FHWA certifies that this action would not cause an environmental risk
FHWA has analyzed this action under E.O. 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that the action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and would not preempt tribal laws. The rulemaking addresses obligations of Federal funds to State DOTs for Federal-aid highway projects and would not impose any direct compliance requirements on Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
Bridges, Highway safety, Highways and roads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA amends 23 CFR part 490 as follows:
23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 148(i), and 150; 49 CFR 1.85.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Baseline condition/performance data contained in HPMS and NBI of the year in which the Baseline Period Performance Report is due to FHWA that represents baseline conditions/performances for the performance period for the measures in § 490.105(c)(1) through (4).
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Interstate 5 (I-5) Bridges across the Columbia River, mile 106.5, between Portland, OR, and Vancouver, WA. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the movement of heavier than normal roadway traffic associated with the Independence Day fireworks show near the I-5 Bridges. This deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the event.
This deviation is effective from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0301 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
Oregon Department of Transportation, the bridge owner, requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the I-5 Bridges, mile 106.5, across the Columbia River between Vancouver, WA, and Portland, OR, to facilitate safe passage of participants in the Independence Day fireworks show event. The I-5 Bridges provides three designated navigation channels with vertical clearances ranging from 39 to 72 feet above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while the lift spans are in the closed-to-navigation position. The I-5 Bridges operate in accordance with 33 CFR 117.869(a). The subject bridges need not open to marine vessels during the deviation period from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2018. The bridges shall operate in accordance with 33 CFR 117.869(a) at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of the Columbia River includes vessels ranging from large commercial ships, tug and tow vessels to recreational pleasure craft.
Vessels able to pass under the bridges in the closed-to-navigation positions may do so at any time. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies, and this part of the Columbia River has no alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Granite Avenue Bridge across Neponset River, mile 2.5, at Boston, Massachusetts. This deviation is necessary to facilitate the McKeon Post Scholarship Road Race and allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for two hours.
This deviation is effective from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on June 17, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0475, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Jeffrey Stieb, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 617-223-8364, email
The owner of the bridge, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a road race. The Granite Avenue Bridge, mile 2.5, across Neponset River, has a vertical clearance of 6 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.611.
The temporary deviation will allow the Granite Avenue Bridge to remain closed from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on June 17, 2018. The waterway is used primarily by seasonal recreational vessels. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will inform users of the waterway of the change in operating schedule through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation; change of enforcement.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for a fireworks display taking place over Chesapeake Bay, Virginia Beach, VA, on July 3, 2018. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks display. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this fireworks display event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the location listed in the table to § 165.506(c)(21) Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads—COTP Zone from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 3, 2018.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LCDR Barbara Wilk, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads, Waterways Management office; telephone 757-668-5580, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in the table to 33 CFR 165.506 at (c)(21) for the Shore Drive Fireworks display from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 3, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks display. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 165.506, specifies the location of the regulated area for this safety zone within a 200 yard radius of the center located at approximate position latitude 36°54′58.2″ N, longitude 076°06′44.3″ W, located at Virginia Beach, VA. As specified in § 165.506(d), during the enforcement period, no vessel may enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone without approval from the Captain of the Port Sector Hampton Roads (COTP) or a COTP designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. Because the fireworks display is happening on July 3 instead of July 4, 5, or 6 as published in the Table to 33 CFR 165.506, section (c), row 21. The enforcement period is also being changed for this year's event. This year the zone will be enforced from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 3, 2018.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.506(d) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement published in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for a one-mile stretch of the navigable waters on of the Cumberland River, near the U.S. 68/KY 80 Lake Barkley Bridge-Henry R. Lawrence Memorial Bridge in Canton, KY. The safety zone is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the demolition of the bridge pier. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from May 31, 2018 through 6 a.m. on June 2, 2018 or until the bridge pier demolition operation and the cleanup of the main navigable channel is complete, whichever occurs first. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 6 a.m. on May 30, 2018 through May 31, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Joseph Stranc, Marine Safety Unit Paducah Waterways Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 270-442-1621 ext. 2124, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. On May 16, 2018, the Coast Guard was notified of the need for immediate bridge pier demolition operations. This safety zone must be established by May 30, 2018 and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the scheduled dates of the bridge pier demolition and compromise public safety.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with bridge pier demolition and clean-up operations beginning on May 30, 2018 will be a safety concern for anyone within a one-half mile radius of the pier. The purpose of this rule is to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment while the bridge pier is being demolished.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 6 a.m. on May 30, 2018 through 6 a.m. on June 2, 2018 or until the bridge pier demolition operation and cleanup of the main navigable channel is complete, whichever occurs first. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Cumberland River between miles 62.6 and 63.6, and a safety vessel will coordinate all vessel traffic during the enforcement period. The duration of the zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment while the bridge pier is demolished. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted via VHF-FM marine channel 16 or by telephone at 270-217-0959. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement period of this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the rule. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone over a one-mile section of the Cumberland River for 3 days. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 3 days that will prohibit entry within one-mile stretch of the Cumberland River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L 60(c) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted via VHF-FM marine channel 16 or by telephone at 270-217-0959.
(3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the State of Maryland's Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 111(d) and 129 State Plan for municipal waste combustors (MWCs). The revision reflects amendments to Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.08.08, which update the MWC opacity compliance provisions. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)'s revised regulations provide that quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) requirements for continuous opacity monitors (COMs) are found in COMAR 26.11.31, rather than the now discontinued Technical Memorandum (TM 90-01). EPA is approving this revision to Maryland's CAA sections 111(d) and 129 State Plan in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
This rule is effective on July 2, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0484. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Emily Linn, (215) 814-5273, or by email at
On May 10, 2016, the State of Maryland submitted a formal revision (MD Submittal #16-05) to its CAA sections 111(d) and 129 State Plan for MWCs. The revision contains Maryland's amendments to COMAR 26.11.08.08, “Requirements for an Existing Large MWC with a Capacity Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day.” Among other minor changes,
In the same state rulemaking action, MDE also revised the title of COMAR 26.11.08.07, from “Requirements for Certain Municipal Waste Combustors” to “Requirements for Municipal Waste Combustors with a Capacity of 35 tons or greater per day and less than or equal to 250 Tons Per Day,” to clarify that the state regulation applies to small MWCs. The text of 26.11.08.07 remains unchanged, and thus the requirements for MWCs remain unchanged. This clarification to the title of COMAR 26.11.08.07 is a minor administrative change and is not part of this action.
On November 6, 2017 (82 FR 51380 and 82 FR 51350), EPA simultaneously published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) and a direct final rule (DFR) for the State of Maryland approving revisions to its CAA sections 111(d) and 129 State Plan for MWCs. EPA received an adverse comment on the rulemaking and withdrew the DFR prior to the effective date on December 26, 2017 (82 FR 60872). In this rulemaking, EPA is responding to the comment submitted on the proposed approval of the State Plan revisions and is approving the revisions to Maryland's State Plan for MWCs.
EPA has reviewed Maryland's submittal to revise its State Plan for MWCs in the context of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cb and Eb. In this action, EPA is finalizing its determination that the submitted revision meets the above-cited requirements. EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62, subpart V (40 CFR 62.5110 and 62.5112), to reflect this approval.
EPA received one adverse comment on the proposed approval of the revisions to the State of Maryland's CAA sections 111(d) and 129 State Plan for MWCs. All other comments received were either supportive of or not specific to this action and thus are not addressed here.
In this final action, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62, subpart V, to reflect the receipt and approval of the revisions to Maryland's State Plan for MWCs in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 provides, in part, that Federal agencies shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) (March 7, 1996). Agencies are not required to use such standards if doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Public Law 104-113 (section 12(d)). EPA is not, in this action, using technical standards, as contemplated by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act. Rather, EPA is reviewing and responding to Maryland's Section 111(d)/129 plan submission, and, in such case, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Moreover, in such context, EPA has no authority to disapprove a Section 111(d)/129 plan submission for failure to use voluntary consensus standards, and it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a Section 111(d)/129 plan submission, to require use of such standards in place of a Section 111(d)/129 plan submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act does not require, here, the use of voluntary consensus standards.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 30, 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 approving Maryland's revisions to their 111(d) and 129 State Plan for MWCs may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) On May 10, 2016, Maryland submitted a revised State Plan and related COMAR 26.11.08.08 amendments.
(c) The plan revision is effective July 30, 2018.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 in or on citrus when used as plant-incorporated-protectants in accordance with the terms of Experimental Use Permit (EUP) No. 88232-EUP-1. Southern Gardens Citrus Nursery, LLC, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting the temporary tolerance exemption. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8. The temporary tolerance exemption expires on May 31, 2021.
This regulation is effective May 31, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 30, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0040, is available at
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 174 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0040 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 30, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0040, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption
EPA has reviewed the available toxicity and exposure data on spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 and considered its validity, completeness and reliability, and the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on that data can be found within the document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Assessment of Defensin Proteins Derived from Spinach in Citrus Plants” dated April 27, 2018. This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under
Based upon available data, EPA concludes that spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8, do not show evidence of toxicity. Moreover, there is no significant similarity between spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 and known toxins and allergens. In addition, as discussed in the “Toxicological Profile” in the April 27, 2018 FFDCA Assessment document, the spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 readily digest in simulated gastric fluids. Therefore, cumulative, chronic, and acute effects are unlikely. Furthermore, the source of the defensin proteins, spinach, has long been part of the human diet and there have been no findings that indicate toxicity or allergenicity of spinach proteins.
Given the lack of toxicity or allergenicity of the spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8, the Agency has not identified any toxicological endpoints for assessing risk. Due to the lack of any threshold effects, EPA has determined that the provision under FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) to retain a 10X safety factor for the protection of infants and children does not apply. Similarly, the lack of any toxic mode of action or toxic metabolites means that there is no available information concerning the cumulative effects of such residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity to be considered.
Oral exposure to spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 may occur from ingestion of citrus products, such as fruit and juice. In addition, people have had a long history of consumption of spinach and will continue to be exposed to defensin proteins through consumption of spinach. Based on the lack of adverse effects and the rapid digestibility of the proteins, however, the Agency does not anticipate any risk from reasonably foreseeable levels of exposure. Since the plant-incorporated protectant is integrated into the plant's genome, the Agency has concluded, based upon previous science reviews, that the plant-incorporated protectant will not likely be found in ground or surface water and that residues in drinking water will be extremely low or non-existent. Non-occupational exposure via the skin or inhalation is not likely since the plant-incorporated protectant is contained within plant cells, which essentially eliminates these exposure routes or reduces these exposure routes to negligible levels of exposure. In any event, there are no non-dietary non-occupational uses of SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 as they are only used in agricultural settings.
Based on its evaluation, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U.S. population, including infants and children, to the spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. The Agency has arrived at this conclusion because, as previously discussed, there is no indication of toxicity or allergenicity potential for the plant-incorporated protectant. Therefore, a temporary exemption is established for residues of spinach defensin SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 proteins in or on citrus when the proteins are used as plant-incorporated protectants in citrus plants. This exemption is being established concurrently with an extension to the Experimental Use Permit (EUP) No. 88232-EUP-1, and is therefore being established on a temporary basis. Both the EUP and temporary tolerance exemption will expire on May 31, 2021.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
Two comments were received in response to the Notice of Filing (83 FR 8827). Neither of these anonymous comments were relevant to the proposed temporary tolerance exemption for spinach defensin proteins in citrus. One comment pertained to wind turbines and the other pertained to Chinese air quality.
This action establishes a temporary exemption from the requirement for a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Residues of the defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 derived from spinach (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for the commercial sector for yellowtail snapper in the South Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ). NMFS projects that commercial landings of yellowtail snapper will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for the August 2017 through July 2018 fishing year by June 5, 2018. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for yellowtail snapper in the South Atlantic EEZ on June 5, 2018, and it will remain closed until August 1, 2018, the start of the August 2018 through July 2019 fishing year. This closure is necessary to protect the South Atlantic yellowtail snapper resource.
This rule is effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, June 5, 2018, until 12:01 a.m., local time, August 1, 2018.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes yellowtail snapper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The yellowtail snapper commercial ACL is 1,596,510 lb (724,165 kg), round weight, as specified in 50 CFR 622.193(n)(1)(i). The yellowtail snapper fishing year is August 1 through July 31, as specified in 50 CFR 622.7(f). Under 50 CFR 622.193(n)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the yellowtail snapper commercial sector when the commercial ACL has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has projected that the yellowtail snapper commercial sector will reach its ACL on June 5, 2018. Therefore, this temporary rule implements an AM to close the yellowtail snapper commercial sector in the South Atlantic EEZ, effective from 12:01 a.m., local time, June 5, 2018, until August 1, 2018, the start of the 2018-2019 fishing year.
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having yellowtail snapper on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such species prior to June 5, 2018. During the commercial closure, all sale or purchase of yellowtail snapper from the South Atlantic EEZ is prohibited. The harvest or possession of yellowtail snapper in of from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag limit specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(4) and the possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(c). These bag and possession limits apply on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, regardless of whether such
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic yellowtail snapper and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(n)(1)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the yellowtail snapper commercial sector constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the AM has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the yellowtail snapper resource, as the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial ACL. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial ACL.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS announces management measures for the 2018 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries. The implementing regulations for these fisheries require NMFS to publish recreational measures for the fishing year. The intent of these measures is to constrain recreational catch to established limits and prevent overfishing of summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass.
This rule is effective May 31, 2018.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and other supporting documents for the recreational harvest measures are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The recreational harvest measures document is also accessible via the internet at:
Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9244.
In this rule, NMFS specifies management measures for the 2018 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries consistent with the recommendations of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission). NMFS is establishing measures that would apply in the Federal waters of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Additionally, these measures apply to all Federally permitted party/charter vessels with applicable summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass permits, regardless of where they fish, unless the state in which they land implements measures that are more restrictive. These measures are intended to achieve, but not exceed, the previously established 2018 recreational harvest limits established in a final rule published on December 22, 2017 (82 FR 60682).
NMFS is implementing conservation equivalency to manage the 2018 summer flounder recreational fishery, as proposed on April 11, 2018 (83 FR 15535). These measures are consistent with the recommendation of the Council and Commission. Additional information on the development of these measures is provided in the proposed rule and not repeated here.
Conservation equivalency, as established by Framework Adjustment 2 (July 29, 2001; 66 FR 36208), allows each state to establish its own recreational management measures (possession limits, minimum fish size, and fishing seasons) to achieve its state harvest limit established by the Commission from the coastwide recreational harvest limit, as long as the combined effect of all of the states' management measures achieves the same level of conservation as Federal coastwide measures. Framework Adjustment 6 (July 26, 2006; 71 FR 42315) allowed states to form regions for conservation equivalency in order to minimize differences in regulations for anglers fishing in adjacent waters.
The Commission is maintaining the provisions of Addendum XXVIII to its fishery management plan (FMP), which continues regional conservation equivalency for fishing year 2018. The Commission maintained regions that are consistent with those in place since 2016: (1) Massachusetts; (2) Rhode Island; (3) Connecticut and New York; (4) New Jersey; (5) Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia; and (6) North Carolina. The Commission's Summer Flounder Management Board specified any adjustments to state measures in 2018 should result in no more than a 17-percent liberalization in coastwide harvest relative to the projected 2017 harvest of 3.23 million lb (1,465 mt), the harvest estimate available at the December 2017 meeting. The Board specified this maximum liberalization due to concerns about the status of the summer flounder stock, as well as concerns that harvest estimates for 2017 appeared to be anomalously low in terms of effort and landings. The cap on liberalization is to address concerns that
The Commission certified, by a letter dated April 26, 2018, that the Addendum XXVIII measures implemented by individual states and regions, when combined, are the conservation equivalent of coastwide measures that would be expected to result in the 2018 recreational harvest limit being achieved, but not exceeded.
Based on the Commission's recommendation, we find that the 2018 recreational fishing measures required to be implemented in state waters are, collectively, the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size, and possession limit prescribed in 50 CFR 648.104(b), 648.105, and 648.106(a). According to § 648.107(a)(1), vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures are not subject to Federal measures, and instead are subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land. Section 648.107(a) is amended through this rule to recognize state-implemented measures as conservation equivalent of the coastwide recreational management measures for 2018.
In addition, this action implements default coastwide measures (a 19-inch (48.3-cm) minimum size, 4-fish possession limit, and May 15 through September 15 open fishing season), that become effective January 1, 2019, when the 2018 conservation equivalency program expires. These measures will remain effective until replaced by the 2019 recreational management measures in the spring of next year.
This rule maintains status quo scup measures for the 2018 fishery: A 9-inch (22.9-cm) minimum fish size, 50-fish per person possession limit, and year-round season.
NMFS is extending the Federal waters black sea bass recreational season by removing a closure that occurs from September 22 through October 21 and maintaining the current possession limit and minimum size. The following measures are implemented for the 2018 fishing year in Federal waters: A 15-fish possession limit, a 12.5-inch (31.75-cm) minimum size, and an open season from May 15-December 31.
On May 4, 2018, the Commission submitted a letter stating that the recreational black sea bass fishing measures to be implemented by the states are projected to restrict the recreational coastwide landings to the 2018 recreational harvest limit of 3.66 million lb (1,661 mt). The Commission adjusted management measures contained in Addendum XXX following an appeal from the Northern Region (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York). The revised management program is designed to meet the needs of the Northern Region without impacting the remaining states, while still constraining harvest to the recreational harvest limit.
Based on the Commission's letter, NMFS has determined that the measures that the states have committed to implement are sufficient to restrain catch appropriately. As a result, NMFS is able to implement the measures outlined in the proposed rule in Federal waters.
On April 11, 2018, NMFS published the proposed measures for the 2018 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries for public notice and comments. NMFS received 46 comments. Only one of these comments was directly pertinent to the proposed Federal recreational measures. The commenter offered alternative measures to consider, suggesting a 5-fish possession limit for summer flounder, a 40-fish possession limit for scup with a 9-inch minimum size, and an unspecified possession limit higher than the current 15-fish possession limit for black sea bass. This commenter did not provide a rationale for why these measures would be appropriate or why the measures developed by the Council must be disapproved by NMFS. The remaining comments spoke directly to the Northern Region's black sea bass appeal, which was resolved by the Commission to meet the needs of the Northern Region without impacting the remaining states, addressed state-specific measures outside the scope of this action, offered general concerns over Marine Recreational Information Program estimates, or relayed general complaints over the management of black sea bass. No changes to the final rule are made based on these comments.
The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, determined that these management measures are necessary for the conservation and management of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries and that they are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of effectiveness period for this rule, to ensure that the final management measures are in place as soon as possible.
This rule is being issued at the earliest possible date. Preparation of the proposed rule was dependent on the submission of the EA in support of these recreational management measures that is developed by the Council. A complete document was received by NMFS in April 2018. Documentation in support of the Council's recommended management measures is required for NMFS to provide the public with information from the environmental and economic analyses, as required in rulemaking, and to evaluate the consistency of the Council's recommendation with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The proposed rule published on April 11, 2018, with a 15-day comment period ending April 26, 2018.
The more restrictive Federal coastwide regulatory measures for summer flounder that were codified last year remain in effect until the 2018 recreational measures are made effective. Although the states' summer flounder fisheries are already open, additional delay in implementing the measures of this rule will increase confusion on what measures are in place in Federal waters. This would create inconsistencies between state and federal measures and increase the likelihood of illegal landings due to misunderstood regulations.
Unlike actions that require an adjustment period to comply with new rules, charter/party operators will not have to purchase new equipment or otherwise expend time or money to comply with these management measures. Rather, complying with this final rule simply means adhering to the published management measures for each relevant species of fish while the charter/party operators are engaged in fishing activities.
For these reasons, the Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay and to make this rule effective upon publication in the
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, vessels that are not eligible for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(3), and fishermen subject to the possession limit, may fish for summer flounder from May 15 through September 15. This time period may be adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.102.
(a) The Regional Administrator has determined that the recreational fishing measures proposed to be implemented by the states of Maine through North Carolina for 2018 are the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.104(b), 648.105, and 648.106. This determination is based on a recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Vessels that are not eligible for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(7), and fishermen subject to the possession limit specified in § 648.145(a), may only possess black sea bass from May 15 through December 31, unless this time period is adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.142.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations amending the rules for determining whether information returns must be filed using magnetic media (electronically). The proposed regulations would require that all information returns, regardless of type, be taken into account to determine whether a person meets the 250-return threshold and, therefore, must file the information returns electronically. The proposed regulations also would require any person required to file information returns electronically to file corrected information returns electronically, regardless of the number of corrected information returns being filed. The proposed regulations will affect persons required to file information returns.
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by July 30, 2018.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-102951-16), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-102951-16), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Alternatively, persons may submit comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Michael Hara, (202) 317-6845; concerning the submission of comments and requests for a public hearing, Regina L. Johnson, (202) 317-5177 (not toll-free calls).
This document contains proposed amendments to the Regulations on Procedure and Administration (26 CFR part 301) under section 6011(e) relating to the filing of information returns on magnetic media. Section 6011(e) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations regarding the filing of returns on magnetic media.
Section 6011(e)(2)(A) prohibits the Secretary from requiring persons to file returns on magnetic media unless the person is required to file at least 250 returns during the calendar year. Section 6011(e)(2)(B) provides that, in prescribing regulations, the Secretary shall consider the taxpayer's ability to comply at reasonable cost with the regulations' requirements. Section 301.6011-2(a)(1) provides that magnetic media includes any magnetic media permitted under the applicable regulations, revenue procedures, or publications, or, in the case of returns filed with the Social Security Administration, any magnetic media permitted under Social Security Administration publications, including electronic filing.
Section 301.6011-2 provides rules for when information returns described in § 301.6011-2(b), such as Form 1042-S, “Foreign Person's U.S. Source Income Subject to Withholding;” forms in the 1099 series; and Form W-2, “Wage and Tax Statement,” must be filed electronically. Under § 301.6011-2(c), a person is not required to file a type of information return covered by § 301.6011-2(b) electronically unless the person is required to file 250 or more such returns during the calendar year. Sections 301.6011-2(c)(1)(i) and (iii) and the Examples in § 301.6011-2(c)(1)(iv) describe that the 250-return threshold applies separately to each type of information return and each type of corrected information return filed, and, therefore, the forms are not aggregated for purposes of determining whether the 250-return threshold is satisfied.
Section 301.6011-2(c)(2) allows the Commissioner to waive the requirement to file electronically if the request for waiver demonstrates hardship and provides that the principal factor in determining hardship will be the extent, if any, to which the cost of electronic filing exceeds the cost of filing on other media.
When the rules for determining the 250-return threshold, including the rule providing that each type of information return is counted separately and not aggregated, were originally published, electronic filing was in the early stages of development and was not as commonly used as it is today. The non-aggregation rule helped to reduce cost and ease burden on taxpayers, given the existing limits on technology and accessibility to such technology. Since then, significant advances in technology have made electronic filing more prevalent and accessible. As a result, electronic filing is less costly and most often easier than paper filing. In fact, most information returns are filed electronically. In tax year 2015, approximately 98 percent of information returns were filed electronically. In tax year 2016, the percentage of information returns filed electronically rose to 98.5 percent. Advances in tax return preparation software, as well as the prevalence of tax return preparers and third-party service providers who offer information return preparation and electronic filing, have also contributed to the increase in electronic filing.
The concerns regarding taxpayer burden and cost associated with electronic filing have been significantly mitigated since the non-aggregation rule in § 301.6011-2(c)(1)(i) and (iii) of the regulations was first published. Therefore, determining the 250-return threshold on a form-by-form basis without aggregation is no longer necessary to relieve taxpayer burden and cost. Accordingly, these regulations simplify the rules for determining the 250-return threshold by requiring aggregation of all information returns covered by § 301.6011-2(b) for purposes of determining the 250-return threshold. In addition, these regulations provide that corrected information returns must be filed electronically if the original information returns were filed electronically. These rule changes will help facilitate efficient and effective tax administration.
These proposed regulations remove the non-aggregation rule in § 301.6011-2(c)(1)(iii) that counts the number of information returns required to be filed on a form-by-form basis. The proposed regulations add a new paragraph (4) to § 301.6011-2(b) to provide that if during a calendar year a person is required to file a total of 250 or more information returns of any type covered by § 301.6011-2(b), the person is required to file those information returns electronically. For example, under these proposed regulations, if a person is required to file 200 Forms 1099-INT, “Interest Income,” and 200 Forms 1099-DIV, that person must file all Forms 1099-INT and Forms 1099-DIV electronically because that person is required to file, in the aggregate, at least 250 information returns covered by § 301.6011-2(b). Corrected information returns are not taken into account in determining whether the 250-return threshold is met under proposed § 301.6011-2(b)(4) for purposes of determining whether information returns covered by § 301.6011-2(b) must be filed electronically. Examples in proposed § 301.6011-2(c)(1)(iv) illustrate this rule.
The proposed regulations also provide that corrected information returns covered by § 301.6011-2(b) must be filed electronically if the information returns originally filed for the calendar year are required to be filed electronically. If fewer than 250 returns covered by § 301.6011-2(b) are required to be filed for the calendar year, the original returns for the calendar year, as well as the corrected returns for the calendar year, are not required to be filed electronically. See proposed § 301.6011-2(c)(1)(iv), Example 4.
The proposed regulations also amend § 301.6721-1(a)(2)(ii) regarding the penalty for failure to file correct information returns to remove references to the prior rule for determining the number of returns on a form-by-form basis and the prior corrected return rule.
The proposed regulations do not amend the existing regulations allowing persons who are required to file returns electronically to request a waiver of the electronic-filing requirement.
These proposed regulations will be effective on the date of the publication of the Treasury Decision adopting these rules as final in the
This regulation is not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations.
When the Internal Revenue Service issues a proposed rulemaking imposing a collection of information requirement on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis,” which will “describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Section 605(b) of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule directly affects information-return filers that file more than 250 returns of any type covered by § 301.6011-2(b), which includes a substantial number of small entities. However, the IRS has determined that the economic impact on small entities affected by the proposed rule would not be significant. Under sections 6011(e) and § 301.6011-2(c)(1), information-return filers already must file information returns electronically if during a calendar year a person is required to file a total of 250 or more information returns of any type covered by § 301.6011-2(b). The proposed rule merely amends the method of counting those 250 returns to determine if the 250-return threshold is met. Information filers may request a waiver of the electronic-filing requirement if they lack the necessary data-processing capabilities or access to return preparers and third-party service providers at a reasonable cost, and the IRS routinely grants meritorious hardship waiver requests. Accordingly, the burden on the limited number of small entities that are not currently filing electronically will be slight, and small entities that would experience a hardship because of this proposed rule may seek a waiver. The Commissioner of the IRS hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The IRS invites comment from members of the public who believe there will be a significant impact on small information return filers. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any electronic and written comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the
The principal author of these proposed regulations is Michael Hara of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 301.6721-1 is also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6011(e).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(4)
(5)
(6)
For the 2018 calendar year, Company W is required to file 200 Forms 1099-INT, “Interest Income,” and 200 Forms 1099-DIV, “Dividends and Distributions,” for a total of 400 returns. Because Company W is required to file 250 or more returns covered by paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section for the calendar year, Company W must file all Forms 1099-INT and Forms 1099-DIV electronically.
During the 2018 calendar year, Company X has 200 employees in Puerto Rico and 75 employees in American Samoa, for a total of 275 returns. Because Company X is required to file 250 or more returns covered by paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section for the calendar year, Company X must file Forms 499R-2/W-2PR, “Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Withholding Statement,” and Forms W-2AS, “American Samoa Wage and Tax Statement,” electronically.
For the 2018 calendar year, Company Y files 300 original Forms 1099-MISC, “Miscellaneous Income.” Later, Company Y files 70 corrected Forms 1099-MISC for the 2018 calendar year. Because Company Y is required to file 250 or more returns covered by paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section for the calendar year, Company Y must file its original 300 Forms 1099-MISC, as well as its 70 corrected Forms 1099-MISC for the 2018 calendar year, electronically.
(g) * * *
(2) Paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1) and (2), (c)(1)(i), (c)(2), (d), (e), and (f) of this section are effective for information returns required to be filed after December 31, 1996. For information returns required to be filed after December 31, 1989, and before January 1, 1997, see section 6011(e) [26 U.S.C. 6011(e)]. Paragraph (b)(4) of this section is effective for information returns required to be filed after December 31, 2018. Paragraph (b)(5) of this section is effective for corrected information returns filed after December 31, 2018.
The revisions and addition reads as follows:
(h)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for a marine event on the navigable waters of the Appomattox River at confluence with the James River in Hopewell, VA. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters in Hopewell, VA, during a fireworks display on June 30, 2018. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Hampton Roads or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 7, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0330 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Barbara Wilk, Waterways Management Division Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 757-668-5580, email
On March 27, 2018, the Hopewell Recreation and Parks Department notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from approximately 9:30 to 9:45 p.m. on June 30, 2018, to serve as the city of Hopewell's Fourth of July celebration. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in the Appomattox River near City Point. Potential hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Hampton Roads (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within a 234-yard radius of the barge. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a 234-yard radius of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 9 to 11 p.m. on June 30, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 234 yards of a barge in the Appomattox River at approximate coordinates: 37°18′52.20″ N, 077°17′12.52″ W. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9:30 to 9:45 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the Appomattox River at confluence with the James River in Hopewell, VA, for 2 hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission on-scene to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting 2 hours that would prohibit entry within 234 yards of a fireworks barge. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section: (1)
(2)
(3)
(b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters in the vicinity of the Appomattox River at confluence with the James River, within a 234 yard radius of the fireworks display barge in approximate position 37°18′52.20″ N, 077°17′12.52″ W. (NAD 1983).
(c) Regulations. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, all persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones of subpart C of this part.
(2) With the exception of participants, entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated representatives. All vessels within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone immediately.
(3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his representative can be contacted at telephone number (757) 668-5555. The Coast Guard and designated security vessels enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 Mhz) and channel 16 (156.8 Mhz), or by visual or verbal hailing on-scene.
(4) This section does not apply to participants and vessels that are engaged in the following operations:
(i) Enforcing laws;
(ii) Servicing aids to navigation, and
(iii) Emergency response vessels.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to rescind the Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that we promulgated on August 23, 2012, to regulate air pollutant emissions from Reid Gardner Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3 (RGGS), previously located in Clark County, Nevada. The EPA is proposing this action in response to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection's (NDEP) request dated January 16, 2018. The request seeks rescission of the FIP because RGGS Units 1-3 have been permanently decommissioned and are being dismantled and demolished, as demonstrated by the supporting documentation provided by NDEP.
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by July 16, 2018. Requests for a public hearing must be received on or before June 15, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0221, at
Krishna Viswanathan, EPA Region IX, (520) 999-7880,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas in 1977 by adding section 169A to the Clean Air Act (CAA). In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress amended the visibility provisions in the CAA to focus attention on the problem of regional haze, which is visibility impairment produced by a multitude of sources and activities located across a broad geographic area.
On March 26, 2012, we had approved all portions of Nevada's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (“Nevada RH SIP”), except the BART determination at RGGS for nitrogen oxides (NO
On January 16, 2015, NV Energy, the owner of RGGS, informed NDEP of the retirement of RGGS Units 1-3 as of December 31, 2014, to comply with state law,
Section 307(d) of the CAA applies to the RGGS FIP rescission; this rulemaking is being conducted in accordance with those provisions.
The proposed action relies on documents, information, and data that are listed in the index on
Based on our review of the information submitted with the January 16, 2018 letter from NDEP, we are proposing to grant NDEP's request to rescind the RGGS FIP because Units 1-3 have been permanently decommissioned and are being dismantled and demolished.
The EPA solicits comments on any issues associated with rescinding the RGGS FIP. In addition, if anyone contacts the EPA by June 15, 2018 requesting to speak at a public hearing, the EPA will schedule a public hearing and announce the hearing in the
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) because it will rescind a rule of particular applicability.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because rules of particular applicability are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities because the rule merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished.
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.
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 merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed action will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. This action merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern 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 merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS because it merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished.
The EPA believes that this proposed rule will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. Because this proposed rule merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished, this proposal will not cause any emissions increases.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Incorporation by reference.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Chapter I, Title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by Washington on November 6, 2017. Washington submitted its
Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0001 at
Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency—Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0256, email address:
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Washington submitted its initial regional haze SIP to the EPA on December 22, 2010, and supplemental
Five years after submission of the initial regional haze plan, states are required to submit reports that evaluate progress towards the RPGs for each Class I area within the state and in each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h). On November 6, 2017, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) submitted as a SIP revision a report on the progress made in the first implementation period towards the RPGs for Class I areas.
The Regional Haze Rule requires states to provide in the progress report an assessment of whether the current “implementation plan” is sufficient to enable the states to meet all established RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The term “implementation plan” is defined for purposes of the Regional Haze Rule to mean any SIP, FIP, or Tribal Implementation Plan.
To facilitate a better understanding of Washington's progress report as well as the EPA's evaluation of it, this section provides background on the regional haze program in Washington.
The EPA established a metric for determining visibility conditions at Class I areas referred to as the “deciview index,” measured in deciviews (dv), as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. The deciview index is calculated using monitoring data collected from the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network monitors. Washington has eight Class I areas within its borders: Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area, Glacier Peak Wilderness Area, Goat Rocks Wilderness Area, Mount Adams Wilderness Area, Mount Rainier National Park, North Cascades National Park, Olympic National Park, and Pasayten Wilderness Area. Monitoring data representing visibility conditions in Washington's eight Class I areas is based on the six IMPROVE monitors identified in Table 1. As shown in the table, the NOCA1 monitoring site represents two Class I areas, the WHPA1 site represents two other Class I areas, and the remaining four sites represent individual Class I areas.
Under the Regional Haze Rule, a state's initial regional haze SIP must establish two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One for the 20 percent least impaired days and one for the 20 percent most impaired days. The RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20 percent most impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the 20 percent least impaired days, as compared to visibility conditions during the baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a state must consider the uniform rate of visibility improvement from the baseline to natural conditions in 2064 and the emission reductions measures needed to achieve it. Washington set the RPGs for its eight Class I areas based on regional atmospheric air quality modeling conducted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) using projected emission reductions in western states from federal and state control strategies expected to be in place before 2018.
As part of the WRAP coordination and joint modeling, Washington worked closely with other western states to ensure that control measures put in place to meet RPGs for Washington Class I areas were also sufficient to address Washington's impact on Class I areas in other states. The EPA, in our approval of Washington's 2010 regional haze SIP, stated that Washington's control measures coordinated through the WRAP would enable it to achieve the RPGs established for the mandatory Class I areas in Washington, as well as the RPGs established by other states for the Class I areas where Washington sources are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment.
Washington relied on the WRAP technical data and analyses in a report
This section describes the contents of Washington's progress report and the EPA's evaluation of the report, as well as the EPA's evaluation of the determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the requirement for state and Federal Land Manager coordination in 40 CFR 51.308(i).
In its progress report, Washington provided a description of the control measures that the state relied on to implement the regional haze program and make projections of expected emissions reductions from the 2002 base year to 2018. Washington's regional haze SIP noted that many of the control measures were already-adopted federal and state provisions such as: The Heavy Duty Diesel (2007) Engine Standard, Tier 2 Tailpipe Standards, Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle Rule, Non-road Diesel Rule, low sulfur fuel requirements for gasoline engines, on-road diesel engines, off-road diesel engines, and locomotives, as well as Washington's decision to adopt the California low emission vehicle requirements. Other control measures were originally adopted to reduce ozone or particulate matter (PM) with the co-benefit of reducing visibility impairment, such as the smoke management and agriculture burning programs. Because these other state and federal control measures with the expected co-benefit of reducing visibility impairment were generally already in place, the most significant focus of Washington's initial regional haze SIP was implementation of BART, as summarized below.
The British Petroleum (BP) Cherry Point Refinery is located near Ferndale, Washington. Washington issued BART Order 7836, with emissions limitations for nitrogen oxides (NO
The Intalco Aluminum Corporation (Intalco) is a primary aluminum smelter also located at Cherry Point near Ferndale, Washington. Washington issued BART Order 7837, Revision 1, to Intalco on November 15, 2010. The revised order imposed Washington's determined BART control technology, pollution prevention measures, emission limits, compliance dates, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements. On June 11, 2014, the EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of Washington's sulfur dioxide (SO
The Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Tesoro) operates a refinery near Anacortes, Washington, that processes crude oil into refined oil products, including ultra-low sulfur diesel oil, jet fuel, #6 fuel oil, and gasoline. The primary emission units of concern were the process heaters, boiler, and flares. On July 7, 2010, Ecology issued BART Order 7838 requiring specific fuel gas sulfur content limits, a wet scrubber system on the catalyst regeneration/carbon monoxide boiler exhaust, and NO
In our June 11, 2014, final action, the EPA disapproved Washington's BART exemption for the Alcoa Wenatchee Works located in Malaga, Washington (Wenatchee Works), and promulgated a federal BART FIP for all emission units subject to BART at the facility.
Lafarge North America (Lafarge) is located in Seattle, Washington and produces Portland cement by the wet kiln process. The largest BART sources of concern were the rotary kiln and the clinker cooler. The other BART units included raw material handling, finished product storage bins, finish mill conveying system, bagging system, and bulk loading/unloading system baghouses, with a total of just 480 tons per year of PM emissions. Washington issued, and the EPA approved, BART Order 7841 to implement emission controls for NO
In a final action on December 6, 2012, the EPA approved Washington's BART determination for the TransAlta Centralia Generation LLC coal-fired power plant in Centralia, Washington (TransAlta).
The progress report noted that TransAlta installed SNCR, along with other associated controls, and demonstrated compliance with the initial emission limitation in the order. However, the progress report noted that the plant is also required to determine if it could reliably comply with a lower emission limitation. At the time of the progress report submission, Washington explained that this work had not been completed due to a number of factors, primarily inconsistent plant operation and difficulties with the in situ ammonia slip monitors. With respect to inconsistent plan operation, Washington noted that plant operation has reduced to 50%-60% of full annual capacity compared to greater than 80% when the BART order was issued, with NO
Weyerhaeuser Corporation (Weyerhaeuser) operates a Kraft pulp and paper mill in Longview, Washington. The facility has three emission units subject to BART: No. 10 recovery furnace; No. 10 smelt dissolver tank; and No. 11 power boiler. On July 7, 2010, Washington issued BART Order 7840. As described in the EPA's proposed approval of BART for this facility, Washington determined that the existing controls, techniques, and emission limits, already in place to meet prior new source review and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) requirements, constituted BART for NO
Port Townsend Paper Company operates a kraft pulp and paper mill in Port Townsend, Washington that manufactures kraft pulp, kraft papers, and lightweight liner board. The four BART eligible emission units identified in the 2010 regional haze SIP were the recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, No. 10 power boiler, and lime kiln. On October 20, 2010, Washington issued Order 7839, Revision 1, which established emission limits for the existing controls at the facility as BART. The controls under the BART order are an electrostatic precipitator to control PM from the recovery furnace, a wet scrubber to control PM and SO
In the progress report, Washington documented the differences between the visibility conditions during the baseline period (2000-2004) and the most current five year averaging period available at the time Washington developed the progress report (2010-2014).
Washington's progress report included an analysis of progress and impediments to progress. With respect to impediments to progress, Washington cited wildfire smoke originating in the state or transported from outside the state, offshore and ocean-going vessel emissions, mobile source emissions (on-road and non-road sources under federal emission control), and international emissions as factors largely beyond state control that can interfere with progress toward improved visibility in Class I areas. Further detail on many of these source categories is included in the emissions inventory discussion below.
The progress report also contained a review of Washington's visibility monitoring strategy, concluding that the IMPROVE network continues to comply with the monitoring requirements in the Regional Haze Rule. Washington will continue to rely on the IMPROVE network to collect and analyze the visibility data and suggested additional sites for consideration should additional federal or state funding become available. These proposed sites include the southwest portion of Olympic National Park, and Stevens Pass or Stehekin to better reflect conditions at Glacier Peak Wilderness.
The Washington progress report also included a summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the state from the control measures discussed above. The progress report included the 2002 WRAP inventory used for baseline condition modeling, Ecology's periodic comprehensive inventory submitted to the EPA for the national emission inventories for the years 2005 and 2011, and the WRAP's projected emissions inventory for 2018. The progress report highlighted significant differences between the inventories due to methodology changes over the years. First, mobile source emission estimates are not directly comparable because they are based on different emissions models. Starting in 2007, the EPA required the use of the MOVES model for mobile source emissions modeling. The progress report noted that the model transition resulted in significant changes, especially for NO
In its progress report, Washington concluded that the state is making adequate progress in improving visibility as a result of control measures in the regional haze implementation plan. The state also identified more recent federal and international control measures not included in 2018 emission projections. These measures include the International Maritime Organization NO
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), if the state determines that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive revision at this time in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions, the state must provide to the EPA a negative declaration that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed at this time. Within the progress report, Washington provided a negative declaration stating that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed. The basis for the state's negative declaration is the finding that visibility on the 20% most and least impaired days has improved, and Washington has attained the 2018 RPGs at all Washington IMPROVE monitors. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find that Washington adequately addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its determination that the existing Washington regional haze implementation plan requires no substantive revisions at this time to achieve the established RPGs for Class I areas.
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i), the state provided the Federal Land Managers with an opportunity for consultation at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearings on an implementation plan (or plan revision). The state also included a description of how it addressed the comments provided by the Federal Land Managers, presented in Appendix E of the progress report. The EPA proposes to find that Washington has addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i).
The EPA proposes to approve the
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as 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 this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, and Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state plan submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on May 12, 2017, and supplemented on February 9, 2018, for implementing and enforcing the Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units. The state plan provides for implementation and enforcement of the EG, as finalized by EPA on June 23, 2016, applicable to existing CISWI units for which construction commenced on or before June 4, 2010, or for which modification or reconstruction commenced after June 4, 2010, but no later than August 7, 2013. The state plan establishes emission limits, monitoring, operating, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for affected CISWI units. Since all the CISWI units in the State are located at the Eastman Chemical Company in Kingsport, Tennessee, the State has issued the facility an operating permit the terms of which are the relevant provisions of the EG and has submitted the permit as part of its state plan.
Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0186] at
Mark Bloeth, South Air Enforcement and Toxics Section, Air Enforcement and Toxics Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Mr. Bloeth can be reached via telephone at 404-562-9013 and via email at
Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) directs the Administrator to develop regulations under section 111(d) of the Act limiting emissions of nine air pollutants (particulate matter, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, and cadmium) from four categories of solid waste incineration units: Municipal solid waste; hospital, medical, and infectious solid waste; commercial and industrial solid waste; and other solid waste.
On December 1, 2000, EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS) and EG to reduce air pollution from CISWI units, which are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD, respectively.
Section 129(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to submit to EPA for approval state plans and revisions that implement and enforce the EG—in this case, 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. State plans and revisions must be at least as protective as the EG, and become federally enforceable upon approval by EPA. The procedures for adoption and submittal of state plans and revisions are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.
Tennessee submitted a state plan to implement and enforce the EG for existing CISWI units in the state
Under 40 CFR 60.26 and 60.2515(a)(9), an approvable state plan must demonstrate that the State has
Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), a state plan must include emission standards, defined at 40 CFR 60.21(f) as “a legally enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable rate of emissions into the atmosphere, or prescribing equipment specifications for control of air pollution emissions.”
Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(1), a state plan must include a complete source inventory of all CISWI units. Tennessee has identified seven affected units at one facility: Boilers 18-24 at Eastman. Omission from this inventory of CISWI units does not exempt an affected facility from the applicable section 111(d)/129 requirements. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Tennessee has met the affected unit inventory requirements under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(1).
Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(2), a state plan must include an emissions inventory of the pollutants regulated by the EG. Emissions from CISWI units may contain cadmium, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Tennessee submitted, and later supplemented, an emissions inventory of CISWI units as part of its state plan. This emissions inventory contains CISWI unit emissions rates for each regulated pollutant. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Tennessee has met the emission inventory requirements of 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(2).
Under 40 CFR 60.24(c) and 60.2515(a)(4), the state plan must include emission standards that are no less stringent than the EG. 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(4) also requires a state plan to include operating training and qualifications requirements, a waste management plan, and operating limits that are at least as protective as the EG. Since all of the CISWI units identified in the State are located at Eastman, the State has issued the facility an operating permit the terms of which are the relevant provisions of the EG. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Tennessee's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(c) and 60.2515(a)(4).
Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and (e) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(3), each state plan must include a compliance schedule, which requires affected CISWI units to expeditiously comply with the state plan requirements. In Eastman's state operating permit number 072397, Eastman is required to comply with the EG initial compliance requirements for CISWI units, which EPA has codified at 40 CFR 60.2700 through 60.2706. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Tennessee's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and (e) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(3).
Under 40 CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.2515(a)(5), an approvable state plan must require that sources conduct testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. Tennessee's state plan incorporates the model rule provisions of the EG in state operating permit number 072397. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Tennessee's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.2515(a)(5).
40 CFR 60.23 sets forth the public participation requirements for each state plan. The State must conduct a public hearing, make all relevant plan materials available to the public prior to the hearing, and provide notice of such hearing to the public, the Administrator of EPA, each local air pollution control agency, and, in the case of an interstate region, each state within the region. 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(6) requires that each state plan include certification that the hearing was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation or written submission. In its submittal, Tennessee submitted records, including transcripts, of a public hearing held on April 19, 2017. Tennessee provided notice and made all relevant plan materials available prior to the hearing. Tennessee certifies in its submittal that a hearing was held and that the State received no oral comments on the plan, and it describes the written submissions received. Thus, EPA has preliminarily concluded that Tennessee's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.23 and 60.2515(a)(6).
Under 40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(7), the State must provide in its state plan for annual reports to EPA on progress in enforcement of the plan. Accordingly, Tennessee provides in its plan that it will submit reports on progress in plan enforcement to EPA on an annual (calendar year) basis, commencing with the first full reporting period after plan revision approval. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Tennessee's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(7).
Pursuant to CAA section 111(d), CAA section 129, and 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's state plan for regulation of CISWI units as submitted on May 21, 2017. In addition, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart RR to reflect this action.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d)/129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. In reviewing 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
In addition, this rule 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. It also 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). And it does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because EPA is not proposing to approve the submitted rule to apply in Indian country located in the state, and because the submitted rule will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental relations, Manufacturing, Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Waste treatment and disposal.
42 U.S.C. 7411.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notification of regulatory review; request for comments.
NHTSA seeks comments on the economic impact of its regulations on small entities. As required by Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we are attempting to identify rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We also request comments on ways to make these regulations easier to read and understand. The focus of this notification is rules that specifically relate to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, motorcycles, and motor vehicle equipment.
You should submit comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than July 30, 2018.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket Number NHTSA-2018-0064] by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• You may call Docket Management at 1-800-647-5527.
Jonathan Roth, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-0818, fax 202-366-3189).
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), requires agencies to conduct periodic reviews of final rules that have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. The purpose of the reviews is to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules on a substantial number of such small entities.
On December 1, 2008, NHTSA published in the
During the Analysis Year, we will request public comment on and analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether any rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In each fall's Regulatory Agenda, we will publish the results of the analyses we completed during the previous year. For rules that have subparts, or other discrete sections of rules that do have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, we will announce that we will be conducting a formal section 610 review during the following 12 months.
The section 610 review will determine whether a specific rule should be revised or revoked to lessen its impact on small entities. We will consider: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received from the public; (3) the complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other federal rules or with state or local government rules; and (5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. At the end of the Review Year, we will publish the results of our review. The following table shows the 10-year analysis and review schedule:
NHTSA did not publish a
We are seeking comments on whether any requirements in 49 CFR 571.214 through 571.219, except 571.217, and 49 CFR 591 through 595, and all new parts and subparts added since 2008 have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000. Business entities are generally defined as small businesses by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, for the purposes of receiving Small Business Administration (SBA) assistance. Size standards established by SBA in 13 CFR 121.201 are expressed either in number of employees or annual receipts in millions of dollars, unless otherwise specified. The number of employees or annual receipts indicates the maximum allowed for a concern and its affiliates to be considered small. If your business or organization is a small entity and if any of the requirements in 49 CFR 571.214 through 571.219, except 571.217, and 49 CFR 591 through 595, and all new parts and subparts added since 2008 have a significant economic impact on your business or organization, please submit a comment to explain how and to what degree these rules affect you, the extent of the economic impact on your business or organization, and why you believe the economic impact is significant.
If the agency determines that there is a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, it will ask for comment in a subsequent notification during the Review Year on how these impacts could be reduced without reducing safety.
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this document.
In conjunction with our section 610 reviews, we will be performing plain language reviews over a ten-year period on a schedule consistent with the section 610 review schedule. We will review 49 CFR 571.214 through 571.219, except 571.217, and 49 CFR 591 through 595, and all new parts and subparts added since 2008, determine if these regulations can be reorganized and/or rewritten to make them easier to read, understand, and use. We encourage interested persons to submit draft regulatory language that clearly and simply communicates regulatory requirements, and other recommendations, such as for putting information in tables that may make the regulations easier to use.
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21.) We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit one copy of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under
You may also see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on the internet, take the following steps:
(1) Go to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
(2) FDMS provides two basic methods of searching to retrieve dockets and docket materials that are available in the system: (a) “Quick Search” to search using a full-text search engine, or (b) “Advanced Search,” which displays various indexed fields such as the docket name, docket identification number, phase of the action, initiating office, date of issuance, document title, document identification number, type of document,
(3) You may download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, this notice announces the Agricultural Research Service's (ARS) intention to seek approval to collect information in support of research and related activities.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before July 30, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Jill Lake, ARS Webmaster, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland 20705.
Jill Lake, ARS Webmaster,
Copies of forms used in this information collection can be obtained from Jill Lake, ARS Webmaster,
The information collection extension requested by ARS is for a period of 3 years. Comments: Are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a revision and an extension of a currently approved information collection request that supports Direct Loan Servicing-Special Programs. The information is used in eligibility and feasibility determinations on borrower requests for disaster set-aside, primary loan servicing, buyout at market value, and homestead protection, as well as liquidation of security.
We will consider comments that we receive by July 30, 2018.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comments, include date, volume, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting J. Lee Nault at the above address.
J. Lee Nault, (202) 720-6834. Persons with disabilities who require alternative mean for communication (Braille, large print, audio tape, and so on) should contact the USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice).
The numbers of respondents and responses increased because the loan servicing activities increased by 15 percent to reflect the current numbers since the last OMB approval. The annual burden hours decreased due to removal of travel times from the request. The respondents are going to the County office to do regular and customary (or normal) business for the Farm Loan Programs.
For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hour is the estimated average time per response multiplied by the estimated total annual responses.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the FSA, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the FSA's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.
National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, dated August 29, 1995), this notice announces the Agricultural Research Service's (ARS) intention to request an extension of a currently approved information collection, Information Collection for Document Delivery Services at the National Agricultural Library (NAL), which expires November 30, 2018.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 30, 2018.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, NAL, Digitization and Access Branch, 10301 Baltimore Avenue, Room 305-D, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2351.
Kay Derr, Librarian, telephone: 301-504-5879; email:
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice of opportunity for commodity boards to submit topics and contribute funding under the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program.
NIFA is soliciting topics from eligible commodity board entities (Federal and State- level commodity boards, as defined below) that the entities are willing to co-fund equally with NIFA. To be considered for inclusion in future Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) competitive grants program Requests for Applications (RFAs), topics must relate to the established priority areas of AFRI.
Commodity boards are those entities established under a commodity promotion law, as such term is defined under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, or a State commodity board or other equivalent State entity. See the
If, after NIFA's evaluation, proposed topics are accepted for inclusion, they will be incorporated into AFRI competitive grants program RFAs. As a condition of funding grants pertaining to a topic, NIFA will require an agreement with the commodity board to provide funds equal to the amount NIFA is contributing under the agreed upon topic.
This Notice invites topic submissions from commodity boards as defined above, outlines the process NIFA will use to evaluate the appropriateness of these topics for inclusion in AFRI RFAs, and describes the commitment required of commodity boards for NIFA to jointly fund competitively selected AFRI awards within a topic area submitted by the commodity boards.
Commodity boards may submit topics at any time; however, all topics received by 5:00 p.m. EDT on July 30, 2018 will be considered for the fiscal year 2019 AFRI RFAs. Topics submitted by eligible commodity board entities after this date are not guaranteed review for fiscal year 2019, but will be considered for RFAs to be issued in future years. Frequently asked questions about commodity board topics are available on the NIFA Website
You may submit topics by the following method: Website:
Required fields are marked. Topics submitted through this form will not be posted to a public site.
Mark Mirando; Phone: (202) 401-4336, or Email:
This Notice begins the fourth topic submission cycle to implement section 2(b)(4)(F) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 3157(b)(4)(F)), as added by section 7404 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79, which requires NIFA to “establish procedures, including timelines, under which an entity established under a commodity promotion law (as such term is defined under section 501(a) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7401(a))) or a State commodity board (or other equivalent State entity) may directly submit to [NIFA] for consideration proposals for requests for applications” within the AFRI Program.
Stakeholder feedback gathered in previous years informed this Notice and the process NIFA is using to implement section 7404. This Notice invites entities established under a commodity promotion law or State commodity boards (or other equivalent State entities) to submit topics they are proposing for inclusion in fiscal year 2019 AFRI RFAs. Topics must relate to the established AFRI priority areas, which were authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill and described in 7 CFR 3430.309 as: Plant health and production and plant products; animal health and production and animal products; food safety, nutrition, and health; bioenergy, natural resources, and environment; agriculture systems and technology; and agriculture economics and rural communities. The AFRI priorities are subject to change based on future Farm Bills, and any changes will be reflected on the NIFA website. A summary statement on AFRI is included below. To learn more about AFRI programs, including program priorities, typical award budget amounts, and examples of RFAs, please visit:
The AFRI program is the largest agricultural competitive grants program in the United States and a primary funding source for research, education, and extension projects that bring practical solutions to some of today's most critical societal challenges. AFRI programs impact all components of agriculture, including farm and ranch efficiency and profitability, bioenergy, forestry, aquaculture, rural communities, human nutrition, food safety, biotechnology, and genetic improvement of plants and animals.
In FY 2019, NIFA plans to solicit applications for AFRI funding opportunities in the AFRI priority areas authorized in the Farm Bill and described in 7 CFR 3430.309. It is anticipated these will include the AFRI Foundational and Applied Science Program RFA and the AFRI Education and Workforce Development RFA. The annual AFRI Foundational and Applied Science Program RFA solicits grant applications focused predominately, but not exclusively, on fundamental scientific research addressing statutory priorities. The AFRI Education and Workforce Development RFA solicits grant applications for training K-14 teachers and administrators,
Eligible commodity board entities are those established under a commodity promotion law, as such term is defined under 7 U.S.C. 7401(a), or a State commodity board (or other equivalent State entity). Language in 7 U.S.C. 7401(a) defines a “commodity promotion law” as “a Federal law that provides for the establishment and operation of a promotion program regarding an agricultural commodity that includes a combination of promotion, research, industry information, or consumer information activities, is funded by mandatory assessments on producers or processors, and is designed to maintain or expand markets and uses for the commodity (as determined by the Secretary).” 7 U.S.C. 7401(a) includes a list of such Federal laws.
A current list of approved entities is maintained at (
Topics may be submitted at any time and will be evaluated by NIFA on an annual basis. However, to guarantee consideration for the proposed fiscal year 2019 AFRI RFAs, topics must be received by 5:00 p.m. EDT on July 30, 2018.
Each topic proposed must be submitted using the online topic submission form provided at:
If topics are accepted for funding, they will be incorporated into AFRI RFAs, and grants supporting the topic area may be awarded to AFRI eligible entities based on a competitive peer review process. As a condition of funding grants in a topic, NIFA will require an agreement by the commodity board to provide funds in an amount equal to the amount NIFA is contributing under the agreed upon topic. If a topic is selected for inclusion in an RFA, the commodity board submitting the topic will be required to maintain the confidentiality of the topic until the RFA is issued by NIFA. All commodity board funds and NIFA funds must be available at the time projects are selected for funding; awards are fully funded at the beginning of the award. Applications submitted under topics provided by commodity boards will be required to include a letter of support for co-funding from the the commodity board that proposed the topic.
NIFA will screen proposed research topics to ensure eligibility of the submitting commodity boards. NIFA will also consult with USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to determine that submissions and proposed financial contributions are consistent with commodity promotion laws and commodity boards' charters, as applicable.
Commodity board topics are reviewed by an internal panel based on evaluation criteria developed using stakeholder input from commodity boards and other stakeholders from government, industry, and academe. Each topic will be evaluated based on alignment with one or more of the statutory AFRI priority areas (AFRI priority areas authorized in the Farm Bill and described in 7 CFR 3430.309); alignment with the President's budget proposal for NIFA, as identified in the Department of Agriculture's annual budget submission; and alignment with the priority areas in the AFRI RFAs to be released by NIFA during the fiscal year for which the commodity board is proposing a topic for funding (for example, within the AFRI Foundational and Applied Science RFA, the AFRI Animal Health and Production and Animal Products' “Animal Reproduction” priority area).
From those topics received by 5:00 p.m. EDT on July 30, 2018, NIFA will select the topic(s) that were evaluated favorably for inclusion in the appropriate FY 2019 AFRI RFA. NIFA will notify commodity boards as to whether their topics will be included by August 29, 2018. Based on the evaluation, NIFA reserves the right to negotiate with commodity boards should changes be required to accept topics and funding amounts. Any changes to topics and funding amounts will be reviewed by USDA's AMS to determine if such changes are consistent with applicable commodity promotion laws.
NIFA will evaluate topics submitted after the July 30, 2018 deadline on an annual basis and notify commodity boards whether their topics will be included in subsequent RFAs within two weeks following the meeting of the internal evaluation panel, the date of which will be published on NIFA's Commodity Boards web page at (
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 West Virginia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EST) on Friday, June 1, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the upcoming SAC briefing to be held in July 2018.
Friday, June 1, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. EST.
Ivy Davis at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-800-474-8920 and conference call ID number: 8310490. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-888-364-3109 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-800-474-8920 and conference call ID number: 8310490.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
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 Virginia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, June 20, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is discuss plans for a briefing meeting to be scheduled in August 2018.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. EST.
Ivy Davis at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-800-474-8920 and conference call ID number: 8310490. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-800-474-8920 and conference call ID number: 8310490.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
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 Mississippi Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 1:00 p.m. (CST) on Friday, June 1, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is for the SAC members to discuss potential topics of study.
Friday, June 1, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. CST
David Mussatt at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-572-7033 and conference call 9333138. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-888-364-3109 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-572-7033 and conference call 9333138.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL, faxed to (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) will meet June 12, 2018, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW, Washington, DC. The Committee
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on March 23, 2018, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2, 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2, 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on steel wire garment hangers (hangers) from Taiwan and Vietnam would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of the antidumping duty orders.
Applicable May 31, 2018.
Ian Hamilton, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4798.
On December 10, 2012, Commerce published in the
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. As a result, the revised deadline for the final results of this sunset review was March 5, 2018.
Commerce conducted this sunset review on an expedited basis, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(
The merchandise subject to the orders is hangers. For a complete description of the scope of these orders,
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on hangers from Taiwan and Vietnam. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.
The applicability date of the continuation of the orders will be the date of publication in the
This sunset review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce preliminarily determines that Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems Co., Ltd. (HEES) is the successor-in-interest to Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (HHI), and that HHI's current cash deposit rate is the rate applicable for all entries of large power transformers exported by HEES. Further, we preliminarily determine that the application of the cash deposit rate applicable to HEES shall be made retroactively to the effective date of the first entry by HEES.
Applicable May 31, 2018.
Moses Song, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5041.
On August 31, 2012, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published in the
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(d), on December 4, 2017, Commerce self-initiated a Changed Circumstances Review (CCR) regarding HHI's new spin off company, HEES, based on information obtained (1) during the course of the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 administrative reviews, (2)
The scope of this
Incomplete LPTs are subassemblies consisting of the active part and any other parts attached to, imported with or invoiced with the active parts of LPTs. The “active part” of the transformer consists of one or more of the following when attached to or otherwise assembled with one another: The steel core or shell, the windings, electrical insulation between the windings, the mechanical frame for an LPT.
The product definition encompasses all such LPTs regardless of name designation, including but not limited to step-up transformers, step-down transformers, autotransformers, interconnection transformers, voltage regulator transformers, rectifier transformers, and power rectifier transformers.
The LPTs subject to this
We are conducting this CCR in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our analysis,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216, we preliminarily determine that HEES is the successor-in-interest to HHI. Record evidence, as submitted by HHI and HEES (collectively, Hyundai), indicates that, based on the totality of the circumstances under Commerce's successor-in-interest criteria, HEES's day-to-day operations, corporate and management structure, and ownership are materially similar to those of HHI before the spin-off with respect to the merchandise under review. Moreover, we preliminarily find that HEES assumed HHI's production facilities, supplier relationships, and the customer base with regard to the merchandise under review. For the complete successor-in-interest analysis, including discussion of business proprietary information, refer to the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
Therefore, based on record evidence, we preliminarily determine that as the successor-in-interest to HHI, HEES should receive the same antidumping duty treatment with respect to the subject merchandise as HHI, and that the rate assigned to HHI is the rate for HEES as a result of our successor-in-interest finding.
Further, as a result of Hyundai's corporate reorganization, HEES has been
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we will intend to issue the final results of this changed circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary finding.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b), 351.221(b) and 351.221(c)(3).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; five-year affirmative finding for El Salvador.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator (Assistant Administrator) has issued a five-year affirmative finding for the Government of El Salvador under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This affirmative finding will allow importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna products harvested in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) in compliance with the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP) by purse seine vessels operating under Salvadoran jurisdiction or exported from El Salvador. NMFS bases the affirmative finding determination on reviews of documentary evidence submitted by the Government of El Salvador and by information obtained from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).
This affirmative finding is effective for the five-year period of April 1, 2018, through March 31, 2023.
Justin Greenman, West Coast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Phone: 562-980-3264. Email:
The MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361
The affirmative finding process requires that the harvesting nation is meeting its obligations under the AIDCP and its obligations of membership in the IATTC. Every five years, the government of the harvesting nation must request a new affirmative finding and submit the required documentary evidence directly to the Assistant Administrator. On an annual basis, NMFS reviews the affirmative finding and determines whether the harvesting nation continues to meet the requirements. A nation may provide information related to compliance with AIDCP and IATTC measures directly to NMFS on an annual basis or may authorize the IATTC to release the information to NMFS to annually renew an affirmative finding determination without an application from the harvesting nation.
An affirmative finding will be terminated, in consultation with the Secretary of State, if the Assistant Administrator determines that the requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no longer being met or that a nation is consistently failing to take enforcement actions on violations, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the AIDCP.
As a part of the affirmative finding process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f)(8), the Assistant Administrator considered documentary evidence submitted by the Government of El Salvador and obtained from the IATTC and has determined that El Salvador has met the MMPA's requirements to receive an affirmative finding.
After consultation with the Department of State, the Assistant Administrator issued a five-year affirmative finding to El Salvador, allowing the importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of a NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture Study draft report; request for comments; public meeting.
In planning for the future operational environmental satellite system to follow the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite System—R Series (GOES-R, S, T, and U) and the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS-1, 2, 3, and 4), beginning about 2028, NOAA has conducted a study of the NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture (NSOSA). The development of a future system presents an opportunity to design a modern architecture by broadly examining instruments, services, platforms, and orbits, driven by user needs, new technology, and exploiting emerging space business models. The NSOSA study team developed and evaluated nearly 100 architecture alternatives, including partner and commercial contributions that are likely to become available. Through
All comments are welcome. In particular, NOAA would like comments on the following areas:
Did NOAA consider a sufficiently broad range of alternatives?
Are the opportunities that the analysis identified as deserving of consideration consistent with your knowledge of the state of the space enterprise?
Are there outcomes or options that you recommend for further analysis?
What suggestions do you have on engagement with industry, including innovative capability development approaches, partnership opportunities, and business models that may inform NOAA's path forward?
What suggestions do you have on engagement with the academic and research community and other stakeholders to ensure NOAA makes the best use of the outputs of this study?
NOAA previously discussed the NSOSA study at the American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting in January 2018; these presentations are available at
Comments must be received by 5 p.m. on July 2, 2018. A meeting will be held on June 21, 2018. For additional details, see
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NESDIS-2018-0053, by either of the following methods:
Kate Becker, NESDIS Office of System Architecture and Advance Planning (OSAAP), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, Room 5450, 1335 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 20910. (Phone: 301-713-7049,
NESDIS will hold a public event to discuss the NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture Study report on June 21, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. at the Silver Spring Civic Building, 1 Veterans Pl, Silver Spring, MD 20910. This Community Day will include a public session and the opportunity for one-on-one meetings with NESDIS. Further information and registration is available at
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general
Written comments must be submitted on or before July 30, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to James McNitt at 301-817-3842 or
This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection. NOAA asks people who operate ground receiving stations that receive data from NOAA satellites to complete a questionnaire about the types of data received, its use, the equipment involved, and similar subjects. Members of NOAA's Direct Broadcast User Groups are asked follow-up questions. The data obtained are used by NOAA for short-term operations and long-term planning. Collection of this data assists us in complying with the terms of our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the World Meteorological Organization: United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on area of common interest (2008).
The information is collected via an online questionnaire.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; affirmative finding annual renewals for Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Spain.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator (Assistant Administrator) has issued affirmative finding annual renewals for the Governments of Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Spain (referred to hereafter as “The Nations”) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). These affirmative-finding, annual renewals will continue to allow the importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna products harvested in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) in compliance with the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP) by purse seine vessels operating under The Nations' jurisdiction or exported from The Nations. NMFS bases the affirmative finding annual renewals on reviews of documentary evidence submitted by the Governments of The Nations and by information obtained from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).
These affirmative finding annual renewals are effective for the one-year period of April 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019.
Justin Greenman, West Coast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Phone: 562-980-3264. Email:
The MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361
The affirmative finding process requires that the harvesting nation is meeting its obligations under the AIDCP and its obligations of membership in the IATTC. Every five years, the government of the harvesting nation must request a new affirmative finding and submit the required documentary evidence directly to the Assistant Administrator. On an annual basis, NMFS reviews the affirmative finding and determines whether the harvesting nation continues to meet the requirements. A nation may provide information related to compliance with AIDCP and IATTC measures directly to NMFS on an annual basis or may authorize the IATTC to release the information to NMFS to annually renew an affirmative finding determination without an application from the harvesting nation.
An affirmative finding will be terminated, in consultation with the Secretary of State, if the Assistant Administrator determines that the requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no longer being met or that a nation is consistently failing to take enforcement actions on violations, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the AIDCP.
As a part of the affirmative finding process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f)(8), the Assistant Administrator considered documentary evidence submitted by the Governments of The Nations and obtained from the IATTC and has determined that The Nations have met the MMPA's requirements to receive affirmative finding annual renewals.
After consultation with the Department of State, the Assistant Administrator issued affirmative finding annual renewals to The Nations, allowing the continued importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and products derived from yellowfin tuna harvested in the ETP by purse seine vessels operating under The Nations' jurisdiction or exported from The Nations. Issuance of affirmative finding annual renewals for The Nations does not affect implementation of an intermediary nation embargo under 50 CFR 216.24(f)(9), which could apply to exports from The Nations. The affirmative finding annual renewals are for the one-year period of April 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019.
Peru's five-year affirmative finding will remain valid through March 31, 2022, and Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Spain's five-year affirmative findings will remain valid through March 31, 2020, subject to subsequent annual reviews by NMFS.
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.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The regulations contain three sets of information collections: (l) Applications for incidental take permits, (2) applications for certificates of inclusion, and (3) reporting requirements for permits issued. Certificates of inclusion are only required if a general permit is issued to a representative of a group of potential permit applicants, rather than requiring each entity to apply for and receive a permit.
The required information is used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed activity on endangered species, to make the determinations required by the ESA prior to issuing a permit, and to establish appropriate permit conditions.
When a species is listed as threatened, section 4(d) of the ESA requires the Secretary to issue whatever regulations are deemed necessary or advisable to provide for conservation of the species. In many cases those regulations reflect blanket application of the section 9 take prohibition. However, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recognizes certain exceptions to that prohibition, including habitat restoration actions taken in accord with approved state watershed action plans. While watershed plans are prepared for other purposes in coordination with or fulfillment of various state programs, a watershed group wishing to take advantage of the exception for restoration activities (rather than obtaining a section 10 permit) would have to submit the plan for NMFS review.
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; proposed revised incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from Venoco, LLC, (Venoco) and Chevron USA, Inc., (Chevron) to transfer, from Venoco to Chevron, a Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) one-year Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to the Casitas Pier Fender Pile Replacement Project, following the sale of Casitas Pier to Chevron. No other changes are proposed. NMFS is inviting comments on the proposed transfer of the Casitas Pier IHA to Chevron.
Comments and information must be received no later than July 2, 2018.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Sara Young, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of Venoco's original IHA, may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
On October 27, 2017, NMFS issued an IHA to Venoco to take marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to the Casitas Pier Fender Pile Replacement Project, effective from November 1, 2017, through October 31, 2018 (82 FR 55579). On January 1, 2018, Chevron succeeded Venoco as the owner and operator of Carpinteria Gas Plant, including Casitas Pier.
Chevron subsequently submitted a written request to transfer the current IHA from Venoco to Chevron. With the transfer of the Casitas Pier IHA, Chevron agrees to comply with the associated terms, conditions, stipulations, and restrictions of the original Casitas Pier IHA. No other changes were requested. The revised IHA, if issued, would remain effective through October 31, 2018.
This
NMFS is proposing a change in the name of the holder of the Casitas Pier IHA from “Venoco, LLC” to “Chevron USA, Inc”.
NMFS invites comment on the proposed change to the current IHA. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on Venoco and Chevron's request for transfer of the Casitas Pier authorization.
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.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operates a direct loan program to assist in financing certain actions relating to commercial fishing vessels, shoreside fishery facilities, aquaculture operations, and individual fishing quotas. Application information is required to determine eligibility pursuant to 50 CFR part 253 and to determine the type and amount of assistance requested by the applicant. An annual financial statement is required from the recipients to monitor the financial status of the loan.
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; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that ABR, Inc. Environmental Research and Services, P.O. Box 80410, Fairbanks, AK 99708, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on 12 species of marine mammals.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before July 2, 2018.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public
These documents are available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Sara Young or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant proposes to conduct unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and manned aerial surveys in Kamishak Bay, Alaska to collect baseline seasonal abundance and distribution data on marine mammals. The applicant proposes to take marine mammals during aerial surveys for behavioral observations, photography, counts, and videography. The applicant requests the annual take of 12 species: 1,050 endangered Western DPS Steller sea lions (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
9:30 a.m., Monday, June 4, 2018.
CFTC Headquarters, Lobby-Level Hearing Room, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC.
Open.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) will hold this meeting to consider the following matters:
• Final Rule making Amendments to the Swap Data Access Provisions of Part 49 and Certain Other Matters;
• Proposed Rule on Revisions to Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds (Volcker Rule);
• Proposed Rule on Amendments to Swap Dealer Registration De Minimis Exception; and
• Establishment of Subcommittees for the CFTC Technology Advisory Committee.
The agenda for this meeting will be available to the public and posted on the Commission's website at
Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, 202-418-5964.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Application Package for Learning Management System (LMS) Pre- and Post-test Assessment Questions for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by July 2, 2018.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1)
(2)
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Greg Wallinger at 202-606-7571 or email to
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. All written comments will be available for public inspection on
CNCS seeks to renew the current information. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on October, 31, 2017.
Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 30, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to National Security Education Program, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 08F09-02, Alexandria, VA 22350-7000 or call 576-256-0711.
Respondents are undergraduate and graduate students who agree to the terms of their award (DD Form 2752) and who agree upon receipt of award to submit the Service Agreement Report (DD Form 2753) annually until their service requirement is completed in full. Through a cooperative agreement, the Institute of International Education acts as the administrative agent for these scholarship, fellowship, and grant programs and certifies the information provided on the two forms. The information is used to monitor the progress of award recipients as they fulfill their service obligation, namely, to work in positions related to national security.
Department of Education (ED), Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII).
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 July 2, 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 Patricia Kilby-Robb, 202-260-2225.
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.
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Idaho Cleanup Project. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, June 21, 2018, 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
The opportunities for public comment are at 10:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
This time is subject to change; please contact the Federal Coordinator (below) for confirmation of times prior to the meeting.
Residence Inn Idaho Falls, 635 West Broadway, Idaho Falls, ID 83402.
Brad Bugger, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS-1203, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415. Phone (208) 526-0833; or email:
Tentative Topics (agenda topics may change up to the day of the meeting; please contact Brad Bugger for the most current agenda):
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, June 21, 2018, 6:00 p.m.
West Kentucky Community and Technical College, Emerging Technology Center, 5100 Alben Barkley Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001.
Jennifer Woodard, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001, (270) 441-6825.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of Filing.
On April 25, 2018, Birdsboro Power LLC, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE). The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room 8G-024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.
Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586-5260.
On April 25, 2018, Birdsboro Power LLC, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to § 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61. The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
The following owner of a proposed new baseload electric generating powerplant has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61:
Take notice that on May 18, 2018, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), on behalf of itself, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC and Northern Natural Gas Company (collectively, the Joint Owners), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in Docket No. CP18-486-000, a joint application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, to abandon a supply lateral and related facilities located in offshore federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico near Louisiana. Specifically, the Joint Owners propose to (i) abandon in place about 12.0 miles of a 16-inch diameter offshore supply lateral, designated as Line 41-A-8; (ii) abandon receipt point numbers 73674 and 71710; and (iii) abandon by removal all related appurtenant facilities. The Joint Owners state that the facilities proposed for abandonment are not required to meet current firm service obligations, 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 Lisa A. Connolly, Director, Rates & Certificates, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251, or telephone (713) 627-4102, or fax (713) 627-5947 or by 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 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
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
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
On November 15, 2017, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, L.L.C. (Transco) filed an application in Docket No. CP18-18-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Gateway Expansion Project (Project), and it would increase the firm transportation capacity of Transco's existing pipeline system by 65,000 dekatherms per day and enable Transco to provide customers with an incremental service of natural gas during high demand periods.
On November 30, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
Issuance of EA, July 17, 2018.
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline, October 15, 2018.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Transco's Project would require modifications at the existing facilities in the following counties of New Jersey:
• Expansion of the building and installation of a 33,000 horsepower electric-motor driven compression unit and ancillary equipment; and
• extension of security fencing and access to new equipment.
• Installation of a 36-inch Main Line block valve with automation controls.
• Installation of an electric transformer unit.
• Replacing the existing 12-inch headers with two new 6-inch ultrasonic meter skids and associated equipment; and
• installation of ancillary equipment.
On January 2, 2018, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
Take notice that on May 17, 2018, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP on behalf of itself and Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (collectively, the Majority Joint Owners); P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in Docket No. CP18-485-000, a joint application, pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, to abandon a gathering lateral and related facilities located in offshore federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico near Louisiana. Specifically, the Majority Joint Owners propose to (i) abandon in place about 20.5 miles of a 12-inch diameter offshore gathering lateral, designated as Line 41-A-5-B; (ii) abandon the metering and regulating station number 72135, receipt point 73646, and delivery point 73702; and (iii) abandon by removal all related appurtenant facilities. The Majority Joint Owners state that the facilities proposed for abandonment are not required to meet current firm service obligations, 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 Lisa A. Connolly, Director, Rates & Certificates, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251, or telephone (713) 627-4102, or fax (713) 627-5947 or by 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 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 7 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
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 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 date(s). 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 May 23, 2018, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, New England Power Generators Association (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against ISO New England Inc. (Respondent) alleging that Respondent decision to treat generators held for fuel security as price-takers in the capacity auction is unjust and unreasonable and unduly discriminatory, as more fully explained in the complaint.
New England Power Generators Association certifies that copies of the complaint were served on contacts for ISO New England Inc. 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 and 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 Respondents' answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondents' answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.
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 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 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 May 22, 2018, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts list for Respondent in 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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has granted emergency exemptions, and State agencies have declared crisis exemptions, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for the use of pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions were granted or declared during the period of October 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 to control emergency pest outbreaks.
Michael L. Goodis, Director Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the emergency exemption.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0010, is available at
EPA has granted emergency exemptions to the following State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific.
Under FIFRA section 18 (7 U.S.C. 136p), EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are of four types:
1. A “specific exemption” authorizes use of a pesticide against specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.
2. “Quarantine” and “public health” exemptions are emergency exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are rarely requested.
3. A “crisis exemption” is initiated by a State or Federal agency (and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.
EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses
If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-limited tolerance meeting the “reasonable certainty of no harm standard” of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
In this document, EPA identifies the State or Federal agency granted the exemption, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized and the target pests, the crop or use for which the pesticide was authorized, number of acres that could potentially be treated under the authorization (if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also gives the
EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 75,000 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bugs. Tolerances in connection with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a); Effective June 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018.
EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 420,000 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bugs. Tolerances in connection with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a); Effective June 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018.
EPA authorized the use of the insecticide flupyradifurone on a maximum of 200 acres of sweet sorghum (forage and syrup) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.679(b); Effective June 1, 2018 to November 15, 2018.
EPA authorized the use of streptomycin and oxytetracycline on a maximum of 330,254 acres of citrus to manage HLB or citrus greening disease caused by the bacteria,
EPA authorized the use of the insecticide tolfenpyrad on a maximum of 51,600 acres of fruiting vegetables to control various thrips. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.675(b); Effective March 1, 2018 to March 1, 2019.
EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 750,000 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bugs. Tolerances in connection with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a); Effective June 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018.
EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 241,500 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bugs. Tolerances in connection with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a); Effective June 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018.
EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 50,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective March 14, 2018 to November 30, 2018.
EPA authorized the use of flupyradifurone on a maximum of 750 acres of sweet sorghum (forage and syrup) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.679(b). Effective June 1, 2018 to November 15, 2018.
EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 5,500,000 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bugs. Tolerances in connection with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a). Effective March 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018.
EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 3,000,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective April 1, 2018 to November 30, 2018.
EPA did not authorize any emergency exemptions to any Federal agencies during the time period of October 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification of tentative approval.
Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has determined that the Navajo Nation meets the requirements under Section 1451 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) and the corresponding regulations for the purpose of the Navajo Nation being eligible to administer its previously approved Public Water System Supervision (“PWSS”) Program under the SDWA in an additional area of the Navajo Reservation and for additional public water systems on tribal trust land in the Eastern Navajo Agency. Notice is also hereby given that the EPA has determined that the Navajo Nation has met the requirements under the SDWA regulations for primary enforcement responsibility (“primacy”) and therefore intends to approve the Navajo Nation's revision to its PWSS Program to include the new area and water systems.
Requests for a public hearing must be received on or before June 25, 2018.
Information relating to EPA's tribal eligibility and primacy determinations are available for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except official Federal and Navajo holidays, at the following offices: Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, PWSS Program, Old Museum Building (Building W008-042 on the Fair Grounds), P.O. Box 339, Window Rock, Arizona 86515; and EPA, Region 9, Water Division, Drinking Water Management Section (WTR-3-1), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
Bessie Lee, EPA Region 9, Water Division, Drinking Water Management Section, at the address given above; telephone number (415) 972-3776; email address:
On December 4, 2014, the Navajo Nation applied to supplement its approved PWSS Program to cover the additional area within the Western Navajo Agency of the Navajo Reservation (which covers the former Bennett Freeze lands) and two water systems located on tribal trust land within the Eastern Navajo Agency that had been excluded from the original primacy eligibility determination (namely, the Standing Rock Community School-BIA and the Thoreau High School water systems). The Navajo Nation later requested that EPA not make any determination in regard to the Cameron Trading Post water system, which is located on nonmember fee land within the Western Navajo Agency, and therefore EPA's determinations do not include this system.
On March 22, 2018, as outlined in its decision document, EPA determined that the Navajo Nation meets the following requirements of Section 1451 of SDWA and 40 CFR 142.72 and 142.76 for purposes of eligibility to administer supplemental primacy for the additional area and water systems:
(a) The Indian Tribe is recognized by the Secretary of the Interior.
(b) The Indian Tribe has a tribal governing body which is currently “carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers” over a defined area (
(c) The Indian Tribe demonstrates that the functions to be performed in regulating the public water systems that the applicant intends to regulate are within the area of the Indian Tribal government's jurisdiction.
(d) The Indian Tribe is reasonably expected to be capable, in the Administrator's judgment, of administering (in a manner consistent with the terms and purposes of the Act and all applicable regulations) an effective Public Water System program.
On May 31, 2018, EPA also determined that the Tribe meets the requirements for primacy under the Section 1413 of SDWA and 40 CFR part 142, subpart B, for the additional area and systems. In its original approval of the Navajo Nation's primacy program, EPA had determined that the PWSS Program met all of the requirements of 40 CFR 142.10 and 142.11 for primacy for public water systems within the Navajo Nation Reservation. Therefore, EPA has determined that the Navajo Nation's previously approved PWSS Program meets the requirements for primacy under 40 CFR 142.10 and 142.11 with respect to the new area and water systems. Upon the effective date of the primacy approval, the Navajo Nation will have 12 additional public water systems subject to its jurisdiction.
In sum, EPA has concluded that:
1. The Navajo Nation meets the requirements of Section 1451 of SDWA and 40 CFR 142.72 through 142.78 and is therefore eligible for primacy for the additional area and water systems included in EPA's determinations, and
2. The Navajo Nation meets all of the primacy requirements of 40 CFR 142.10 and 142.11 with respect to the additional areas and water systems included in EPA's determinations.
2. A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determinations and a brief statement of the information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and 3. The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
Under 40 CFR 142.13(g), if EPA Region 9 does not receive a timely and appropriate request for a hearing and the Regional Administrator does not
Sections 1413 and 1451 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 300g-2 and 311j-11; and 40 CFR 142.10, 142.11, 142.13, and 142.72 through 142.78
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the two information collection requests (ICRs) listed in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collections as described below. This is a proposed extension of the two ICRs, which are currently approved through July 31, 2018 and August 31, 2018, as specified for each item in the text below. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 30, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID Numbers specified under each item below, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Ms. Nydia Y. Reyes-Morales, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 6405A, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9264; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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,
With this consolidation, we are combining all certification and compliance burden associated with the heavy-duty and nonroad compression-ignition engine, equipment and vehicle industries under a single ICR. Under the locomotive and marine CI Category 3 ICRs, manufacturers submit certification applications and compliance data in the same manner (and responding to very similar requirements) as described in ICR 1684. In fact, ICR 1684 already covers Marine CI Categories 1 and 2 engines. ICR 2394.03 covers the incremental burden associated with adding greenhouse gas and fuel economy data to a previously existing certification application process covered under ICR 1684. The Defects and Recalls ICR covers the defect reporting and voluntary recalls for HD, CI and spark-ignition engines; a process that stems from the certification requirements covered in ICR 1684. Many companies respond to two or more of these collections.
Title II of the Clean Air Act, (42 U.S.C. 7521
The emission values achieved during certification testing may also be used in the Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT) Program. The program allows engine manufacturers to bank credits for engine families that emit below the standard and use the credits to certify engine families that emit above the standard. They may also trade banked credits with other manufacturers. Participation in the ABT program is voluntary.
The CAA also mandates EPA to verify that manufacturers have successfully translated their certified prototypes into mass produced engines; and that these engines comply with emission standards throughout their useful lives. EPA verifies this through `Compliance Programs' which include Production Line Testing (PLT), In-use Testing and Selective Enforcement Audits, (SEAs). Not all programs apply to all industries included in this ICR. PLT, which only applies to marine engines, is a self-audit program that allows engine manufacturers to monitor their products' emissions profile with statistical certainty and minimize the cost of correcting errors through early detection. In-use testing allows manufacturers and EPA to verify compliance with emission standards throughout an engine family's useful life. Through SEAs, EPA verifies that test data submitted by engine manufacturers is reliable and testing is performed according to EPA regulations.
Under the Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers (TPEM), NRCI equipment manufacturers may delay compliance with Tier 4 standards for up to seven years as long as they comply with certain limitations. The program seeks to ease the impact of new emission standards on equipment manufacturers as they often need to redesign their products to accommodate changes in engine design. Participation in the program is voluntary.
There are varying recordkeeping and labeling requirements under all programs.
The information requested is collected by the Compliance Division (CD), Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA. CD uses this information to issue certificates of conformity and ensure that manufacturers comply with applicable regulations and the CAA. Some HD data is also used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to implement their programs under 49 U.S.C. 32902. EPA's and NHTSA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Department of Justice may use the information for enforcement purposes. Most of the information is collected in electronic format and stored in CD's databases.
Manufacturers may assert a claim of confidentiality over information provided to EPA. Confidentiality is granted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2. Non-confidential information may be disclosed on OTAQ's website or upon request under the Freedom of Information Act to trade associations, environmental groups, and the public.
Title II of the Clean Air Act, (42 U.S.C. 7521
The Act also mandates EPA to verify that manufacturers have successfully translated their certified prototypes into mass produced engines, and that these engines comply with emission standards throughout their useful lives. Under the Production Line Testing Program (“PLT Program”), manufacturers are required to test a sample of engines as they leave the assembly line. This self-audit program allows manufacturers to monitor compliance with statistical certainty and minimize the cost of correcting errors through early detection. A similar audit program exists for the installation of locomotive remanufacturing kits. In-use testing allows manufacturers and EPA to verify compliance with emission standards throughout the locomotive's useful life. Through Selected Enforcement Audits, (SEAs), EPA verifies that test data submitted by engine manufacturers is reliable and testing is performed according to EPA regulations.
There are varying recordkeeping and labeling requirements under all programs.
The information requested is collected by the Compliance Division (CD), Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation; and processed by the Diesel Engine Compliance Center (DECC). DECC uses this information to issue certificates of conformity and ensure compliance with applicable regulations and the CAA. The information may also be used by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Department of Justice for enforcement purposes. Most of the information is collected in electronic format and stored in CD's databases.
Manufacturers may assert a claim of confidentiality over information provided to EPA. Confidentiality is granted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2. Non-confidential information may be disclosed on OTAQ's website or upon request under the Freedom of Information Act to trade associations, environmental groups, and the public.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations and amendments to terminate uses, voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of the products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of Unit II, pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows an March 6, 2018
The cancellations and amendments are effective May 31, 2018.
Christopher Green, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0367; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0014, is available at
This notice announces the cancellations and amendments to terminate uses, as requested by registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a).
These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Tables 1 and 2 of this unit.
Table 3 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit.
During the public comment period provided EPA received 5 anonymous public comments. The Agency does not believe that the comments submitted during the comment period merits further review or the denial of the requests for the voluntary cancellations of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II or the requests for the amendments to terminate uses in Table 2 of Unit II.
Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations and amendments to terminate uses of the registrations identified in Tables 1 and 2 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Tables 1 and 2 of Unit II are canceled and amended to terminate the affected uses. The effective date of the cancellations that are subject of this notice is May 31, 2018. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Tables 1 and 2 of Unit II in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI will be a violation of FIFRA.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the action. The existing stocks provision for the products subject to this order is as follows.
The registrant has requested to the Agency via letter dated November 10, 2017, a 12-month period (until November 30, 2018), to sell, distribute or use existing stocks of the subject product.
For all other voluntary product cancellations identified in Table 1 of Unit II, registrants will be permitted to sell and distribute existing stocks of voluntarily canceled products for 1 year after the effective date of the cancellation, which will be the date of publication of the cancellation order in the
Now that EPA has approved product labels reflecting the requested amendments to terminate uses for the products listed in Table 2 of Unit II, registrants are permitted to sell or distribute the products listed in Table 2 of Unit II, under the previously approved labeling until December 2, 2019, unless other restrictions have been imposed. Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or distributing the products whose labels include the terminated uses identified in Table 2 of Unit II, except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 or for proper disposal.
Persons other than the registrant may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of canceled products and products whose labels include the terminated uses until
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification of tentative approval.
Notice is hereby given that the Commonwealth of Kentucky is revising its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. Kentucky has revised its drinking water regulation defining a public water system. EPA has determined that Kentucky's regulation is no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulation. Therefore, EPA is tentatively approving this revision to the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Public Water System Supervision Program.
Any interested person may request a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted by July 2, 2018, to the Regional Administrator at the EPA Region 4 street address shown below. The Regional Administrator may deny frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by July 2, 2018, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this determination shall become final and applicable on July 2, 2018. Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: The name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and a brief statement of the information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and the signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following locations: The 3rd Floor main office of the Division of Water, Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, 300 Sower Boulevard, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601; and the 9th floor library of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Dale Froneberger, EPA Region 4, Drinking Water Section, by mail at the Atlanta street address given above, by telephone at (404) 562-9446, or by email at
The Commonwealth of Kentucky has submitted a request that EPA Region 4 approve a revision to the Commonwealth's Safe Drinking Act Public Water System Supervision Program to include changes to the Commonwealth's regulation defining a public water system. Kentucky's amended regulation incorporates the current federal regulation defining a public water system by reference. The Commonwealth's amended regulation was effective September 25, 2009. For the request to be approved, EPA must find the commonwealth definition of a public water system codified at Title 401 KAR 8:010, to be no less stringent than the federal definition of a public water system codified at 40 CFR part 141, subpart A. EPA reviewed the Commonwealth's request using the federal statutory provisions (Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act), federal regulations (at 40 CFR parts 141 and 142), commonwealth regulations, regulatory crosswalk, and EPA regulatory guidance to determine whether the request for revision is approvable. EPA determined that the Kentucky regulation is no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulation and is tentatively approving this revision. If EPA does not receive a timely and appropriate request for a hearing and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this approval shall become final and effective on July 2, 2018.
Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996), and 40 CFR part 142.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 30, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The Commission is not requesting that individuals who file complaints alleging violations of our rules (complainants) submit confidential information (
The PIA that the FCC completed on June 28, 2007 gives a full and complete explanation of how the FCC collects, stores, maintains, safeguards, and destroys PII, as required by OMB regulations and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. The PIA may be viewed at:
The Commission will update the PIA to cover the PII collected related to this information collection to incorporate various revisions to it as a result of revisions to the SORN and as required by OMB's Memorandum M-03-22 (September 26, 2003) and by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
The Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) directed the Commission to revise its regulations to mandate closed captioning on IP-delivered video programming that was published or exhibited on television with captions after the effective date of the regulations. Accordingly, the Commission requires video programming owners (VPOs) to send program files to video programming distributors and providers (hereinafter VPDs) with required captions, and it requires VPDs to enable the rendering or pass through of all required captions to the end user. The CVAA also directed the Commission to revise its regulations to mandate that all apparatus designed to receive, play back, or record video programming be equipped with built-in closed caption decoder circuitry or capability designed to display closed-captioned video programming, except that apparatus that use a picture screen that is 13 inches or smaller and recording devices must comply only if doing so is achievable. These rules are codified at 47 CFR 79.4 and 79.100-79.104.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Commission announces and provides an agenda for the next meeting of the Disability Advisory Committee (DAC or Committee).
Thursday, June 14, 2018. The meeting will come to order at 9:00 a.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, in the Commission Meeting Room.
Will Schell, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at 202-418-0767 (voice) or
This meeting is open to members of the general public. The meeting will be webcast with open captioning at:
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations or for materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) should be submitted via email to:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Commission announces and provides an agenda for the next meeting of Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC).
June 8, 2018. The meeting will come to order at 9:00 a.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Commission Meeting Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.
Scott Marshall, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, (202) 418-2809 (voice or Relay); email
This meeting is open to members of the general public. The FCC will accommodate as many participants as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will also provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the internet from the FCC's web page at:
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to:
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 25, 2018.
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 14, 2018.
1.
Office of Government-Wide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Meeting notice.
Notice of this meeting and these conference calls is being provided according to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This notice provides the agendas and schedules for the September 27, 2018 meeting of the Green Building Advisory Committee (the Committee), as well as the schedule for a series of conference calls for a task group of the Committee.
The meeting will be held at 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, Room 1151. The in-person meeting is open to the public and the site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The task group conference calls are open for the public to listen in. Interested individuals must register to attend as instructed below under Supplementary Information.
The
Mr. Ken Sandler, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Federal High-Performance Buildings, Office of Government-wide Policy, GSA, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-219-1121 (note: this is not a toll-free number). Additional information about the Committee, including meeting materials and agendas, will be available on-line at
Contact Mr. Sandler to register to comment during the September 27, 2018 meeting public comment period. Registered speakers/organizations will be allowed a maximum of five minutes each, and will need to provide written copies of their presentations. Requests to comment at the meeting must be received by 5:00 p.m., EDT, on Friday, August 31, 2018. Written comments may be provided to Mr. Sandler by the same deadline.
The new Building and Grid Integration Task Group is pursuing the goal to develop recommendations on the integration of federal buildings with the electrical grid to enhance resilience, provide savings of both energy and cost, and facilitate distributed energy generation, including renewable sources.
The conference calls will allow the task group to develop consensus recommendations to the full Committee, which will, in turn, decide whether to proceed with formal advice to GSA based upon these recommendations.
Office of Enterprise Strategy Management (QP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of a public meeting.
GSA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are interested in conducting further dialogue with industry about Section 846 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018, Procurement through Commercial e-Commerce Portals. A public meeting was held on January 9, 2018 to provide external stakeholders an initial opportunity to offer input on Phase I implementation as outlined in Section 846. A second public meeting is scheduled for June 21, 2018, where GSA and OMB will share insights on our proposed approach and solicit feedback and insights from industry to inform our Phase II deliverable.
The meeting will be held in the GSA Auditorium at GSA Headquarters located at 1800 F St. NW, Washington, DC 20405. Interested parties may also attend virtually through GSA's virtual meeting platform, hosted by Adobe Connect. Further details on the virtual meeting will be made available a few days before the meeting on the Commercial Platform Interact group page on
For information pertaining to the public meeting and for a posting of the agenda (made available a few days prior to the meeting), visit the Commercial Platform Interact group page located at
The General Services Administration's mission is to deliver value and savings in real estate, acquisition, technology, and other mission-support services across Government. For decades, GSA has provided access to commercial products through a number of channels including GSA Advantage!, GSA eBuy, GSA Global Supply, and the Federal Supply Schedules.
GSA has long been focused on improving the acquisition of commercial items. Throughout its history, GSA has sought to leverage the best available technology to help agencies shorten the time to delivery, reduce administrative cost, make compliance easier, be a strategic thought leader and supplier of choice across the Federal Government, and be a good partner to industry. Today, the best available technology includes commercial e-commerce portals.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018, Section 846, Procurement Through Commercial e-Commerce Portals, directs the Administrator of the GSA to establish a program to procure commercial products through commercial e-commerce portals. Section 846 paragraph (c) instructs the “Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the GSA Administrator and the heads of other relevant departments and agencies,” to carry out three implementation phases. OMB and GSA completed Phase I, an initial implementation plan, in March of 2018. The plan, found at
The team is currently working on Phase II with the intent of delivering a proof of concept near the end of FY19. Phase II of the legislation requires (excerpt below):
(2) PHASE II: MARKET ANALYSIS AND CONSULTATION.—Not later than one year after the date of the submission of the implementation plan and schedule required under paragraph (1), recommendations for any changes to, or exemptions from, laws necessary for effective implementation of this section, and information on the results of the following actions:
(A) Market analysis and initial communications with potential commercial e-commerce portal providers on technical considerations of how the portals function (including the use of standard terms and conditions of the portals by the Government), the degree of customization that can occur without creating a Government-unique portal, the measures necessary to address the considerations for supplier and product screening specified in subsection (e), security of data, considerations pertaining to nontraditional Government contractors, and potential fees, if any, to be charged by the Administrator, the portal provider, or the suppliers for participation in the program established pursuant to subsection (a).
(B) Consultation with affected departments and agencies about their unique procurement needs, such as supply chain risks for health care products, information technology, software, or any other category determined necessary by the Administrator.
(C) An assessment of the products or product categories that are suitable for purchase on the commercial e-commerce portals.
(D) An assessment of the precautions necessary to safeguard any information pertaining to the Federal Government, especially precautions necessary to protect against national security or cybersecurity threats.
(E) A review of standard terms and conditions of commercial e-commerce
(F) An assessment of the impact on existing programs, including schedules, set-asides for small business concerns, and other preference programs.
In furtherance of Phase II objectives, GSA is planning to share information related to the approach proposed in the Phase I deliverable and respond to questions from industry. Additionally, the team is seeking feedback from providers of commercial e-commerce portal as well as suppliers selling on commercial e-commerce portals in certain topic areas, as listed in “Notice QP-2018-02, Request for information from Suppliers Selling on Commercial e-Commerce Portals,” and “Notice QP-2018-03, Request for information from Platform Providers of Commercial e-Commerce Portals.”
1. GSA and OMB will discuss and field questions related to the findings from Phase I of the implementation plan, initial thoughts on Phase II, and the implementation of a proof of concept in FY19.
2. GSA intends to organize a panel discussion around the questions asked to portal providers and suppliers on portals found in RFIs “Notice QP-2018-02, Request for information from Suppliers Selling on Commercial e-Commerce Portals,” and “Notice QP-2018-03, Request for information from Platform Providers of Commercial e-Commerce Portals.”
Parties wishing to participate as a panel member in the public meeting scheduled for June 21, 2018, should email
GSA will select panelists from among those expressing interest and will formally notify them no later than Monday, June 18, 2018. In selecting panelists, GSA will seek an array of perspectives, backgrounds, and views. Requests made after the deadline to participate on a panel cannot be accepted due to the tight timelines.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project “Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture Database.”
Comments on this notice must be received by July 30, 2018.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by emails at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public the comment on this proposed information collection. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine called for health care organizations to develop a “culture of safety” such that their workforce and processes focus on improving the reliability and safety of care for patients (IOM, 1999;
The survey is designed to enable nursing homes to assess provider and staff perspectives about patient safety issues, medical error, and error reporting and includes 42 items that measure 12 composites of patient safety culture. AHRQ made the survey publicly available along with a Survey User's Guide and other toolkit materials in November, 2008, on the AHRQ website.
The AHRQ Nursing Home SOPS Database consists of data from the AHRQ Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture. Nursing homes in the U.S. can voluntarily submit data from the survey to AHRQ through its contractor, Westat. The Nursing Home SOPS Database (OMB NO. 0935-0195, last approved on September 30, 2015) was developed by AHRQ in 2011 in response to requests from nursing homes interested in viewing their organizations' patient safety culture survey results. Those organizations submitting data receive a feedback report, as well as a report on the aggregated de-identified findings of the other nursing homes submitting data. These reports are used to assist nursing home staff in their efforts to improve patient safety culture in their organizations.
This database will:
(1) Present results from nursing homes that voluntarily submit their data;
(2) Provide data to nursing homes to facilitate internal assessment and learning in the patient safety improvement process; and
(3) Provide supplemental information to help nursing homes identify their strengths and areas with potential for improvement in patient safety culture.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of healthcare services and with respect to surveys and database development. 42 U.S.C 299a(a)(1) and (8).
To achieve the goal of this project the following activities and data collections will be implemented:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Survey data from the AHRQ Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture are used to produce three types of products:
(1) A Nursing Home SOPS User Database Report that is made publicly available on the AHRQ website;
(2) Individual Nursing Home Survey Feedback Reports are individualized reports produced for each nursing home that submits data to the database; and
(3) Research data sets of individual-level and nursing home-level de-identified data to enable researchers to conduct analyses. All data released in a data set are de-identified at the individual-level and the nursing home-level.
Nursing homes will be invited to voluntarily submit their Nursing Home SOPS survey data to the database. The data are then cleaned and aggregated and used to produce a Database Report in PDF format that displays averages, standard deviations, and percentile scores on the survey's 42 items and 12 patient safety culture composites, as well as displaying these results by nursing home characteristics (bed size, urbanicity, ownership, and region) and respondent characteristics (work area/unit, staff position, interaction with residents, shift worked most often, and tenure in nursing home).
Each nursing home that submits data receives an individualized survey feedback report that presents their results alongside the aggregate results from other participating nursing homes.
Nursing homes use the Nursing Home SOPS Database Reports and Individual Nursing Home Survey Feedback Reports for a number of purposes, to:
• Raise staff awareness about patient safety.
• Elucidate and assess the current status of patient safety culture in their nursing home.
• Identify strengths and areas for patient safety culture improvement.
• Evaluate trends in patient safety culture change over time.
• Evaluate the cultural impact of patient safety initiatives and interventions.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the database. An estimated 60 POCs, each representing an average of 5 individual nursing homes each, will complete the database submission steps and forms. Each POC will submit the following:
• Eligibility and registration form (completion is estimated to take about 3 minutes).
• Data Use Agreement (completion is estimated to take about 3 minutes).
• Nursing Home Site Information Form (completion is estimated to take about 5 minutes).
• Survey data submission will take an average of one hour.
The total annual burden hours are estimated to be 91 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to submit their data. The cost burden is estimated to be $4,085 annually.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take an opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled StopAnthrax
CDC must receive written comments on or before July 30, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0043 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Submit all comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information 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,
5. Assess information collection costs.
StopAnthrax
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Community and Health Systems Team (CHST), in collaboration with Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), and the Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services (CSELS) developed the StopAnthrax
CDC operationalized StopAnthrax
StopAnthrax
In a post-incident setting, such as an aerosolized release of anthrax, wide-spread administration of MCMs in diverse populations is anticipated. CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are responsible for monitoring the safety of these MCMs. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) are two national surveillance systems used to monitor adverse drug events. VAERS and FAERS serve as early warning systems to detect possible safety issues related to drugs, such as the MCMs distributed during an anthrax inhalation incident. However, these systems are passive and may not provide the timely information useful in a response. Data collected from StopAnthrax
CDC will disseminate de-identified information through a variety of methods dependent on the type of anthrax incident and subsequent response. During a response, information will be disseminated within the CDC response teams and other federal agencies engaged in the response, such as FDA. Information will be disseminated to federal agency responders through situation reports which may include report outs over the phone, data summaries, and action reports that would be sent electronically. After the IC period ends (
Any individuals receiving MCMs that elect to enroll and provide data will be part of the sample. All recipients will be given the opportunity to enroll in StopAnthrax
StopAnthrax
All respondents will be informed that their participation is voluntary, and they can opt out at any time after enrollment; their information will be treated in a secure manner, and protected to the extent allowed by law. Although some respondents may feel some level of embarrassment in indicating they experienced certain adverse event symptoms (
CDC and contractors will also conduct periodic usability and user experience tests of StopAnthrax
CDC is requesting approval for this new generic clearance for data collection for a period of three years. The total burden hours for respondents is 38,000 hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requests comments on a plan to (1) revise the definition and characterization of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) success rates and (2) introduce clinic validation footnotes for the annual ART Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report. The footnotes will identify clinics that are selected by CDC to participate in the validation process of the National ART Surveillance System (NASS) data and that: (1) Do participate, (2) do participate and have major data discrepancies identified through this process, and/or U3) decline to participate in the data validation process. CDC requests comments on this plan in order to continue to ensure that the public has access to accurate and transparent data pursuant to the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992.
Written comments must be received on or before July 2, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0054 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Sara Crawford, Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, MS F-74, Atlanta, Georgia 30341. Phone: (770) 488-6370. Email:
Section 2(a) of Public Law 102-493 (42 U.S.C. 263a-1(a)), the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (FCSRCA), requires that each assisted reproductive technology (ART) program report annually to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) pregnancy success rates achieved through assisted reproductive technology. The FCSRCA also requires the CDC to annually publish and distribute to the public reported pregnancy success rates. According to the FCSRCA, the definitions of pregnancy success rates should be developed in consultation with appropriate consumer and professional organizations, should take into account the effect on success rates of age, diagnosis, and other significant factors, and should include the live birth rate per attempted ovarian stimulation procedure and the live birth rate per successful oocyte retrieval.
Specifics about the reporting process and requirements are described in
(2) the rate of live birth after completion of ART according to the number of all ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures, the number of oocyte retrieval processes, and the number of embryo (or zygote or oocyte) transfer procedures; (3) the rate of singleton live birth after completion of ART according to the number of all ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures and the number of embryo (or zygote or oocyte) transfer procedures. Success rates for cycles using thawed embryos and cycles using donor oocytes or embryos were defined as: (4) The rate of live birth after completion of ART according to the number of embryo (or zygote or oocyte) transfer procedures; (5) the rate of singleton live birth after completion of ART according to the number of embryo (or zygote or oocyte) transfer procedures.
Effective for reporting year 2017, CDC is proposing substantial changes to the definition and characterization of ART success rates due to changes in clinical practice and more variation in treatment options, including improvements in cryopreservation resulting in more segmentation of typical treatment cycles. The field of ART is moving toward the calculation and reporting of cumulative success rates where data collection systems can collect successes over all embryo transfers from a single oocyte retrieval or across several oocyte retrievals and embryo transfers. After consultation with consumer and professional organizations with expertise in ART, CDC will begin cumulative ART success rates reporting in reporting year 2017. The ART success rates described in this
ART success rates for ART procedures among all patients using their own eggs will be defined as:
1. The rate of live birth or singleton live birth resulting from the transfer of oocytes retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year or from the transfer of embryos created from oocytes retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year. For the purpose of this definition, transfer procedures must have started within 12 months of the start of the retrieval procedure. Oocytes must have been retrieved in the year prior to the reporting year in order to allow for a full year to perform transfers of the retrieved oocytes (either in the prior reporting year or in the current reporting year). The live birth rate and singleton live birth rate will be presented according to the number of:
a. All ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures started from the year prior to the reporting year with the intent to retrieve oocytes from the patient.
b. All ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures started in the year prior to the reporting year with the intent to retrieve oocytes from the patient in which at least one oocyte was retrieved.
c. All transfer procedures of at least one oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year, or of at least one embryo created from an oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year. For the purpose of this definition, egg or embryo transfer procedures must have started within 12 months of the start of the retrieval procedure.
2. The number of ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures started in the year prior to the reporting year with the intent to retrieve oocytes from the patient presented according to the number of:
a. Live births resulting from all transfers of at least one oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year, or transfers of at least one embryo created from an oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year. For the purpose of this definition, egg or embryo transfer procedures must have started within 12 months of the start of the retrieval procedure.
Other rates for ART procedures among all patients using their own eggs may be defined as—
3. The rate of cancellation, implantation, pregnancy, live birth, singleton live birth, multiple live birth, twin live birth, triplet or higher order live birth, preterm live birth, low birthweight live birth or term, normal birthweight and singleton live birth resulting from the transfer of oocytes retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year or the transfer of embryos created from oocytes retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year. For the purpose of this definition, transfer procedures must have started within 12 months of the start of the retrieval procedure. These other rates may be presented according to the number of:
a. All ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures started in the year prior to the reporting year with the intent to retrieve oocytes from the patient.
b. All ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures started in the year prior to the reporting year with the intent to retrieve oocytes from the patient in which at least one oocyte was retrieved.
c. All transfer procedures of at least one oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year, or of at least one embryo created from an oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year. For the purpose of this definition, egg or embryo transfer procedures must have started within 12 months of the start of the retrieval procedure.
d. All first, second, third, or more transfer procedures after retrieval of at least one oocyte from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year, or of at least one embryo created from an oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year. For the purpose of this definition, egg or embryo transfer procedures must have started within 12 months of the start of the retrieval procedure.
Rates for ART procedures among new ART patients (
4. The rate of live birth resulting from the transfer of oocytes or embryos from all first intended oocyte retrievals presented according to the number of:
a. ART patients who reported at the start of the retrieval procedure that they had no prior ART stimulations and no prior frozen ART procedures. For the purpose of this definition, the retrieval procedure must have started in the year prior to the reporting year.
5. The rate of live birth resulting from the transfer of oocytes or embryos from all first or second intended oocyte retrievals presented according to the number of:
a. ART patients who reported at the start of the retrieval procedure that they had no prior ART stimulations and no prior frozen ART procedures. For the purpose of this definition, the retrieval procedure must have started in the year prior to the reporting year.
6. The rate of live birth resulting from the transfer of oocytes or embryos from all intended oocyte retrievals presented according to the number of:
a. ART patients who reported at the start of the retrieval procedure that they had no prior ART stimulations and no prior frozen ART procedures. For the purpose of this definition, the retrieval procedure must have started in the year prior to the reporting year.
7. The number of ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures started in the year prior to the reporting year with the intent to retrieve oocytes from the patient presented according to the number of:
a. ART patients who reported at the start of the retrieval procedure that they had no prior ART stimulations and no prior frozen ART procedures.
8. The number of transfer procedures of at least one oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year, or of at least one embryo created from an oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year presented according to the number of:
a. Ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures started in the year prior to the reporting year with the intent to retrieve oocytes from the patient. For the purpose of this definition, egg or embryo transfer procedures must have started within 12 months of the start of the retrieval procedure. Also, ART patients must have reported at the start of the retrieval procedure that they had no prior ART stimulations and no prior frozen ART procedures.
Success rates for ART procedures among patients using oocytes or embryos from a donor will be defined as—
9. The rate of live birth or singleton live birth presented according to the number of:
a. Transfer procedures of at least one donor egg, embryo created from a donor egg, or donated embryo started in the current reporting year.
Other rates for ART procedures among patients using oocytes or embryos from a donor may also be defined as—
10. The rate of cancellation, implantation, pregnancy, live birth, singleton live birth, multiple live birth, twin live birth, triplet or higher order live birth, preterm live birth, low birthweight live birth, or term, normal birthweight and singleton live birth presented according to the number of:
a. ART procedures to prepare a patient (recipient) for the transfer of at least one donor egg, embryo created from a donor egg, or donated embryo, started in the current reporting year.
b. Transfer procedures of at least one donor egg, embryo created from a donor egg, or donated embryo started in the current reporting year.
ART reporting may also include:
11. The number, average number or percentage of ART procedures or ART patients with certain characteristics, such as:
a. Patient characteristics (
b. ART procedure characteristics (
All ART patient and procedure characteristics, ART success rates, and other rates for patients using their own oocytes as well as for patients using oocytes or embryos from a donor may be stratified by factors thought to influence the outcome of an ART procedure.
12. Factors for stratification may include:
a. Characteristics of the ART patient such as patient age or reason for ART.
b. Characteristics of the ART procedure such as type of treatment (fertility preservation, short term banking, in vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, zygote intrafallopian transfer), stimulation protocol, the source of the oocytes or embryos (patient or donor), the state of the oocytes or embryos (fresh or frozen), the intent of the procedure, the use of prenatal genetic diagnosis or screening, the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection, the use of assisted hatching, the use of a gestational carrier, the stage of the embryo at transfer, or the number of embryos transferred.
A description of external validation of clinic data conducted annually as a part of the ART surveillance program is described in “Reporting of Pregnancy Success Rates from Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Programs” (80 FR 51811). This notice explains, “If major data discrepancies are identified during data validation (
Additionally, effective as of the 2019 reporting year, CDC will include a footnote in the annual
If a clinic is selected to participate in the NASS data validation process and does participate, the following footnote will be added:
This clinic was visited for validation of (
This clinic was visited for validation of (
This clinic was selected for validation of (
Appendix A of the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by July 30, 2018.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
This revised demonstration would help assist in developing improved procedures for the identification, investigation, and prosecution of potential Medicare fraud. The demonstration would help make sure that payments for home health services are appropriate through either pre-claim or postpayment review, thereby working towards the prevention and identification of potential fraud, waste, and abuse; the protection of Medicare Trust Funds from improper payments; and the reduction of Medicare appeals. CMS proposes initially implementing the demonstration in Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas with the option to expand to other states in the Palmetto/JM jurisdiction. Under this demonstration, CMS proposes to offer choices for providers to demonstrate their compliance with CMS' home health policies. Providers in the demonstration states may participate in either 100 percent pre-claim review or 100 percent postpayment review. These providers will continue to be subject to a review method until the HHA reaches the target affirmation or claim approval rate. Once a HHA reaches the target pre-claim review affirmation or post-payment review claim approval rate, it may choose to be relieved from claim reviews, except for a spot check of their claims to ensure continued compliance. Providers who do not wish to participate in either 100 percent pre-claim or postpayment reviews have the option to furnish home health services and submit the associated claim for payment without undergoing such reviews; however, they will receive a 25 percent payment reduction on all claims
The information required under this collection is required by Medicare contractors to determine proper payment or if there is a suspicion of fraud. Under the pre-claim review option, HHA will send the pre-claim review request along with all required documentation to the Medicare contractor for review prior to submitting the final claim for payment. If a claim is submitted without a pre-claim review decision one file, the Medicare contractor will request the information from the HHA to determine if payment is appropriate. For the postpayment review option, the Medicare contractor will also request the information from the HHA provider who submitted the claim for payment from the Medicare program to determine if payment was appropriate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Assessment of Pressor Effects of Drugs.” This guidance is intended to advise sponsors on the premarketing assessment of a drug's effect on blood pressure. Elevated blood pressure is known to increase the risk of stroke, heart attack, and death. The effect of a drug on blood pressure may therefore be an important consideration in benefit-risk assessment.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 30, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Norman Stockbridge, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Assessment of Pressor Effects of Drugs.” Elevated blood pressure is known to increase the risk of stroke, heart attack, and death. The effect of a drug on blood pressure may therefore be an important consideration in benefit-risk assessment. This guidance is intended to advise sponsors on the premarketing assessment of a drug's effect on blood pressure.
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 assessment of pressor effects of drugs. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Recommended Content and Format of Complete Test Reports for Non-Clinical Bench Performance Testing in Premarket Submissions.” FDA has developed this document to describe relevant information that should be included in complete test reports for non-clinical bench performance testing provided in a premarket submission (
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 30, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Mary Wen, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1529, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-4913.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Recommended Content and Format of Complete Test Reports for Non-Clinical Bench Performance Testing in Premarket Submissions.” FDA has developed this document to describe relevant information that should be included in complete test reports for non-clinical bench performance testing provided in a premarket submission (
Non-clinical bench performance testing is defined as performance testing that encompasses all bench testing and will be dependent upon the specifics of the actual device or device type. Non-clinical bench performance testing includes, but is not limited to, mechanical and biological engineering performance such as fatigue, wear, tensile strength, compression, and burst pressure; bench tests using animal or human tissue; and animal carcass or human cadaveric testing. Non-clinical bench performance testing excludes biocompatibility evaluation, sterilization, and animal in vivo evaluation.
This draft guidance is intended to help ensure that clear and consistent information is provided in premarket submissions containing non-clinical bench performance testing. The information in this draft guidance is intended to be used in conjunction with other FDA guidance documents, including device-specific guidances.
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 “Recommended Content and Format of Complete Test Reports for Non-Clinical Bench Performance Testing in Premarket Submissions.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the following FDA regulations and guidances have been approved by OMB as listed:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by July 30, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before July 30, 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
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Sponsors are required to monitor studies evaluating new drugs, biologics, and devices (21 CFR 312.50 and 312.56 for drugs and biologics, and 21 CFR 812.40 and 812.46 for devices). Various individuals and groups play different roles in clinical trial monitoring. One such group is a data monitoring committee (DMC), appointed by a sponsor to evaluate the accumulating outcome data in some trials. A clinical trial DMC is a group of individuals with
The guidance document referenced in this document is intended to assist sponsors of clinical trials in determining when a DMC is needed for monitoring a study and how such committees should operate. The guidance addresses the roles, responsibilities, and operating procedures of DMCs and describes certain reporting and recordkeeping responsibilities, including the following: (1) Sponsor reporting to FDA on DMC recommendations related to safety; (2) standard operating procedures (SOPs) for DMCs; (3) DMC meeting records; (4) sponsor notification to the DMC regarding waivers; and (5) DMC reports based on meeting minutes to the sponsor.
The requirement of the sponsor to report DMC recommendations related to serious adverse events in an expedited manner in clinical trials of new drugs (§ 312.32(c) (21 CFR 312.32(c))) would not apply when the DMC recommendation is related to an excess of events not classifiable as serious. Nevertheless, the Agency recommends in the guidance that sponsors inform FDA about all recommendations related to the safety of the investigational product whether or not the adverse event in question meets the definition of “serious.”
In the guidance, FDA recommends that sponsors establish procedures to do the following things:
• Assess potential conflicts of interest of proposed DMC members;
• Ensure that those with serious conflicts of interest are not included in the DMC;
• Provide disclosure to all DMC members of any potential conflicts that are not thought to impede objectivity and, thus, would not preclude service on the DMC;
• Identify and disclose any concurrent service of any DMC member on other DMCs of the same, related, or competing products;
• Ensure separation, and designate a different statistician to advise on the management of the trial, if the primary trial statistician takes on the responsibility for interim analysis and reporting to the DMC; and
• Minimize the risks of bias that are associated with an arrangement under which the primary trial statistician takes on the responsibility for interim analysis and reporting to the DMC, if it appears infeasible or highly impractical for any other statistician to take over responsibilities related to trial management.
The Agency recommends in the guidance that the DMC or the group preparing the interim reports to the DMC maintain all meeting records. This information should be submitted to FDA with the clinical study report (21 CFR 314.50(d)(5)(ii)).
The sponsor must report to FDA certain serious and unexpected adverse events in drugs and biologics trials (§ 312.32) and unanticipated adverse device effects in the case of device trials (21 CFR 812.150(b)(1)). The Agency recommends in the guidance that sponsors notify DMCs about any waivers granted by FDA for expedited reporting of certain serious events.
The Agency recommends in the guidance that DMCs should issue a written report to the sponsor based on the DMC meeting minutes. Reports to the sponsor should include only those data generally available to the sponsor. The sponsor may convey the relevant information in this report to other interested parties, such as study investigators. Meeting minutes or other information that include discussion of confidential data would not be provided to the sponsor.
Based on information provided to FDA by sponsors that have typically used DMCs for the kinds of studies for which this guidance recommends them, FDA estimates that the majority of sponsors have already prepared SOPs for DMCs, and only a minimum amount of time is necessary to revise or update them for use for other clinical studies. FDA receives very few requests for waivers regarding expedited reporting of certain serious events; therefore, FDA has estimated one respondent per year to account for the rare instance a request may be made. Based on FDA's experience with clinical trials using DMCs, FDA estimates that the sponsor on average would issue two interim reports per clinical trial to the DMC. FDA estimates that the DMCs would hold two meetings per year per clinical trial resulting in the issuance of two DMC reports of meeting minutes to the sponsor. One set of both of the meeting records should be maintained per clinical trial.
The “Average Burden per Response” and “Average Burden per Recordkeeping” are based on FDA's experience with comparable recordkeeping and reporting provisions applicable to FDA regulated industry. The “Average Burden per Response” includes the time the respondent would spend reviewing, gathering, and preparing the information to be submitted to the DMC, FDA, or the sponsor. The “Average Burden per Recordkeeping” includes the time to record, gather, and maintain the information.
The information collection provisions in the guidance for 21 CFR 312.30, 312.32, 312.38, 312.55, and 312.56 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; 21 CFR 314.50 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; and 21 CFR 812.35
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management; International Council for Harmonisation.” The draft guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), formerly the International Conference on Harmonisation. The draft guidance, which consists of a Core Guideline and an Annex, provides a framework to facilitate the management of post-approval chemistry, manufacturing, and controls changes for new and marketed pharmaceutical drug substances and drug products, including marketed chemical and biotechnological/biological products.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by December 15, 2018, to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or 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 that office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
In recent years, regulatory authorities and industry associations from around the world have participated in many important initiatives to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements under the ICH. FDA has participated in several ICH meetings designed to enhance harmonization and FDA is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory Agencies.
ICH was established to provide an opportunity for harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products for human use among regulators around the world. The six founding members of the ICH are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the FDA; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The Standing Members of the ICH Association include Health Canada and Swissmedic. Any party eligible as a Member in accordance with the ICH Articles of Association can apply for membership in writing to the ICH Secretariat. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, operates as an international nonprofit organization and is funded by the Members of the ICH Association.
The ICH Assembly is the overarching body of the Association and includes representatives from each of the ICH members and observers. The Assembly is responsible for the endorsement of draft guidelines and adoption of final guidelines. FDA publishes ICH guidelines as FDA guidance.
In November 2017, the ICH Assembly endorsed the draft guidance entitled “Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management” and agreed that the guidance should be made available for public comment. The draft guidance is the product of the Q12 Expert Working Group of the ICH. Comments about this draft will be considered by FDA and the Q12 Expert Working Group.
The guidance provides guidance on post-approval chemistry, manufacturing, and controls changes for new and marketed pharmaceutical drug substances and drug products. The guidance describes regulatory tools and enablers, along with associated guiding principles, that are intended to enhance the management of post-approval changes and transparency between industry and regulatory authorities, encouraging innovation and continual improvement. The guidance is intended to demonstrate how increased product and process knowledge can contribute to a reduction in the number of regulatory submissions needed for such post-approval changes. Specifically, effective implementation of the tools and enablers described in the guideline should enhance industry's ability to manage many postapproval changes effectively under the firm's Pharmaceutical Quality System with less need for extensive regulatory oversight prior to implementation. The extent of operational and regulatory flexibility is subject to product and process understanding (ICH Q8 and Q11), application of risk management principles (ICH Q9), and an effective pharmaceutical quality system (ICH Q10).
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 “Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the document at
National Vaccine Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) was established in 1987 to comply with Title XXI of the Public Health Service Act. Its purpose is to advise and make recommendations to the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to program responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) has been designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) as the Director of the National Vaccine Program. The National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) is located within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). NVPO provides leadership and fosters collaboration among the various federal agencies involved in vaccine and immunization activities. The NVPO also supports the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC). The NVAC advises and makes recommendations to the ASH in his capacity as the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to vaccine program responsibilities.
The ASH charged the NVAC in February 2018 to establish a work group to produce a brief report by June 2018 on recommendations to strengthen the effectiveness of national, state, and local efforts to improve Human Papillomavirus (HPV) coverage rates. Through a series of conference calls, electronic communication, and public discussion at the May 3, 2018, NVAC public meeting, the work group identified a number of draft recommendations for consideration by the NVAC. The work group's draft report and recommendations will inform NVAC deliberations as it finalizes recommendations for transmittal to the ASH.
On behalf of NVAC, NVPO is soliciting public comment on the draft report and draft recommendations from a variety of stakeholders, including the general public, for consideration by the NVAC as they develop their final recommendations to the ASH. It is anticipated that the draft report and draft recommendations, as revised with consideration given to public comment and stakeholder input, will be presented to the NVAC for adoption in June 2018 at the quarterly NVAC meeting.
Comments for consideration by the NVAC should be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on June 15, 2018.
(1) The draft report and draft recommendations are available on the web at
(2) Electronic responses may be sent to:
Captain Angela Shen, Designated Federal Officer, National Vaccine Program Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 715H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201. Phone: 202-690-5566; email
On June 9, 2015, the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) issued a report “Overcoming Barriers to Low HPV Vaccine Uptake in the United States: Recommendations from the National Vaccine Advisory Committee.” This report provided recommendations to the ASH on how to increase Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake in young adolescents by reviewing the current state of HPV immunization, understanding the root cause(s) for the observed relatively low vaccine uptake (both initiation and series completion), and identifying existing best practices. Since the original NVAC HPV report, substantial progress led to policy and program changes and advances in research. To build on the substantial progress made toward increasing HPV vaccination coverage rates, the ASH charged the NVAC in February 2018 to establish a work group to produce a brief report by June 2018 on recommendations to “strengthen the effectiveness of national, state, and local efforts to improve HPV coverage rates.” The ASH specifically requested the NVAC to consider the following:
(1) Many national organizations are currently supporting HPV efforts. Are there additional national organizations that might contribute to increasing HPV vaccination coverage?
(2) At the state level, many states have formed coalitions to support HPV vaccination efforts. Is there general guidance for states that do not yet have coalitions?
(3) Integrated health care delivery networks can successfully integrate comprehensive quality improvement approaches to increase vaccination coverage rates. How can state immunization programs and coalitions engage with health systems to work together on improving HPV vaccination coverage?
(4) Please specify recommendations on how to meet the needs of providers in rural areas.
The NVAC established the Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Implementation Work Group in February 2018, a work group tasked to engage with a wide-range of implementation partners from across all sectors (
The NVAC draft report highlights the progress made toward increasing HPV vaccination coverage rates, since the 2015 NVAC report. The recommendations detail how the ASH can support HHS activities to strengthen the effectiveness of national, state, and local efforts to improve HPV coverage rates.
NVPO, on behalf of the NVAC HPV Vaccination Implementation Work Group, requests input on the draft report
HHS invites input from a broad range of stakeholders including individuals and organizations that have interests U.S. vaccine and immunization efforts and the role of HHS in advancing those efforts.
Examples of potential responders include, but are not limited to, the following:
When responding, please self-identify with any of the above or other categories (include all that apply) and your name. Anonymous submissions will not be considered. Written submissions should not exceed three (3) pages. Please do not send proprietary, commercial, financial, business, confidential, trade secret, or personal information.
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the next meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 (Committee) regarding the development of national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for 2030. This meeting will be held online via webinar and is open to the public. The Committee will discuss the nation's health promotion and disease prevention objectives and will provide recommendations to improve health status and reduce health risks for the nation by the year 2030. The Committee will further develop recommendations regarding setting targets for the Healthy People 2030 objectives and recommendations regarding the role of law and policy, systems science, health literacy, health promotion, health and well-being, summary measures, and health equity in Healthy People 2030. Pursuant to the Committee's charter, the Committee's advice must assist the Secretary in reducing the number of objectives while ensuring that the selection criteria identifies the most critical public health issues that are high-impact priorities supported by current national data.
The Committee will meet on July 10, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET).
The meeting will be held online via webinar. To register to attend the meeting, please visit the Healthy People website at
Emmeline Ochiai, Designated Federal Official, Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Room LL-100, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8255 (telephone), (240) 453-8281 (fax). Additional information is available on the Healthy People website at
The names and biographies of the Committee members are available at
To join the Committee meeting, individuals must pre-register at the Healthy People website at
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
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by the intramural research review cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 30, 2018.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0124 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2012-0012. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
2. Came to the United States before reaching their 16th birthday, and established residence at that time;
3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
4. Were present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
5. Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or their lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;
6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.
These individuals will be considered for relief from removal from the United States or from being placed into removal proceedings as part of the deferred action for childhood arrivals process. Those who submit requests with USCIS and demonstrate that they meet the threshold guidelines may have removal action in their case deferred for a period of two years, subject to renewal (if not terminated), based on an individualized, case by case assessment of the individual's equities. Only those individuals who can demonstrate, through verifiable documentation, that they meet the threshold guidelines will be considered for deferred action for childhood arrivals, except in exceptional circumstances.
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 30, 2018.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0069 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0042. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 30, 2018.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0060 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0021. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(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 July 2, 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)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Council will meet in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, to select U.S. Standard grant proposals for reporting to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. This meeting is open to the public, and interested persons may present oral or written statements.
•
•
Sarah Mott, Council Coordinator, by phone at 703-358-1784. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 during normal business hours. In addition, FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
In accordance with the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA; 16 U.S.C. 4401-4412), the State-private-Federal North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Council) meets to consider wetland acquisition, restoration, enhancement, and management projects for recommendation to, and final funding approval by, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. The seven-member Commission was established in 1929 by the passage of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715
The NAWCA program operates in two cycles per year. Each cycle, eligible proposals are reviewed and ranked by the nine-member Council. NAWCA provides matching grants to organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. These projects must involve long-term protection, restoration, and/or enhancement of wetlands and associated uplands habitats for the benefit of all wetlands-associated migratory birds. Project proposal due dates, application instructions, and eligibility requirements are available on the NAWCA website at
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions to be considered during the meeting. If you wish to submit a written statement so that information may be made available to the Council for their consideration prior to the meeting, you must contact the Council Coordinator by the date in
Individuals or groups requesting to make an oral presentation during the meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 10 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council Coordinator by the date in
Summary minutes of the Council meeting will be maintained by the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a public meeting of the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The ANS Task Force's purpose is to develop and implement a program for U.S. waters to prevent introduction and dispersal of aquatic invasive species; to monitor, control, and study such species; and to disseminate related information.
The ANS Task Force will meet Tuesday through Thursday, June 12-14, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. The meeting is open to the public; for security purposes, signup is required. For more information, contact the ANS Task Force Executive Secretary (see
Susan Pasko, Executive Secretary, ANS Task Force, by telephone at (703) 358-2466, or by email at
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a public meeting of the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2). The ANS Task Force was established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended (NANPCA; 16 U.S.C. 4701
• Update on the U.S. Geological Survey Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database.
• Update from the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee.
• Sessions to evaluate the Task Force and regional panel accomplishments and discuss strategies to further advance the Task Force mission.
• Public comment period.
The final agenda and other related meeting information will be posted on the Task Force website at
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
We must receive your written comments on or before July 2, 2018.
•
•
Colleen Henson, Recovery Permit Coordinator, Ecological Services, (503) 231-6131 (phone);
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities that constitute take
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. These activities often include such prohibited actions as capture and collection. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits. Accordingly, we invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to these applications. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are those supported by quantitative information or studies.
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
If we decide to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species. Federal law prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a permit is obtained.
We must receive any written comments on or before July 2, 2018.
Send written comments by U.S. mail to the Regional Director, Attn: Carlita Payne, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; or by electronic mail to
•
•
Carlita Payne, 612-713-5343;
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species. Federal law prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a permit is obtained.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild.
We seek public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive in response to this notice are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Please make your comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those
If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of initiation of reviews; request for information.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are conducting 5-year status reviews under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), of 38 animal and plant species. A 5-year status review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review; therefore, we are requesting submission of any such information that has become available since the last review for the species.
To ensure consideration, we are requesting submission of new information no later than July 2, 2018. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.
For how to submit information, see Request for Information and “How Do I Ask Questions or Provide Information?” in the
For information on a particular species, contact the appropriate person or office listed in the table in the
Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
A 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. In conducting these reviews, we consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the listing determination or most recent status review, such as:
(A) Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
(B) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
(C) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
(D) Threat status and trends in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act); and
(E) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
Any new information will be considered during the 5-year review and will also be useful in evaluating the ongoing recovery programs for the species.
This notice announces our active review of the species listed in the table below.
To ensure that a 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See “What Information Do We Consider in Our Review?” for specific criteria. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.
If you wish to provide information for any species listed above, please submit your comments and materials to the appropriate contact in the table above. You may also direct questions to those contacts. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 for TTY assistance.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time.
Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the offices where the comments are submitted.
A list of all completed and currently active 5-year reviews addressing species for which the Southwest Region of the Service has lead responsibility is available at
This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 30, 2018.
Send your comments on the information collection request (ICR) by mail to the U.S. Geological Survey, Information Collections Clearance Officer, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 159, Reston, VA 20192; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Sarah Cook by email at
We, the U.S. Geological Survey, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary for the proper functions of the USGS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the USGS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the USGS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This notice concerns the collection of information that is sufficient and relevant to evaluate and select proposals for funding. We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” Responses are voluntary. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. We intend to release the project abstracts and primary investigators for awarded/funded projects only.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authorities for this action are the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are proposing renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 2, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Ms. Tricia Tingle by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BIA; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BIA enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BIA minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
In order to obtain a marriage licenses in a Court of Indian Offenses, applicants must provide the six items of information listed in 25 CFR 11.600(c), including identifying information, such a Social Security number, information on previous marriage, relationship to the other applicant, and a certificate of the results of any medical examination required by applicable tribal ordinances or the laws of the State in which the Indian country under the jurisdiction of the Court of Indian Offenses is located. To dissolve a marriage, applicants must provide the six items of information listed in 25 CFR 11.606(c), including information on occupation and residency (to establish jurisdiction), information on whether the parties have lives apart for at least 180 days or if there is serious marital discord warranting dissolution, and information on the children of the marriage and whether the wife is pregnant (for the court to determine the appropriate level of support that may be required from the non-custodial parent). (25 CFR 11.601) Two forms are used as part of this information collection, the Marriage License Application and the Dissolution of Marriage Application.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of the Secretary, Office of Strategic Employee and Organization Development, Federal Consulting Group, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Federal Consulting Group are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 2, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Federal Consulting Group, Attention: Lucy Adams, 1849 C St. NW, MS 4344, Washington, DC 20240-0001, or by facsimile to (202) 513-5184, or via email to
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Federal Consulting Group; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Federal Consulting Group enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Federal Consulting Group minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The proposed renewal of this information collection activity provides a means to consistently assess, benchmark, and improve customer satisfaction with Federal government agency programs and/or services within the Executive Branch. The Federal Consulting Group of the Department of the Interior serves as the executive agent for this methodology and has partnered with the Claes Fornell International Group (CFI Group) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) to offer the ACSI to Federal government agencies.
The CFI Group, a leader in customer satisfaction and customer experience management, offers a comprehensive model that quantifies the effects of quality improvements on citizen satisfaction. The CFI Group has developed the methodology and licenses it to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, an independent organization which produces the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). This national indicator is developed for different economic sectors each quarter, which are then published in The Wall Street Journal. The ACSI was introduced in 1994 by Professor Claes Fornell under the auspices of the University of Michigan, the American Society for Quality (ASQ), and the CFI Group. The ACSI monitors and benchmarks customer satisfaction across more than 200 companies and many U.S. Federal agencies.
The ACSI is the only cross-agency methodology for obtaining comparable measures of customer satisfaction with Federal government programs and/or services. Along with other economic objectives—such as employment and growth—the quality of outputs (goods and services) is a part of measuring living standards. The ACSI's ultimate purpose is to help improve the quality of goods and services available to American citizens.
ACSI surveys conducted by the Federal Consulting Group are subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-579, December 31, 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). The agency information collection is an integral part of conducting an ACSI survey. The contractor will not be authorized to release any agency information upon completion of the
There is no other agency or organization able to provide the information accessible through the surveying approach used in this information collection. Further, the information will enable Federal agencies to determine customer satisfaction metrics with discrimination capability across variables. Thus, this information collection will assist Federal agencies in making the best use of resources in a targeted manner to improve service to the public.
This survey asks no questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters that are commonly considered private.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it is operating under a currently valid OMB control number. The Office of Management and Budget control number for this collection is 1090-0007. The control number will be displayed on the surveys used. Response to the surveys is voluntary.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of the Secretary, Office of Strategic Employee and Organization Development, Federal Consulting Group, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Federal Consulting Group are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 2, 2018.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Federal Consulting Group, Attention: Lucy Adams, 1849 C St. NW, MS 4344, Washington, DC 20240-0001, or by facsimile to (202) 513-5184, or via email to
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the Federal Consulting Group; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Federal Consulting Group enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Federal Consulting Group minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This information collection activity provides a means to consistently assess, benchmark, and improve customer satisfaction with Federal government agency websites within the Executive Branch. The Federal Consulting Group of the Department of the Interior serves as the executive agent for this methodology and has partnered with ForeSee to offer this assessment to federal agencies.
ForeSee is a leader in customer satisfaction and customer experience management on the web and related media. Its methodology (Customer Experience Analytics or CXA) is a derivative of one of the most respected, credible, and well known measures of customer satisfaction in the country, the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). The ForeSee CXA methodology combines survey data and a patented econometric model to precisely measure the customer satisfaction of website users, identify specific areas for improvement, and determine the impact of those improvements on customer satisfaction and future customer behaviors.
The ForeSee CXA is the only cross-agency methodology for obtaining comparable measures of customer satisfaction with Federal Government websites. The ultimate purpose of ForeSee CXA is to help improve the quality of goods and services available to American citizens, including those from the Federal government.
The E-Government website Customer Satisfaction Surveys will be completed subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-579, December 31, 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a). The agency information collection will be used solely for the purpose of the survey. The contractor will not be authorized to release any agency information upon completion of the survey without first obtaining permission from the Federal Consulting Group and the participating agency. In no case shall any new system of records containing privacy information be developed by the Federal Consulting Group, participating agencies, or the contractor collecting the data. In addition, participating Federal agencies may only provide information used to randomly selected respondents from among established systems of records provided for such routine uses.
There is no other agency or organization able to provide the information accessible through the surveying approach used in this information collection. Further, the information will enable Federal agencies to determine customer satisfaction metrics with discrimination capability across variables. Thus, this information collection will assist Federal agencies in making the best use of resources in a targeted manner to improve service to the public.
This survey asks no questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters that are commonly considered private.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it is operating under a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. The Office of Management and Budget control number for this collection is 1090-0008. The control number will be displayed on the surveys used. For expeditious administration of the surveys, the expiration date will not be displayed on the individual instruments. Response to the surveys is voluntary.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Meeting notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the National Park Service (NPS) is hereby giving notice that the Mary McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site Advisory Commission will meet as indicated below.
The Commission will meet on Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. (Eastern).
The meeting will be held in the conference room at the Museum Resource Center, National Capital Region, National Park Service, 3300 Hubbard Road, Hyattsville, MD 20785.
Alex Tremble, Senior Management Assistant, Office of the Superintendent, or Tara Morrison, Superintendent and Designated Federal Officer, National Capital Parks-East, 1900 Anacostia Drive SE, Washington, DC 20020, telephone (202) 690-5193 or email
The Commission is established by section 4 of Public Law 102-211 (16 U.S.C. 461 note). The purpose of the Commission is to fully participate in an advisory capacity with the Secretary of the Interior in the development of a General Management Plan for the historic site. The Commission will also, as often as necessary, but at least semiannually, meet and consult with the Secretary on matters relating to the management and development of the historic site.
The proposed agenda may change to accommodate commission business. The final agenda for this meeting will be provided on the Park website at
The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make oral/written presentations to the Commission during the business meeting or file written statements. Such requests should be made to the park superintendent prior to the meeting.
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
National Park Service, Interior.
Meeting notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the National Park Service (NPS) is hereby giving notice of the 307th meeting of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission.
The public meeting of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission will be held on Monday, June 18, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. (EASTERN).
The Commission members will meet in the conference room at park headquarters, 99 Marconi Site Road, Wellfleet, Massachusetts 02667.
Further information concerning the meeting may be obtained from Brian Carlstrom, Superintendent and Designated Federal Officer, Cape Cod National Seashore, 99 Marconi Site Road, Wellfleet, Massachusetts 02667, or at (508) 771-2144 or by email at
The Commission was reestablished pursuant to Public Law 87-126, as amended by Public Law 105-280 (16 U.S.C. 459b-7). The purpose of the Commission is to consult with the Secretary of the Interior, or his designee, with respect to matters relating to the development of Cape Cod National Seashore, and with respect to carrying out the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act establishing the Seashore.
The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make oral/written presentations to the Commission during the business meeting or file written statements. Such requests should be made to the park superintendent prior to the meeting.
5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) has issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding should a violation be found in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended limited exclusion order against certain semiconductor devices and consumer audiovisual products containing the same manufactured and imported by respondents Sigma Designs, Inc. of Fremont, California (“Sigma”), and Vizio, Inc. of Irvine, California (“Vizio”), and the recommended cease-and-desist order against Vizio. This notice is soliciting comments from the public only. Parties are to file public interest submissions.
Robert Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. The public version of the
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's recommended determination on remedy and bonding issued in this investigation on May 23, 2018. Comments should address whether issuance of the recommended limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist order in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the recommended limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on June 18, 2018.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 1047”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on March 27, 2018, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Ultravision Technologies, LLC of Dallas, Texas. An amended complaint was filed on April 16, 2018. Supplements were filed on May 7, 2018 and May 8, 2018. The amended complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain modular LED display panels and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,349,306 (“the '306 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,916,782 (“the '782 Patent”). The amended complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and (a) cease and desist order(s).
The amended complaint, as supplemented, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain modular LED display panels and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, 16-19, 21-23, and 25-27 of the '306 patent and claims 1-6, 9-14, 16, and 22-28 of the '782 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Ultravision Technologies, LLC, 4542 McEwen Road, Dallas, TX 75244.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the amended complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the amended complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the amended complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the amended complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the amended complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Bose Corporation on May 24, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain earpiece devices and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: 1MORE USA, Inc. of San Diego, CA; APSkins of Seattle, WA; Beeebo Online Limited of North Las Vegas, NV; iHip of Edison, NJ; LMZT LLC of Brooklyn, NY; Misodiko of China; Phaiser LLC of Houston, TX; Phonete of China; REVJAMS of New York, NY; SMARTOMI Products, Inc. of Ontario, CA; Spigen, Inc. of Irvine, CA; Sudio AB of Sweden; Sunvalley Tek International, Inc. of Fremont, CA; and TomRich of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3320”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, no later than June 11, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than June 11, 2018.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
In accordance with the Section 223 (19 U.S.C. 2273) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271,
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)) must be met, as follows:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(1)) is that a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm (or “such firm”) have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
AND (2(A) or 2(B) below)
(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied by either (A) the Increased Imports Path, or (B) the Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path/Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path, as follows:
(i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm, have decreased absolutely;
AND (ii and iii below)
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased; OR (II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased; OR (II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using the services supplied by such firm, have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
AND
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; OR
(i) (I) There has been a shift by such workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of services like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; OR
(II) such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country articles or services that are like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm;
AND
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(b)) must be met, as follows:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
AND
(2) the workers' firm is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)), and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification (as defined in subsection 222(c)(3) and (4) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(c)(3) and (4));
AND
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; OR
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation determined under paragraph (1).
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(e) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(e))must be met, by following criteria (1), (2), and (3) as follows:
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1)); OR
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1)of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2436(b)(1)); OR
(C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
AND
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(f)(1)) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (B) or (C)of paragraph (1) is published in the
AND
(3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); OR
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2273(b)), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (Increased Imports Path) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path or Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(e) (firms identified by the International Trade Commission) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for TAA have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the requirements of Trade Act section 222 (a)(1) and (b)(1) (significant worker total/partial separation or threat of total/partial separation), or (e) (firms identified by the International Trade Commission), have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A)(i) (decline in sales or production, or both), or (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country or acquisition of articles or services from a foreign country), (b)(2) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA or downstream producer to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA), and (e) (International Trade Commission) of section 222 have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs(a)(2)(A) (increased imports), (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country or acquisition of articles or services from a foreign country), (b)(2) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA or downstream producer to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA), and (e) (International Trade Commission) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the worker group on whose behalf the petition was filed is covered under an existing certification.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation Office, Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents is properly assessed. A copy of the proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee's section below on or before July 30, 2018.
You may submit comments by either one of the following methods:
Contact Jessica Lohmann by email at
I.
Data collection efforts previously approved for the Cascades Job Corps College and Career Academy Pilot Evaluation under OMB Control Number 1290-0012 include: A baseline survey of sample members in the evaluation, discussion guides for the implementation study, and tracking contacts to sample members in the evaluation to request address updates. These collection activities will continue under the previously approved request.
This
II.
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the ICR to survey and fieldwork respondents, including the validity of the study approach and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
III.
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO).
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is issuing this notice to announce the availability of funding for Low-Income Designated Credit Unions (LICUs) Applications for loans and technical assistance grants under the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund (CDRLF) program. The CDRLF program serves as a source of financial support in the form of loans and technical assistance grants that better enables LICUs to support the communities in which they operate. All loans and technical assistance grants from multi-year funds made under this NOFO are subject to funds availability and are at the NCUA's discretion.
The purpose of the CDRLF program is to assist LICUs in providing basic financial services to their members to stimulate economic activities in their communities. Through the CDRLF program, the NCUA provides financial support in the form of loans and technical assistance grants to LICUs serving predominantly low-income members. These funds help improve and expand the availability of financial services to these members. The CDRLF program consists of Congressional appropriations that are administered by the NCUA.
The NCUA will accept applications from LICUs for the initiatives referenced in Table 2. The financial awards may be used for projects that support the efforts of credit unions providing basic financial and related services to residents in their communities; enhancing their capacity to better serve their members and the communities in which they operate.
More detailed information about the CDRLF program, including the types of initiatives for the grant round, amount of funds available, funding priorities, permissible uses of funds, funding limits, deadlines and other pertinent details, are periodically published in
Part 705 of the NCUA's regulations implements the CDRLF program. 12 CFR 705. A revised Part 705 was published on November 25, 2016. 81 FR 85112. Additional requirements are found at 12 CFR 701 and 741. Applicants should review these regulations in addition to this NOFO. Each capitalized term in this NOFO is more fully defined in the regulations, program guidelines, and other application materials. For the purposes of this NOFO, an Applicant is a Qualifying Credit Union that submits a complete Application to the NCUA under the CDRLF program. The NCUA will consider requests for funds consistent with the purpose of the CDRLF program. 12 CFR 705.1.
12 U.S.C. 1756, 1757(5)(D), and (7)(I), 1766, 1782, 1784, 1785 and 1786; 12 CFR 705.
The NCUA expects to award approximately $2 million in grants through this NOFO. Approximately $5.3 million will be available for loans under this NOFO, derived from prior-year appropriated and earned funds. Monies for additional loans come from scheduled loan amortizations. The NCUA reserves the right to: (i) Award more or less than the amounts cited above; (ii) fund, in whole or in part, any, all, or none of the applications submitted in response to this NOFO; and (iii) reallocate funds from the amount that is anticipated to be available under this NOFO to other programs, particularly if the NCUA determines that the number of awards made under this NOFO is fewer than projected.
Table 3 includes specific information about the funding available, maximum award amounts, and application window for each CDRLF program initiative. The specific terms and conditions governing a CDRLF award will be established in the grant or loan agreement each Participating Credit Union must sign prior to disbursement of funds.
The following are the general loan terms under the CDRLF program.
a.
• Funds availability;
• Credit worthiness of the credit union;
• Financial need;
• Demonstrated capability of credit union to provide financial and related services to its members; and
• Concurrence from the NCUA Regional Office and if applicable, the State Supervisory Authority (SSA)
b.
c.
d.
1.
2.
3.
This NOFO is open to credit unions that meet the compliance requirements specified in 12 CFR 705. A credit union must have a Low-Income Credit Union (LICU) designation, or equivalent in the case of a Qualifying State-chartered Credit Union, in order to participate in the CDRLF program. Requirements for obtaining the designation are found at 12 CFR 701.34.
Part 705.5(g) of the NCUA's regulations describe the overall requirements for matching funds. The NCUA, in its sole discretion, may require matching funds of an Applicant, on a case-by-case basis depending on the financial condition of the Applicant. The NCUA anticipates that most Applicants will not be required to obtain matching funds. However, each Applicant should address in the Application its strategy for raising matching funds if the NCUA determines matching funds are required (see 12 CFR 705 and the Application for additional information).
a.
i. The amount of matching funds required must generally be in an amount equal to the loan amount.
ii. Matching funds must be from non-governmental member or nonmember share deposits.
iii. Any loan monies matched by nonmember share deposits are not subject to the 20% limitation on nonmember deposits under § 701.32 of the NCUA's regulations.
iv. Participating Credit Unions must maintain the outstanding loan amount in the total amount of share deposits for the duration of the loan. Once the loan is repaid, nonmember share deposits accepted to meet the matching requirement are subject to § 701.32 of the NCUA's regulations.
b.
• CAMEL Composite Rating
• CAMEL Management Rating
• CAMEL Asset Quality Rating
• Regional Director Concurrence
• Net Worth Ratio
c.
a.
b.
i.
ii.
The application and related documents can be found on the NCUA's website at
A complete Application will consist of similar components for each CDRLF program initiative. At a minimum, each initiative requires a narrative response that describes how the CDRLF award will be used by the Applicant. The NCUA reserves the right to waive this requirement for initiatives deemed to be satisfactory without a written description. If an initiative does not require a narrative response, the NCUA will explain this in the program guidelines.
a.
b.
c.
d.
i. The business plan must: Describe the community's need for financial products and services and the Applicant's need for funding; summarize the services, financial products, and services provided by the Applicant; describe the Applicant's involvement with other entities; describe the credit union's marketing strategy to reach members and the community; and include financial projections.
e.
i.
The application period for each CDRLF program initiative is highlighted in Table 4. Applications must be submitted online in the NCUA's web-based application system, CyberGrants, by the deadline in order to be considered. Late Applications will not be considered under any circumstance.
Under this NOFO, Applications must be submitted online at
a.
b.
c.
i.
ii.
iii.
d.
e.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
The NCUA will notify each Applicant of its funding decision by email. In addition, the NCUA will publish a press release and post on its website a list of
The specific terms and conditions governing a CDRLF award will be established in the program guidelines for each initiative.
a.
b.
c.
d.
a.
b.
Successful Applicants must submit a reimbursement request in order to receive the awarded funds. The reimbursement requirements are specific to each initiative. In general, the reimbursement request will require evidence of expenses, project related documentation, a summary of project accomplishments and outcomes, and a certification form signed by a credit union official (
Further information can be found at
People who have visual or mobility impairments that prevent them from using the NCUA's website should call (703) 518-6610 for guidance (this is not a toll free number).
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service has filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The requests(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 25, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 25, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17Ac2-2 and Form TA-2 require registered transfer agents to file an annual report of their business activities with the Commission. These reporting requirements are designed to ensure that all registered transfer agents are providing the Commission with sufficient information on an annual basis about the transfer agent community and to permit the Commission to effectively monitor business activities of transfer agents.
The amount of time needed to comply with the requirements of amended Rule 17Ac2-2 and Form TA-2 varies. Of the total 373 registered transfer agents, approximately 9.2% (or 34 registrants) would be required to complete only questions 1 through 3 and the signature section of amended Form TA-2, which the Commission estimates would take each registrant approximately 30 minutes, for a total burden of 17 hours (34 × .5 hours). Approximately 26.5% of registrants (or 99 registrants) would be required to answer questions 1 through 5, question 11 and the signature section, which the Commission estimates would take approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes, for a total of 148.5 hours (99 × 1.5 hours). Approximately 64.2% of the registrants (or 239 registrants) would be required to complete the entire Form TA-2, which the Commission estimates would take approximately 6 hours, for a total of 1,434 hours (239 × 6 hours). The aggregate annual burden on all 373 registered transfer agents is thus approximately 1,599.5 hours (17 hours + 148.5 hours + 1,434 hours) and the average annual burden per transfer agent is approximately 3.8 hours (1,434 ÷ 373).
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on respondents; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend the By-Laws of FINRA Regulation, Inc. (“FINRA Regulation By-Laws” or “By-Laws”), FINRA's regulatory subsidiary, with regard to the District Committee structure and governance by, among other things, reorganizing the District Committees into Regional Committees that mirror the regions in which FINRA's districts are administratively grouped and managed by FINRA and revising candidate and member voting eligibility standards in a manner designed to result in committees that better reflect the industry and members within each region. The proposed rule change also makes conforming amendments to the FINRA Regulation By-Laws and FINRA rules to replace, where appropriate, District Committee references with Regional Committee references.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In March 2017, FINRA issued a
In addition to the
FINRA is proposing to amend the FINRA Regulation By-Laws to reorganize the District Committees as Regional Committees and to modify the committees' size, structure, and governance to respond to
The By-Laws require the FINRA Regulation Board of Directors (“FINRA Regulation Board”)
• West (Districts 1 (San Francisco), 2 (Los Angeles) and 3 (Denver));
• Midwest (Districts 4 (Kansas City) and 8 (Chicago));
• South (Districts 5 (New Orleans), 6 (Dallas) and 7 (Atlanta and Boca Raton));
• North (Districts 9 (Philadelphia and New Jersey) and 11 (Boston)); and
• New York (District 10 (Long Island and New York)).
Pursuant to the By-Laws, each district elects a District Committee.
FINRA proposes to formally restructure the District Committees as Regional Committees. The proposed change will align the committee structure with FINRA's practice of managing the District Committees as region-wide committees.
FINRA proposes amending Section 8.2(a) of the FINRA Regulation By-Laws to require that each Regional Committee have six elected members from each district within that committee's region. Regional Committees representing three districts (
The proposed amendments would reduce the number of committee members in the West and South regions from 21 to 18 and in the Midwest, North, and New York regions from 14 to 12. This size recalibration is intended to align the number of committee seats with the declining membership interest in committee service while still maintaining adequate district-level representation on the Regional Committees.
FINRA also proposes amending FINRA Regulation By-Laws Section 8.2(a) to require that each Regional Committee member be associated with a FINRA member eligible to vote in the district-level elections and work for a FINRA member headquartered within the district the member will be representing on the committee. For purposes of the provision, a firm is headquartered where it designates its main address on the firm's Form BD. A firm can only have one main address on its Form BD, and FINRA's member firms are assigned to one of the 11 districts outlined above based on the location of their main office.
The proposed eligibility requirement differs from the current requirement that
FINRA proposes retaining the requirement that a committee member be registered in the capacity of a branch manager or principal or denoted as a corporate officer of the FINRA member.
In addition, the proposed amendments retain district-level elections for Regional Committee members. As noted above, each district within its respective region will elect six Regional Committee members.
As a transitional measure, and to ensure that the Regional Committees begin with a full complement of members, upon the proposed rule change becoming effective, FINRA would appoint all current District Committee members to serve on the Regional Committees. As a result, the Regional Committee members initially would include: (1) Any current District Committee members from within each region who meet the proposed eligibility requirement that the member be associated with a firm headquartered in the district the member is representing; and (2) the six current District Committee members who do not meet the proposed eligibility requirement that they be associated with a member firm headquartered within the district they are representing. This transitional measure will allow all current committee members to serve their full terms, consistent with the By-Laws,
The initial 12 or 18 members for each Regional Committee would be appointed for rolling terms, with four or six members appointed for three years, four or six members appointed for two years, and four or six members appointed for one year. As noted previously, the majority of the initial Regional Committee members will be current District Committee members. FINRA intends to appoint the District Committee members for terms concurrent with the expiration of their current terms. Thus, the District Committee members elected or appointed in 2017 for full terms will serve three-year terms, the District Committee members elected or appointed in 2016 for full terms will serve two-year terms, and the District Committee members elected or appointed in 2015 for full terms will serve one-year terms. The purpose of the rolling terms is to preserve the current practice described below of providing that one-third of the committees' positions will be available for election each year.
The proposed amendments retain for Regional Committee members the District Committees' three-year “full term” limit.
FINRA also proposes that the Regional Committees retain the current requirement to meet on a regional basis.
FINRA proposes that the Regional Committees assume the District Committees' regulatory roles outlined in the FINRA Regulation By-Laws to:
• Serve as panelists in disciplinary proceedings in accordance with FINRA rules;
• consider and recommend policies and rule changes to the Board; and
• endeavor to educate FINRA members and others as to the objects, purposes and work of FINRA and FINRA Regulation.
In addition, FINRA intends to have Regional Committee members be responsible for communicating high-level information regarding meeting discussions to their constituents. This responsibility would be consistent with the role noted above that the Regional Committees educate FINRA members and others regarding FINRA and its work. The added responsibility also is consistent with a
The staff proposes retaining without significant changes (other than conforming changes to reflect the proposed elimination of firm-size classifications and the committee member candidate and member voting eligibility criteria that a firm have a principal or branch office within a district) the administrative and procedural provisions relating to meetings, vacancies, committee support, expenses and compensation, self-nomination, ballots, candidate solicitation, voter qualification list, extensions of time, and definitions.
FINRA is proposing to amend Article I (Definitions) of the FINRA Regulation By-Laws to delete the term “District Committee” and add the term “Regional Committee”
FINRA also is proposing amendments to FINRA Rule 9231 (Appointment by the Chief Hearing Officer of Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing Panel or Replacement Hearing Officer) and FINRA Rule 9820 (Appointment of Hearing Officer and Hearing Panel) to clarify that former District Committee members and current and former Regional Committee members are eligible to serve as disciplinary hearing panelists.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing so FINRA can implement the proposed rule change immediately.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(4) of the Act,
FINRA further believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(8) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will not impose any direct costs or additional regulatory obligations on members. FINRA will continue its practice of covering committee meeting costs and expenses committee members incur by attending meetings in person.
The proposed rule change will reduce representation within each Regional Committee from seven seats to six seats per district. However, FINRA does not believe that it reduces overall opportunities for members to interact with FINRA staff or serve on committees. As noted in
Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the proposed rule change. As noted above, in March 2017, FINRA issued a
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the Dodd-Frank Act) provided that certain agencies, including the Commission, establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI).
In addition, section 342(c)(3)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the OMWI Director to establish standards and procedures for determining whether an agency contractor or subcontractor “has failed to make a good faith effort to include minorities and women” in its workforce. Section 342(c)(3)(B)(i) provides that if the OMWI Director determines that a contractor has failed to make good faith efforts, the Director shall recommend to the agency administrator that the contract be terminated. Upon receipt of such a recommendation, section 342(c)(3)(B)(ii) provides that the agency administrator may terminate the contract, make a referral to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the Department of Labor, or take other appropriate action. To implement the acquisition-specific requirements of Section 342(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission adopted a Contract Standard for Contractor Workforce Inclusion (Contract Standard).
The Contract Standard, which is included in the Commission's solicitations and resulting contracts for services with a dollar value of $100,000 or more, contains a “collection of information” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Contract Standard requires that a Commission contractor provide documentation, upon request from the OMWI Director, to demonstrate that it has made good faith efforts to ensure the fair inclusion of minorities in its workforce and, as applicable, to demonstrate its covered subcontractors have made such good faith efforts. The documentation requested may include, but is not limited to: (1) The total number of employees in the contractor's workforce, and the number of employees by race, ethnicity, gender, and job title or EEO-1 job category (
The information collection is mandatory.
The estimated 75 contractors that employ fewer than 50 employees are required under the regulations implementing E.O. 11246 to maintain records showing the race, ethnicity and gender of each employee. We believe that these contractors also keep job title information during the normal course of business. However, contractors that have fewer than 50 employees may not have the written program prescribed by the E.O. 11246 regulations or similar plan that could be submitted as part of the documentation to demonstrate their good faith efforts to ensure the fair inclusion of women and minorities in their workforces. Accordingly, contractors with fewer than 50 employees may have to develop a plan to ensure workforce inclusion of minorities and women.
In order to estimate the burden on contractors associated with developing a plan for ensuring the inclusion of minorities and women in their workforces, we considered the burden estimates for developing the written programs required under the regulations implementing E.O. 11246.
The Contract Standard requires contractors to maintain information about covered subcontractors' ownership status, workforce demographics, and workforce inclusion plans. Contractors would request this information from their covered subcontractors, who would have an obligation to keep workforce demographic data and maintain plans for workforce inclusion of minorities and women because the Contract Standard is included in their subcontracts. Based on data describing recent Commission subcontractor activity, we believe that few subcontractors will have subcontracts for services with a dollar value of $100,000 or more under Commission service contracts.
On March 19, 2018, the Commission published a notice in the
Written comments continue to be invited on: (a) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to memorialize its order and execution information into ISE Rule 718, entitled “Data Feeds.”
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to add order and execution information into ISE Rule 718, entitled “Data Feeds.” The Exchange proposes to rename this rule “Data Feeds and Trade Information.” The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 100 to add definitions.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Nasdaq ISE Top Quote Feed. The Exchange stated in that description that this feed calculates and disseminates ISE's best bid and offer position, with aggregated size (including total size in aggregate, for Public Customer
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new ISE Rule 718(b) and memorialize the following order and execution information, which was discussed in other rule filings by the Exchange: (i) Clearing Trade Information or “CTI”; and (ii) FIX DROP.
The Exchange notes that while CTI and FIX Drop information are accessible through a port, TradeInfo is an interface. The Exchange notes this distinction to make clear the manner of delivery for each of these information types.
The Exchange stated in its Prior Filing that “CTI is a real-time clearing trade message that is sent to a Member after an execution has occurred and contains trade details. The message containing the trade details is also simultaneously sent to The Options Clearing Corporation. The information includes, among other things, the following: (i) The Clearing Member Trade Agreement or “CMTA” or The Options Clearing Corporation or “OCC” number; (ii) Exchange badge or house number; (iii) the Exchange internal firm identifier; and (iv) an indicator which will distinguish electronic and non-electronically delivered orders; (v) liquidity indicators and transaction type for billing purposes; (vi) capacity.”
The Exchange is proposing to amend the CTI description and memorialize it within ISE Rule 718(b)(1). The Exchange proposes to eliminate the sentence which states, “The message containing the trade details is also simultaneously sent to The Options Clearing Corporation.” The Exchange's System sends clearing information to OCC for each transaction. This sentence does not add information that is useful or relevant and therefore the Exchange proposes to remove it. The Exchange also proposes to delete the words “an indicator which will distinguish electronic and non-electronically delivered orders.” The only method on ISE to deliver an order is electronically.
The Exchange proposes to adopt definitions for “account number,”
The Exchange stated in its Prior Filing that “FIX DROP provides real-time order and execution update is a message that is sent to a Member after an order been received/modified or an execution has occurred and contains trade details. The information includes, among other things, the following: (1) Executions; (2) cancellations; (3) modifications to an existing order; and (4) busts or post-trade corrections.”
The Exchange proposes to memorialize FIX DROP within ISE Rule 718(b)(3). The Exchange notes that at the end of the first sentence of the description it is adding “specific to that Member” to make clear that FIX DROP only provides a Member its specific trade information. Also, an “and” is included before new (iv) as the numbers have been changed to roman numerals and the Exchange is proposing grammatical changes.
The Exchange proposes to establish its TradeInfo offering at ISE Rule 718(b)(2). TradeInfo, a user interface, permits a Member to: (i) Search all orders submitted in a particular security or all orders of a particular type,
The Exchange considers it appropriate to establish and memorialize the order and execution information available on ISE within a rule so that Members may understand the trade information which is available on the Exchange as it pertains to a firm's trading information. This data is available to all Members and is specific to a Member's transactions on ISE.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Nasdaq ISE Top Quote Feed to specify that Professional Orders and Priority Customer Orders are segregated and aggregated is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the Exchange is correcting the categories of orders, which are segregated and aggregated. The Public Customer definition is too broad because it includes a portion of Priority Customer, which was already specified within the description. The Exchange proposes to remove Public Customer and replace it with Professional Order to be more specific and amend Priority Customer to Priority Customer Order to reference the types of orders that are aggregated to conform the rule text. The Exchange believes that this amendment will bring more transparency to the information within the feed.
The Exchange believes that memorializing CTI and FIX DROP within a rule will provide Members with transparency as to the order and information offerings available on ISE specific to their trading on ISE. The Exchange notes that CTI and FIX DROP were described in a Prior Filing while TradeInfo's description is new. The Exchange's proposal to establish TradeInfo is consistent with the Act because the Exchange is detailing the contents of this offering as well as providing transparency as to the availability of TradeInfo. The Exchange believes that offering Members TradeInfo, which allows Members to view executions as well as other capabilities with respect to order management, enhances the ability of a Member to manage its orders. The Exchange believes that providing Members with tools to manage orders is consistent with the Act and serves to protect investors and the public interest. Further, the Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because TradeInfo provides information regarding information available to market participants, specifically with respect to trades they execute on ISE. The information is available to all Members.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple classes of shares and to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees and early withdrawal charges (“EWCs”).
Pioneer ILS Interval Fund (the “Fund”) and Amundi Pioneer Asset Management, Inc. (the “Adviser”).
The application was filed on June 10, 2016 and amended on December 14, 2016, September 28, 2017, and May 15, 2018.
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 June 18, 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: 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109-1820.
Jennifer O. Palmer, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-5786, or Nadya Roytblat, Assistant Chief Counsel, 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, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Fund is a Delaware statutory trust that is registered under the Act as a non-diversified, closed-end management investment company. The Fund's investment objective is total return. The Fund normally invests at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of borrowings, if any, for investment purposes) in insurance-linked securities (“ILS”). Derivative instruments that provide exposure to ILS or have similar economic characteristics may be used to satisfy the Fund's 80% policy.
2. The Adviser is a Delaware corporation and is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Adviser is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Amundi and Amundi's wholly-owned subsidiary, Amundi USA, Inc. Amundi, an asset manager headquartered in Paris, France, acquired the Adviser on July 3, 2017. The Adviser serves as investment adviser to the Fund.
3. The applicants seek an order to permit the Fund to issue multiple classes of shares, each having its own fee and expense structure, and to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees and EWCs.
4. Applicants request that the order also apply to any continuously-offered registered closed-end management
5. The Fund is currently making a continuous public offering of its common shares. Applicants state that additional offerings by any Fund relying on the order may be on a private placement or public offering basis. Shares of the Funds will not be listed on any securities exchange, nor quoted on any quotation medium. The Funds do not expect there to be a secondary trading market for their shares.
6. If the requested relief is granted, the Fund intends to redesignate its common shares as “Class 1 Shares” and to continuously offer “Class 2 Shares”, and may also offer additional classes of shares in the future. Because of the different distribution fees, services and any other class expenses that may be attributable to the Class 1 Shares and Class 2 Shares, the net income attributable to, and the dividends payable on, each class of shares may differ from each other. The Fund's Class 1 Shares will not be subject to a front-end sales charge, whereas Class 2 Shares may be subject to a front-end sales charge. The Fund's Class 1 Shares will be subject to other expenses, but will not be subject to a distribution or service fee. The Fund's Class 2 Shares will be subject to a distribution and service fee and other expenses. Currently, Class 1 Shares and Class 2 Shares will not be subject to an EWC. However, applicants state that Class 1 Shares, Class 2 Shares and other classes may, in the future, be subject to an EWC. Shares that are not subject to an EWC when purchased will not subsequently be subject to an EWC.
7. Applicants state that, from time to time, the Fund may create additional classes of shares, the terms of which may differ from the Class 1 and Class 2 Shares in the following respects: (i) The amount of fees permitted by different distribution plans or different service fee arrangements; (ii) voting rights with respect to a distribution and/or service plan of a class; (iii) different class designations; (iv) the impact of any class expenses directly attributable to a particular class of shares allocated on a class basis as described in the application; (v) any differences in dividends and net asset value resulting from differences in fees under a distribution and/or service plan or in class expenses; (vi) any EWC or other sales load structure; and (vii) exchange or conversion privileges of the classes as permitted under the Act.
8. Applicants state that, to the extent a Fund charges a repurchase fee, shares of the Fund will be subject to a fee at a rate of no greater than 2% of the shareholder's repurchase proceeds if the interval between the date of purchase of the shares and the valuation date with respect to the repurchase of those shares is less than one year. Additionally, applicants state that any repurchase fee will equally apply to any new class of shares and to all classes of Shares of the Fund, consistent with Section 18 of the 1940 Act and Rule 18f-3 thereunder. Further, applicants represent that to the extent a Fund determines to waive, impose scheduled variations of, or eliminate any repurchase fee, it will do so consistently with the requirements of Rule 22d-1 under the Act as if the repurchase fee were a CDSL and as if the Fund were an open-end investment company and the Fund's waiver of, scheduled variation in, or elimination of, the repurchase fee will apply uniformly to all shareholders of the Fund regardless of class. Applicants state that the Fund does not currently intend to charge a repurchase fee.
9. Applicants state that the Fund has adopted a fundamental policy to repurchase a specified percentage of its shares (no less than 5% and no more than 25%) at net asset value on a quarterly basis. Such repurchase offers will be conducted pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act. Each of the other Funds will likewise adopt fundamental investment policies and make quarterly repurchase offers to its shareholders in compliance with rule 23c-3 or will provide periodic liquidity with respect to its shares pursuant to rule 13e-4 under the Exchange Act.
10. Applicants represent that any asset-based service and distribution fees for each class of shares of the Funds will comply with the provisions of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Rule 2341 (formerly NASD Rule 2830(d) (“FINRA Sales Charge Rule”).
11. Each of the Funds will comply with any requirements that the Commission or FINRA may adopt regarding disclosure at the point of sale and in transaction confirmations about the costs and conflicts of interest arising out of the distribution of open-end investment company shares, and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales loads and revenue sharing arrangements, as if those requirements applied to the Fund. In addition, each Fund will contractually require that any distributor of the Fund's shares comply with such requirements in connection with the distribution of such Fund's shares.
12. Each Fund will allocate all expenses incurred by it among the various classes of shares based on the net assets of the Fund attributable to each class, except that the net asset value and expenses of each class will reflect the expenses associated with the distribution and/or service plan of that class, service fees attributable to that
13. Applicants state that each Fund may impose an EWC on shares submitted for repurchase that have been held less than a specified period and may waive the EWC for certain categories of shareholders or transactions to be established from time to time. Applicants state that each of the Funds will apply the EWC (and any waivers or scheduled variations of the EWC) uniformly to all shareholders in a given class and consistently with the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act as if the Funds were open-end investment companies.
14. Each Fund operating as an interval fund pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act may offer its shareholders an exchange feature under which the shareholders of the Fund may, in connection with the Fund's periodic repurchase offers, exchange their shares of the Fund for shares of the same class of (i) registered open-end investment companies or (ii) other registered closed-end investment companies that comply with rule 23c-3 under the Act and continuously offer their shares at net asset value, that are in the Fund's group of investment companies (collectively, “Other Funds”). Shares of a Fund operating pursuant to rule 23c-3 that are exchanged for shares of Other Funds will be included as part of the amount of the repurchase offer amount for such Fund as specified in rule 23c-3 under the Act. Any exchange option will comply with rule 11a-3 under the Act, as if the Fund were an open-end investment company subject to rule 11a-3. In complying with rule 11a-3, each Fund will treat an EWC as if it were a contingent deferred sales load (“CDSL”).
1. Section 18(a)(2) of the Act provides that a closed-end investment company may not issue or sell a senior security that is a stock unless certain requirements are met. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(a)(2) because the Funds may not meet such requirements with respect to a class of shares that may be a senior security.
2. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one class of senior security. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of shares of the Funds may be prohibited by section 18(c), as a class may have priority over another class as to payment of dividends because shareholders of different classes would pay different fees and expenses.
3. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting stock. Applicants state that multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely related to that class.
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 provision of the Act, or from any rule or regulation under the Act, if and to the extent such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Funds to issue multiple classes of shares.
5. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses relating to distribution and voting rights among multiple classes is equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of shareholders. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangements would permit a Fund to facilitate the distribution of its shares and provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder services. Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end investment company multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section 18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies' multiple class structures that are permitted by rule 18f-3 under the Act. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company.
1. Section 23(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that no registered closed-end investment company shall purchase securities of which it is the issuer, except: (a) On a securities exchange or other open market; (b) pursuant to tenders, after reasonable opportunity to submit tenders given to all holders of securities of the class to be purchased; or (c) under other circumstances as the Commission may permit by rules and regulations or orders for the protection of investors.
2. Rule 23c-3 under the Act permits a registered closed-end investment company (an “interval fund”) to make repurchase offers of between five and twenty-five percent of its outstanding shares at net asset value at periodic intervals pursuant to a fundamental policy of the interval fund. Rule 23c-3(b)(1) under the Act permits an interval fund to deduct from repurchase proceeds only a repurchase fee, not to exceed two percent of the proceeds, that is paid to the interval fund and is reasonably intended to compensate the fund for expenses directly related to the repurchase.
3. Section 23(c)(3) provides that the Commission may issue an order that would permit a closed-end investment company to repurchase its shares in circumstances in which the repurchase is made in a manner or on a basis that does not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class or classes of securities to be purchased.
4. Applicants request relief under section 6(c), discussed above, and section 23(c)(3) from rule 23c-3 to the extent necessary for the Funds to impose EWCs on shares of the Funds submitted for repurchase that have been held for less than a specified period.
5. Applicants state that the EWCs they intend to impose are functionally similar to CDSLs imposed by open-end investment companies under rule 6c-10 under the Act. Rule 6c-10 permits open-end investment companies to impose CDSLs, subject to certain conditions. Applicants note that rule 6c-10 is grounded in policy considerations supporting the employment of CDSLs where there are adequate safeguards for the investor and state that the same policy considerations support imposition of EWCs in the interval fund context. In addition, applicants state that EWCs may be necessary for the distributor to recover distribution costs. Applicants represent that any EWC imposed by the Funds will comply with rule 6c-10 under the Act as if the rule were applicable to closed-end investment companies. The Funds will disclose EWCs in accordance with the requirements of Form N-1A concerning CDSLs.
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
2. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act. Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to the extent necessary to permit the Fund to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees. Applicants have agreed to comply with rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-end investment companies, which they believe will resolve any concerns that might arise in connection with a Fund financing the distribution of its shares through asset-based fees.
For the reasons stated above, applicants submit that the exemptions requested under section 6(c) are necessary and appropriate in the public interest and are consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants further submit that the relief requested pursuant to section 23(c)(3) will be consistent with the protection of investors and will insure that applicants do not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class of securities to be purchased. Finally, applicants state that the Funds' imposition of asset-based distribution and/or service fees is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and does not involve participation on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants. Applicants therefore believe that the requested relief meets the standards of section 6(c) of the Act.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
Each Fund relying on the order will comply with the provisions of rules 6c-10, 12b-1, 17d-3, 18f-3, 22d-1, and, where applicable, 11a-3 under the Act, as amended from time to time, as if those rules applied to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with the FINRA Sales Charge Rule, as amended from time to time, as if that rule applied to all closed-end management investment companies.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 7150 and 7245. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 7150 (Price Improvement Period (“PIP”)) and 7245 (Complex Price Improvement Period (“COPIP”)) to provide additional information in the respective auction notifications. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to provide the account type of the PIP Order
The system commences a PIP and COPIP Auction by broadcasting a message via the High Speed Vendor Feed (“HSVF”).
The HSVF provides data to enhance the ability of subscribers to analyze market conditions and to create and test trading models and analytical strategies. In response to Participant feedback, the Exchange is exploring the feasibility of adding information (
The Exchange does not believe the proposed change will have a material impact on competition. Specifically, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will have a noticeable impact on competition or the level of responses during an auction. The Exchange believes that Participants will ultimately make a determination on whether to respond to the auction based on price, size, current quote and market conditions. The proposed information will provide additional transparency to Participants; however, it should not materially affect participation during the auctions. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange anticipates implementing the proposed change during the third quarter of 2018, pending approval of this filing. The Exchange will provide at least two weeks notification to Participants of the exact implementation date via Circular.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system by providing additional information and insight to Participants. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed change will enhance Participants' ability to make more informed and timely trading decisions. Additionally, as set forth above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable and appropriate as another options exchange disseminates account type information on orders.
The Exchange believes the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed information will be available to all subscribers of the HSVF. As such, the Exchange does not believe the proposed change will have an adverse impact on any market participant. Additionally, as explained above, the Exchange does not believe the proposed change will have a material impact on competition during the auctions.
This proposed change will give market participants greater information on which to base their trading strategies. As such, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, other option exchanges include account type information in their data feeds. Additionally, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will have a material impact on competition during the auction.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-E to exclude certain categories of issuers from the Exchange's annual meeting requirement. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
NYSE Arca proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-E to exclude certain categories of issuers from the Exchange's annual meeting requirement.
NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-E(e) provides that a listed company is required to hold an annual meeting of shareholders to elect directors and to take action on other corporate matters in accordance with its charter, by-laws and applicable state or other laws. The preamble to Rule 5.3-E provides that preferred and debt listings, passive business organizations (such as royalty trusts), derivative and special purpose securities
Holders of non-voting preferred and debt securities, securities of passive business organizations (such as royalty trusts) and derivative and special purpose securities either do not have the right to elect directors at annual meetings or have the right to elect directors only in very limited circumstances. For example, holders of non-voting preferred securities may have the right to temporarily elect directors if dividends on such securities have not been paid for a specified period of time. Absent such special circumstances, in no event do holders of the securities listed above elect directors on an annual basis. Despite the fact that there is no matter with respect to which holders of these securities have an annual voting right under state law or their governing documents, NYSE Arca rules currently do not exclude the issuers of such securities from the requirement that they hold an annual meeting of shareholders.
NYSE Arca now proposes to change the preamble to Rule 5.3-E to provide that issuers of these securities would not need to satisfy the requirement to hold an annual meeting under Rule 5.3-E(e)(1). The Exchange also proposes to clarify that the exclusions for preferred stock set forth in that provision are specifically applicable only to non-voting preferred stock. Notwithstanding the exclusions noted above, if an issuer also lists common stock or voting preferred stock, or their equivalent, such issuer must still hold an annual meeting for the holders of that common stock or voting preferred stock, or their equivalent. The Exchange further proposes to clarify NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-E(e)(1) by specifying that the annual meeting requirement contained in such rule is applicable to issuers listing common stock or voting preferred stock, and their equivalents
The Exchange notes that the listing rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe BZX”) and NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”) all provide explicit exclusions for issuers of ETFs and other derivative securities products from the annual meeting requirements in their
• NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(h) (Unit Investment Trusts) and NYSE American Company Guide Section 118 (Investment Trusts);
• NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(2) (Equity Linked Notes) and NYSE American Company Guide Section 107B (Equity Linked Term Notes);
• NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3) (Investment Company Units) and NYSE American Rule 1002A (Index Fund Shares);
• NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(4) (Index Linked Exchangeable Notes) and NYSE American Company Guide Section 107C (Index Linked Exchangeable Notes);
• NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(5) (Equity Gold Shares) and NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 5711(b) (Equity Gold Shares);
• NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6) (Index Linked Securities) and NYSE American Company Guide Sections 107D (Index-Linked Securities, 107E (Commodity-Linked Securities), 107F (Currency-Linked Securities), 107G (Fixed Income-Linked Securities), 107H (Futures-Linked Securities), and 107I (Combination-Linked Securities);
• NYSE Arca Rule 8.100-E (Portfolio Depositary Receipts) and NYSE American Rule 1000A (Portfolio Depository Receipts);
• NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E (Trust Issued Receipts) and NYSE American Rule 1202 (Trust Issued Receipts);
• NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E (Commodity Based Trust Shares) and NYSE American Rule 1200A (Commodity Based Trust Shares);
• NYSE Arca Rule 8.202-E (Currency Trust Shares) and NYSE American Rule 1202B (Currency Trust Shares);
• NYSE Arca Rule 8.203-E (Commodity-Index Trust Shares) and NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 5711(f) (Commodity Index Shares);
• NYSE Arca Rule 8.204-E (Commodity Futures Trust Shares) and NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 5711(g)(Commodity Futures Trust Shares);
• NYSE Arca Rule 8.300-E (Partnership Units) and NYSE American Rule 1502 (Partnership Units);
• NYSE Arca Rule 8.400-E (Paired Trust Shares) and NYSE American Rule 1402 (Paired Trust Shares).
Shareholders of ETFs and derivative securities products listed on the Exchange receive regular disclosure documents describing the pricing mechanism for their securities and detailing how they can value their holdings. Moreover, the net asset value of the categories of ETFs and other derivative securities products listed above is determined by the market price of each fund's underlying securities or other reference asset. Because shareholders can value their investments on an ongoing basis, the Exchange believes that there is less need for shareholders to engage management at an annual meeting. In addition, while holders of such securities may have the right to vote in certain limited circumstances, they do not have the right to vote on the annual election of a board of directors, further reducing the need for an annual meeting. Further, although the Exchange proposes to exclude issuers of such securities from holding an annual meeting, such issuers may still be required to hold special meetings as required by state law or their governing documents.
The Exchange proposes to include securities listed pursuant to NYSE Arca Rules 5.2-E(j)(4)-(6) in the types of derivative and special purpose securities that are excluded from certain corporate governance requirements.
The Exchange is proposing amendments to the rules for the following two categories of derivative and special purpose securities for which it has not identified explicit exclusions from the annual meeting requirement of any of the other listing exchanges:
• Managed Fund Shares (listed under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E), and
• Managed Trust Shares (listed under NYSE Arca Rule 8.700-E).
The Exchange believes it is appropriate to provide these exclusions for these categories of securities on the same basis as the other categories of listed derivative and special securities.
Managed Fund Shares and Managed Trust Shares share fundamental characteristics with Investment Company Units. Exchange rules require that they provide for the creation and redemption of the listed securities on a continuous basis in a manner similar to Investment Company Units. This mechanism is an important investor protection that helps to ensure that the trading price of the securities remains close to their net asset value and provides investors with an ability to readily dispose of their investment. In light of these protections and the fact that investors regularly receive disclosure documents, the Exchange believes that—like Investment Company Units—there is a reduced need for shareholders of Managed Fund Shares and Managed Trust Shares to engage directly with management at an annual meeting. Further, issuers of Managed Fund Shares and Managed Trust shares are subject to the requirements of state law and their governing documents as they relate to the requirement to hold shareholder meetings.
The Exchange proposes to remove securities listed pursuant to Rule 5.2-E(j)(1) (Other Securities), 8.3-E (Currency and Index Warrants) and
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.3-E to clarify that, with respect to requirements for independent directors and board committees, registered management investment companies (except for registered management investment companies that qualify as derivative and special purpose securities) are only exempt from complying with the corporate governance requirements in Rule 5.3-E(k)(2)-(4) and 5.3-E(k)(6). Such issuers are required to comply with all other provisions of Rule 5.3-E(k), including the preamble to such section.
The Exchange also proposes to make non-substantive formatting changes to Rule 5.3-E to improve readability. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 5.3-E(e) to divide it into subsections to make clear that issuers of preferred and debt listings, passive business organizations and certain derivative and special purpose securities are only excluded from the annual meeting requirement contained in such rule. The rule will further specify that regardless of whether an issuer is excluded from the annual meeting requirement, all issuers must comply with the Exchange's advance notification requirement for all shareholders meetings, including special meetings.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes it is appropriate to include securities listed pursuant to NYSE Arca Rules 5.2-E(j)(4)-(6) in the definition of derivative and special purpose securities that are excluded from certain corporate governance requirements. With respect to the annual meeting requirement, the Exchange believes that such classes of securities are excluded from complying with the annual meeting requirements of other national securities exchanges.
The Exchange believes it is appropriate to remove securities listed pursuant to Rule 5.2-E(j)(1) (Other Securities), 8.3-E (Currency and Index Warrants) and 8.500-E (Trust Units) from those derivative and special purpose securities that are excluded from certain corporate governance requirements. With respect to Other Securities, the Exchange does not have enough information about such securities to determine whether any exclusion is appropriate and with respect to Currency and Index Warrants and Trust Units, the Exchange does not anticipate listing such securities in the near future.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed amendments will not impose any burden on competition, as they simply conform NYSE Arca's rules to those of its competitors in the market for the listing of the specified types of securities. The additional categories of
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt IM-7130-1 to Rule 7130. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt IM-7130-1 to Rule 7130 to provide that the Exchange may make available certain
The Exchange is proposing to offer this information at no cost to Participants. The process of providing the requested information to Participants is manual in nature.
The proposed change will provide additional visibility to the BOX Book for Participants looking to execute orders on the Exchange. For example, a Floor Broker sourcing liquidity could use this information as another means for probing the market. Specifically, since the initiating side
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest by providing increased transparency to Participants. The Exchange believes the proposed change will enhance a Floor Broker's ability to execute QOO Orders, leading to increased executions on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed change will lead to increased interaction with the BOX Book because Floor Brokers will be aware of the amount of liquidity available on the BOX Book that may interact with their QOO Order and may choose to use such liquidity when executing orders from the Trading Floor or use a separate order to sweep that interest. As such, the proposed change has the potential to provide more liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change will be a valuable tool for all Participants probing the market by providing greater clarity on the composition and availability of liquidity. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed change will benefit all market participants because it will provide the opportunity for increased BOX Book interaction.
The Exchange believes that providing the proposed information is fair, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory. The proposed information is available to all Participants regardless of whether the Participant accesses the Exchange electronically or has a presence on the Trading Floor.
The proposed change would allow the Exchange to provide Participants with certain information. As discussed above, the proposed change aligns the rules of the Exchange with the floor procedures and rules of other options exchanges
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 13, 2017, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-OCC-2017-022 (“Proposed Rule Change”) pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Financial Stability Oversight Council designated OCC a systemically important financial market utility on July 18, 2012.
Since the proposal contained in the Proposed Rule Change was also filed as an Advance Notice, all public comments received on the proposal are considered regardless of whether the comments are submitted on the Proposed Rule Change or the Advance Notice.
OCC's margin methodology, STANS, calculates clearing member margin requirements.
The expected shortfall component is established as the estimated average of potential losses higher than the 99% value at risk threshold.
A “risk factor” within OCC's margin system may be defined as a product or attribute whose historical data are used to estimate and simulate the risk for an associated product.
Under OCC's current margin methodology, OCC obtains monthly price data for most of its equity-based products from a third-party vendor.
In addition, OCC imposes a floor on volatility estimates for its equity-based products using a 500-day look back period.
In risk management, it is a common practice to establish a floor for volatility at a certain level in order to protect against procyclicality in the model.
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.
Finally, under OCC's existing margin methodology, theoretical price scenarios for “defaulting securities”
In addition to the proposed methodology changes described herein, OCC also would make some clarifying and clean-up changes, unrelated to the proposed changes described herein, to update its margin methodology to reflect existing practices for the daily calibration of seasonal and non-seasonal energy models and the removal of methodology language for certain products that are no longer cleared by OCC.
The Proposed Rule Change proposes changes to STANS. More specifically,
As a general matter, OCC believes that introducing daily updates for price data would result in more accurate margin requirements that are based off of the most recent market data. OCC also believes that the other model enhancements would, among other things, improve OCC's approach to estimating covariance and correlations between risk factors in an effort to achieve more accurate and timely correlation estimations.
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.
In addition to introducing daily updates for price and corporate action-adjusted returns data, OCC proposes to make enhancements to its econometric model for calculating statistical parameters for all qualifying risk factors that reflect the most recent data obtained (
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 from a reliable third-party (as described above).
The current approach for forecasting the conditional variance for a given risk factor does not consider the asymmetric volatility phenomenon observed in financial markets (also called the “leverage effect”) where volatility is more accurate and timely and reactive to market downturns.
OCC also proposes to change the statistical distribution used to model the returns of equity prices. OCC's current methodology uses a fat tailed distribution
OCC further proposes to introduce a second-day forecast for volatility into the econometric model to estimate the two-day scenario distributions for risk factors.
In addition, 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.
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 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 help ensure clearing member account margins are more current and thus more accurate.
Under the proposal, OCC would enhance its methodology for estimating the defaulting variance in its model.
Under the proposal, only optionable equity securities, which are typically more liquid, would be considered while estimating the default variance.
Under the proposal, OCC would use a shorter time series to enable calibration of the model for all securities.
Under the proposal, returns scenarios for defaulting securities
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to, among other things, promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
First, as noted above, the STANS methodology is used to measure the exposure of portfolios of options and futures cleared by OCC and cash instruments in margin collateral on behalf of its clearing members, which allows OCC to calculate its clearing members' margin requirements. Currently, STANS makes these calculation based on monthly price data obtained from a third-party vendor. To make the calculations more accurate and representative of recent market data, OCC proposes to amend its margin methodology to require the use of daily updates for equity price data instead of monthly updates, thereby reducing OCC's reliance on scale-factors.
Second, the proposal to amend OCC's margin methodology to require the use of daily updates for price data would allow for updates to the margin model's statistical parameters on a daily, instead of monthly, basis.
Third, as described earlier, OCC proposes to enhance its approach to model correlation estimates by moving to a daily process for updating correlations and by de-volatizing the return series to estimate the correlations. This change is intended to lead to normalized returns across a variety of asset classes and make the correlation estimator less sensitive to sudden market jumps and therefore more stable. The Commission believes that updating the correlations daily and de-volatizing the return series to reduce the estimator's sensitivity to market jumps will promote more accurate and robust models within the STANS methodology.
Finally, to enhance its methodology for estimating the defaulting securities in its model, OCC proposes to: (i) Modify the method for estimating the default variance to include only optionable equity securities; (ii) use a shorter time series of six months instead of two years to enable calibration of the model for all securities within OCC systems; and (iii) simulate return scenarios for defaulting securities assuming a default correlation with the driver RUT. The Commission believes these changes will mitigate the effect that extremely illiquid securities with discontinuous data can have on OCC's default estimates, while further
Taken together, the Commission believes that these proposals would improve the accuracy of OCC's credit exposure calculations and, consequently, OCC's calculations of its clearing members' margin requirements. As described above, the proposed changes are designed to better limit OCC's credit exposure to the clearing members in the event of a clearing member default, which could help ensure that OCC's operations are not disrupted in the event of a clearing member default. In particular, the daily updates of the pricing data, the enhancements to the econometric model, and the enhancements to the correlation estimates promote more accurate and stable model measurements that have less volatility. Moreover, the enhancements to the defaulting securities methodology will decrease the manner in which the default estimates are affected by illiquid securities and reduce the amount to which the default variance is subject to sudden jumps, further promoting stable model measurements with less volatility.
By better limiting credit exposure to its clearing members, OCC's proposed changes are designed to help ensure that, in the event of a clearing member default, OCC's operations would not be disrupted. As a result, it could continue to clear and settle securities transactions as promptly and accurately as possible and safeguard the securities and funds in its custody or control, which generally would help protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, OCC's enhanced ability to determine margin requirements should help ensure that non-defaulting clearing members would not be exposed to losses that they cannot anticipate or control, which also generally would help protect investors and the public interest.
As a result, the Commission believes the Proposed Rule Change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Proposed Rule Change are consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i), (e)(6)(iii), and (e)(6)(iv) under the Act, which requires that OCC establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, among other things: (i) Considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market; (ii) calculates 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; and (iii) uses reliable sources of timely price data and uses procedures and sound valuation models for addressing circumstances in which pricing data is not readily available or reliable.
As described above, the proposal contained in the Proposed Rule Change would make several amendments to OCC's margin methodology designed to improve how it: (i) Accounts for asymmetry in conditional variance;
The Commission believes the modifications proposed are designed to improve the manner in which STANS would calculate daily margin requirements for OCC's clearing members. Consequently, the Commission believes that the proposal is designed to both (i) consider, and produce margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of May 2018. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on June 19, 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.
The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Shawn Davis, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6413 or Chief Counsel's Office at (202) 551-6821; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8010.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 23, 2018, the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
OCC proposed to amend OCC's By-Laws (“By-Laws”) and Rules to: (1) Clarify the time at which OCC accepts and novates
Clearly stating the specific time at which OCC accepts transactions for clearance and settlement is important to Clearing Members because it signifies the time under the By-Laws and Rules at which the following events occur: (1) OCC is substituted through novation as the central counterparty (“CCP”) to each Clearing Member that was an initial party to the transaction; (2) the rights of the initial Clearing Member parties to the transaction become solely as against OCC; and (3) OCC becomes obligated to each Clearing Member in accordance with the By-Laws and Rules,
While most trades are functionally novated upon proper submission to OCC for clearing, OCC's current By-Laws and Rules require a user to parse through a number of provisions and definitions in various locations to identify the time at which acceptance and novation occur. For example, the term Confirmed Trade
Under yet another section of the By-Laws, OCC generally has no right (other than regarding certain types of Confirmed Trades discussed below) to reject a Confirmed Trade due to the failure of the Purchasing Clearing Member to pay any amount due to OCC at or before the settlement time.
Certain categories of Confirmed Trades are not subject to the general Commencement Time described above, and OCC retains certain rights to reject such transactions. Specifically, Article VI, Section 5 of the By-Laws excludes the products described below from the general Commencement Time, while setting forth the following alternate definitions of Commencement Time:
(1) For futures issued in exchange-for-physical transactions,
(2) For cross-rate FX options and FX index options: The time that is three hours following the settlement time of the Confirmed Trade in which such contract was purchased;
(3) For OTC Options (other than Backloaded OTC Options): The time when a report of OCC's acceptance is made available to Clearing Members through OCC's clearing system.
That same section of the By-Laws specifies that, for Backloaded OTC Options, the transaction is not accepted for clearing until the Selling Clearing Member has met its regular morning settlement obligation on the business day following the reporting of the trade to OCC.
In addition to the separate Commencement Times for these types of Confirmed Trades, OCC also currently has certain authority to reject such trades due to the failure of the Purchasing Clearing Member to pay an amount due to OCC at or before the applicable settlement time.
(1) For futures issued in exchange-for-physical transactions, block trades, or other trades designated as non-competitively executed: In the event OCC fails to receive any variation payment due in the accounts of the Clearing Members;
(2) For cross-rate FX options and FX index options: In the event OCC fails to receive from the Purchasing Clearing Member premiums denominated in the proper trading currency in the account in which the transaction is effected;
(3) For Backloaded OTC Options: In the event the Selling Clearing Member does not meet its regular morning settlement obligation on the business day following the reporting of the trade to OCC.
To provide greater certainty and clarity to Clearing Members and other interested parties regarding the acceptance and novation timing for transactions that OCC clears and settles, OCC proposed to amend the substance of Article VI, Section 5 of the By-Laws
To accomplish this, OCC proposed to eliminate the concept of Commencement Time and instead deem nearly all Confirmed Trades to be accepted and simultaneously novated when they are reported to OCC and the related position information has been recorded in OCC's clearing system (which occurs on a real-time basis).
OCC also proposed to amend Rule 401 to clarify the trade information required to be submitted by the participant Exchange to OCC as a condition to acceptance and novation. For options transactions, amended Rule 401(a)(1)(i) would provide that these terms include: (a) The identity of the Purchasing Clearing Member and Writing Clearing Member to the transaction; (b) the clearing date; (c) the transaction time; (d) the trade source; (e) the trade quantity; (f) the trade price; (g) the security type; (h) the ticker symbol; (i) the series/contract date; (j) whether the trade is a put or a call; (k) the strike price; (l) whether the trade is a purchase or a sale; (m) the account type; (n) the allocation indicator, if applicable; (o) the CMTA indicator, if applicable; (p) the Give-Up Clearing Member, if applicable; (q) the trade type, including, in the case of futures options, whether the transaction is a block trade, exchange-for-physical, or any other trade designated by the futures market or security futures market reporting the trade as a non-competitively executed trade; (r) in the case of OTC options transactions in a securities customers' account, a unique customer ID for the customer for whom the trade was executed; and (s) in the case of OTC options, such other variable terms as provided in Section 6 of Article XVII of the By-Laws. In addition, new Rule 401(a)(1)(ii) would provide that OCC may also request certain optional trade information that is not required as a condition for acceptance.
For futures transactions, Rule 401(a)(2)(i) would be amended to provide that the required terms for acceptance and novation include: (a) The identity of the Purchasing Clearing Member and the Selling Clearing Member to the transaction; (b) the clearing date; (c) the transaction time; (d) the trade source; (e) the trade quantity; (f) the trade price; (g) the security type; (h) the ticker symbol; (i) the series/contract date; (j) whether the trade is a purchase or a sale; (k) the account type; (l) the allocation indicator, if applicable; (m) the CMTA indicator, if applicable; (n) the Give-Up Clearing Member, if applicable; and (o) whether the trade is an exchange-for-physical or block trade or any other trade designated by the futures market or security futures market reporting the trade as a non-competitively executed trade. In addition, new Rule 401(a)(2)(ii) would provide that OCC may also request certain optional trade information that is not required as a condition for acceptance.
Taken together, these changes are designed to provide a uniform approach for nearly all Confirmed Trades regarding acceptance and novation. OCC believes the changes will reduce the complexity of its Rules and By-Laws, while at the same time providing significantly greater clarity and transparency in OCC's legal framework for Clearing Members and other interested parties concerning the point at which OCC does not have authority to reject a transaction after it has been properly submitted to and validated by OCC. OCC believes that adopting this uniform approach regarding acceptance and novation will neither functionally change the time at which OCC becomes obligated regarding Confirmed Trades nor otherwise alter the credit risk OCC faces with respect to such Confirmed Trades.
First, providing that nearly all Confirmed Trades are accepted and novated upon proper submission functionally would not change the time at which OCC becomes obligated regarding such Confirmed Trades because OCC currently has no right to reject Confirmed Trades, upon proper submission, due to the failure of a Purchasing Clearing Member to pay any amount due to OCC at or before the settlement time. Second, OCC generally does not collect margin with respect to such Confirmed Trades until 9:00 a.m. Central the following business day.
Further, OCC believes that it would be appropriate to also apply the uniform acceptance and novation time to OTC Options that are not Backloaded OTC Options. OTC Options currently are subject to an alternative Commencement Time, designated for OTC Options that are not Backloaded OTC Options as the time when a report of OCC's acceptance is made available to Clearing Members through OCC's clearing system.
For other categories of Confirmed Trades that currently are not subject to the general definition of Commencement Time (
As proposed, an exception to the uniform acceptance and novation timing also would be made for Confirmed Trades that are Backloaded OTC Options, which are defined as OTC Options for which the premium payment date is prior to the business day on which the transaction is submitted to OCC for clearing.
OCC proposed that its acceptance and novation time would no longer be tied to publication of a Daily Position Report, given that OCC's acceptance of a Confirmed Trade would instead be reflected in the position information that OCC makes available to Clearing Members throughout the business day. Accordingly, OCC proposed to amend Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 501 to: (1) Clarify that OCC makes updated position data reflecting accepted and novated trades available to its Clearing Members throughout the day; and (2) remove from that provision a statement that Clearing Members must rely on the Daily Position Report for definitive information regarding their positions.
In addition to its clearance and settlement of Confirmed Trades, OCC also acts as a CCP for certain stock lending transactions that are part of its Stock Loan/Hedge Program and Market Loan Program. OCC proposed to amend its rules for both programs to better describe its process for accepting Hedge Loans and Market Loans and to appropriately harmonize certain provisions governing each type of Stock Loan.
OCC proposed to amend Rule 2202(b) to clarify that OCC receives and accepts completed transaction information from DTC throughout the day, and it would delete the statement that a transaction is deemed accepted by a particular cut off time if OCC does not affirmatively notify Clearing Members of a rejection. Rule 2202(b) would instead state that OCC generally accepts completed transactions reported to it unless: (1) OCC is otherwise required to reject a transaction because it is not in accordance with the By-Laws or Rules;
As with the proposed changes to the Stock Loan Hedge Program, OCC proposed to clarify that OCC receives and accepts completed transaction information from DTC throughout the day. OCC also proposed to delete a reference to affirmative acceptance in Rule 2202A(b) because the other proposed changes would clarify that acceptance will generally take place automatically unless OCC is specifically required to reject transactions due to the deficiencies described above. A conforming change also would be made in this regard in Rule 2202A(c). References to the definitive nature of the Stock Loan Mark to Market Activity Report would be deleted for the same reasons described above regarding Hedge Loans.
As part of its continued effort to streamline its By-Laws and Rules, OCC proposed to relocate certain provisions from Article VI, Sections 4 through 8 of the By-Laws to Chapter IV of the Rules. This change would promote a centralized location for provisions that address trade reporting and novation. OCC also proposed to consolidate certain provisions in Chapter IV of the Rules to eliminate redundancy. These proposed organizational changes are summarized below.
OCC would relocate Article VI, Section 4 of OCC's By-Laws regarding a Purchasing Clearing Member's obligations with respect to a Confirmed Trade, without amendment, to a new Rule 403. As described above, OCC would amend Article VI, Section 5 of the By-Laws regarding OCC's obligations with respect to a Confirmed Trade, and it would be incorporated into existing Rule 401 and new Rule 404. As described above, OCC would amend Article VI, Section 6 of the By-Laws regarding the issuance of cleared contracts, and it would be relocated to a new Rule 405. OCC would relocate Article VI, Section 7 of the By-Laws regarding the reporting of confirmed trades incorporate it into Rule 401. More specifically, Article VI, Section 7(b) of the By-Laws would become Rule 401(e), Section 7(c) would become Rule 401(f), and Interpretation and Policy .01 to Section 7 would become Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 401. As described above, OCC would amend Article VI, Section 8 of the By-Laws regarding payments made to OCC and relocate it to new Rule 406. To accommodate these new rules in Chapter IV, current Rule 403 would be renumbered as 407, and current Rule 405 would be renumbered as Rule 408. Cross-references also would be updated to reflect this renumbering throughout Chapter IV of the Rules, as well as in Article I, Section 1.G.(3) and (4), Article VI, Section 2, and Article XVII, Sections 2(a) and 2(c)(1) of the By-Laws, and Rules 504(e), 504(g), and 611(a).
Additionally, to create a more centralized trade reporting rule, OCC proposed to delete existing Rule 404 regarding the reporting of confirmed trades in OTC Options and to incorporate its substance into Rule 401. This would require the addition of references to OTC Trade Sources in Rule 401(a) and (b), and the merger of language from Rule 404(b) into Rule 401(b) and from Rule 404(c) into Rule 401(d).
OCC no longer clears and settles cross-rate foreign currency options and flexibly-structured index options denominated in a foreign currency. Accordingly, OCC proposed to delete certain provisions from its By-Laws and Rules that only apply to such products. When OCC still actively cleared and settled these products they were subject to delayed novation. OCC therefore believes that eliminating the rules governing these products at this time would avoid confusion and enhance clarity regarding OCC's proposed uniform approach to trade acceptance and novation timing. Consequently, OCC proposed to delete Articles XX and XXIII of its By-Laws, which governs cross-rate foreign currency options, and Chapters XXI and XXIV of its Rules, which govern flexibly-structured index options denominated in a foreign currency. Additionally, OCC proposed to eliminate all other references to such products throughout its By-Laws and Rules, including in Section 1(d) of Article V, and Interpretation and Policy .03 to Section 1 of Article V of the By-Laws and Rules 607, 1107(a)(3) and 1107(a)(4), as well as in the definitions of Option Contract, Trading Currency, and Underlying Currency in Article I of the By-Laws.
OCC also proposed to delete Rule 402 concerning the supplementary reporting of Confirmed Trades. Rule 402 grants OCC the discretion to, in certain extraordinary circumstances, accept from an Exchange after the cut-off time for receiving Confirmed Trade information for a particular business day (“trade date”), supplementary Confirmed Trade information reflecting the comparison of additional trades executed on or before the trade date that remained unconfirmed at the cut-off time. Rule 402 was adopted at a time when OCC received matched trade information from Exchanges for a given trade date in a single batch submission after the close of the trading day.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
The Commission believes that these changes would provide greater clarity and transparency to Clearing Members, other users of OCC, and the general public regarding OCC's processes for the reporting of transactions, acceptance, and novation. Instead of parsing through multiple different definitions and provisions in various locations throughout OCC's By-Laws and Rules to identify the different times at which acceptance and novation occurs for different transactions, users and other interested parties will be able to refer to more uniform approach set forth in a single chapter of OCC's Rules. This, in turn, will help avoid potential confusion and ambiguity. Accordingly, the Commission believes that, taken together, these changes will help foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of securities transactions, promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities and derivatives transactions, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1)
First, by modifying the current process so that all Confirmed Trades, subject to limited exceptions, would be deemed accepted and simultaneously novated when they are reported to OCC and the related position information has been recorded in OCC's clearing system, the proposed rule change would provide a clear and uniform time regarding OCC's acceptance and novation for nearly all Confirmed Trades and clarify OCC's acceptance and novation process regarding Stock Loans. The Commission believes this would bring clarity and transparency to OCC's By-Laws and Rulebook and help simplify the process of reporting transactions, acceptance, and novation, which in turn will help ensure that OCC has a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis regarding the rights and obligations of OCC and Clearing Members regarding Confirmed Trades, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1).
Second, the Commission believes that the streamlining and reorganizing all of the provisions concerning transaction reporting, acceptance, and novation and consolidating them in Chapter IV of the Rules would promote consistency and readability and help avoid potential confusion and ambiguity, and therefore allow the provisions to be more easily understood. For example, enumerating the trade information required to be submitted by participant Exchanges to OCC for options and futures transactions would allow for greater clarity of the information required and that may be requested by OCC. Similarly, by better describing the process by which Hedge Loans and Market Loans are accepted, OCC would harmonize the relevant provisions of its Rulebook governing each type of Stock Loan. In addition, the Commission believes eliminating provisions related to processes no longer supported by OCC and dormant products that are no longer cleared and settled by OCC would improve the clarity and transparency of its By-Laws and Rules. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the changes proposed in the proposed rule change are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) under the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2018-007 and should be submitted on or before June 15, 2018.
As discussed above, OCC submitted Amendment No. 1 to accurately reflect existing Rule 2202(c), which would not be affected by the proposed rule change. The Commission believes that Amendment No. 1 does not raise any novel issues or alter the proposed changes in any way. In addition, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Act and applicable rules thereunder for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to change certain representations made in the respective proposed rule changes previously filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 19b-4 relating to the Peritus High Yield ETF (the “Fund”). Shares of the Fund are currently listed and traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Commission has approved the listing and trading on the Exchange of shares (“Shares”) of the Fund, under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(j)(3) (formerly NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600), which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares.
The Trust has filed a combined prospectus and proxy statement (the “Proxy Statement”) with the Commission on Form N-14 describing a “Plan of Reorganization” pursuant to which, following approval of the Fund's shareholders, all or substantially all of the assets and all of the stated liabilities included in the financial statements of the Fund would be transferred to a new series of Exchange Listed Funds Trust, described below. According to the Proxy Statement, the investment objective of the Fund will be the same following implementation of the Plan of Reorganization (“Reorganization”).
In this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to change certain representations made in the proposed rule changes previously filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 19b-4 relating to the Fund, as described above,
The Notice stated that the Fund is offered by AdvisorShares Trust. Following the Reorganization, the Fund's trust will be Exchange Listed Funds Trust. The Fund's investment adviser is AdvisorShares Investments, LLC. Following the Reorganization, the Fund's investment adviser will be Exchange Traded Concepts, LLC.
An investment adviser to an open-end fund is required to be registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). As a result, with respect to the Fund, Exchange Traded Concepts, LLC and Peritus I Asset Management, LLC, as adviser and sub-adviser, respectively, and their related personnel, are subject to the provisions of Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act relating to codes of ethics. This Rule requires investment advisers to adopt a code of ethics that reflects the fiduciary nature of the relationship to clients as well as compliance with other applicable securities laws. Accordingly, procedures designed to prevent the communication and misuse of non-public information by an investment adviser must be consistent with Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act. In addition, Rule 206(4)-7 under the Advisers Act makes it unlawful for an investment adviser to provide investment advice to clients unless such investment adviser has (i) adopted and implemented written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violation, by the investment adviser and its supervised persons, of the Advisers Act and the Commission rules adopted thereunder; (ii) implemented, at a minimum, an annual review regarding the adequacy of the policies and procedures established pursuant to subparagraph (i) above and the effectiveness of their implementation; and (iii) designated an individual (who is a supervised person) responsible for administering the policies and procedures adopted under subparagraph (i) above.
The investment objective of the Fund will remain unchanged. In addition, the Fund's portfolio meets and will continue to meet the representations regarding the Fund's investments as described in the Releases.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest.
Exchange Listed Funds Trust has filed the Proxy Statement describing the Reorganization pursuant to which, following approval of the Fund's shareholders, all assets of the Fund would be transferred to a corresponding fund of the Exchange Listed Funds Trust, which will have the name Peritus High Yield ETF. This filing proposes to reflect organizational and administrative changes that would be implemented as a result of the Reorganization, including changes to the trust entity issuing shares of the Fund and the adviser to the Fund. As noted above, Exchange Traded Concepts, LLC and Peritus I Asset Management, LLC are not registered as a broker-dealer or affiliated with a broker-dealer. In the event (a) Exchange Listed Funds Trust or Peritus I Asset Management, LLC becomes registered as a broker-dealer or newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser becomes registered as a broker-dealer or newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, it will implement and maintain a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel or such broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio, and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio. According to the Proxy Statement, the investment objective of the Fund will be the same following implementation of the Reorganization. The Exchange believes these changes will not adversely impact investors or Exchange trading. In addition, the Fund's portfolio meets and will continue to meet the representations regarding the Fund's investments as described in the Releases.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition and benefit of investors and the marketplace by permitting continued listing and trading of Shares of the Fund following implementation of the changes described above that would follow the Reorganization, which changes would not impact the investment objective of the Fund.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; or (iii) become operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. Because the vote on the Reorganization will occur before the end of the operative delay, waiver of the operative delay would allow the Exchange to begin implementing the two organizational and administrative changes described above to immediately upon shareholder approval of the Reorganization. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest and hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1095, entitled “Automated Removal of Quotes” and Rule 1099, entitled “Order Protections.”
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 1099, entitled “Order Protections” and reorganize the Rulebook. The Exchange proposes to rename Rule 1099 “Risk Protections” and relocate all the risk protections into a single rule. The Exchange also proposes to categorize the risk protections as order protections, order and quote protections or Specialist
The Exchange proposes to relocate Order Price Protection from Rule 1099(c) to proposed Rule 1099(a)(1) under the title of order protections.
The Exchange proposes to relocate Market Order Spread Protection from Rule 1099(d) to proposed Rule 1099(a)(2) under the title of order protections.
The Exchange proposes to renumber the Acceptable Trade Protection rule text as Rule 1099(b)(1) under the title for order and quote protections.
The Exchange proposes to renumber the Anti-Internalization rule from Rule Rule [sic] 1099(b) to 1099(c)(1) under the title Specialist and Registered Options Traders protections.
The Exchange proposes to relocate the Automated Removal of Quotes rule from Rule 1095 to Rule 1099(c)(2) under the title Specialist and Registered Options Traders protections. The Exchange proposes to reserve Rule 1095.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of 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. The proposal does not impose an intra-market burden on competition with respect to the reorganization and relocation of the various rules into Rule 1099 because the various risk protections will continue to apply uniformly to all market participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing,
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 6, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Trust is registered under the 1940 Act.
• Investments in non-agency, non-government sponsored entity and privately issued mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities (“Private ABS/MBS”) may account for up to 20%
• fixed income securities that do not meet any of the criteria in Commentary .01(b)(4) will not exceed 10%
• the Fund's investments in non-exchange-traded open-end management investment company securities, including “Affiliated Short Term Bond Fund Shares,”
According to the Exchange, these deviations from the generic requirements are necessary for the Fund to achieve its investment objective in a manner that is cost-effective and that maximizes investors' returns.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to list and trade the Shares is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
(A) Component stocks (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities) that in the aggregate account for at least 90% of the equity weight of the portfolio (excluding such Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities) each shall have a minimum market value of at least $75 million;
(B) Component stocks (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities) that in the aggregate account for at least 70% of the equity weight of the portfolio (excluding such Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities) each shall have a minimum monthly trading volume of 250,000 shares, or minimum notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six months;
(C) The most heavily weighted component stock (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities) shall not exceed 30% of the equity weight of the portfolio, and, to the extent applicable, the five most heavily weighted component stocks (excluding Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities) shall not exceed 65% of the equity weight of the portfolio;
(D) Where the equity portion of the portfolio does not include Non-U.S. Component Stocks, the equity portion of the portfolio shall include a minimum of 13 component stocks; provided, however, that there shall be no minimum number of component stocks if (i) one or more series of Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities constitute, at least in part, components underlying a series of Managed Fund Shares, or (ii) one or more series of Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities account for 100% of the equity weight of the portfolio of a series of Managed Fund Shares; and
(E) Except as provided herein, equity securities in the portfolio shall be U.S. Component Stocks listed on a national securities exchange and shall be NMS Stocks as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
With respect to the Fund's investments in shares of non-exchange-traded open-end management investment company securities, including “Affiliated Short Term Bond Fund Shares,” the Commission notes that: (1) Such securities must satisfy applicable 1940 Act diversification requirements; and (2) the value of such securities is based on the value of securities and financial assets held by those investment companies.
The Exchange states that it has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees. The Exchange represents that the Fund's investment adviser and subadviser are not registered as broker-dealers but are affiliated with the Fund's distributor, which is a broker-dealer, and have implemented and will maintain a “fire wall” with respect to such broker-dealer regarding access to information concerning the composition or changes to the Fund's portfolio.
Trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, certain exchange-traded
The Commission also finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act,
The Commission believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session on the Exchange,
In addition, the Portfolio Indicative Value, as defined in NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(c)(3), will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session. The Transfer Agent, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation, makes available on each Business Day, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m. E.T.), the list of the names and the required number of securities for each Deposit Instrument to be included in the current Portfolio Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous Business Day), as well as information regarding the Cash Amount for the Fund. Such Portfolio Deposit is applicable, subject to any adjustments as described below, in order to effect creations of Creation Units of the Fund until such time as the next-announced Portfolio Deposit composition is made available.
The Exchange represents that trading in Shares will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Rule 7.12-E have been reached. Trading also may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange has also made the following representations:
(1) The Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares.
(2) All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this rule filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange.
(3) The issuer will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Rule 5.5(m)-E.
(4) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(5) The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.
(6) For initial and continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act, as provided by NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-E.
(7) A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
(8) Investments in the Affiliated Short Term Bond Fund will not exceed 25% of the total assets of the Fund.
(9) The Fund may invest up to 10% of the total assets of the Fund in shares of other non-exchange-traded open-end management investment company securities.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in Amendment No. 1.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2018-15), as modified by Amendment No. 1, is hereby approved.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 04/04-0299 issued to Plexus Fund I, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and void.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Mississippi dated 05/22/2018.
Issued on 05/22/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15539 C and for economic injury is 15540 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Mississippi, Alabama.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the Commonwealth of Kentucky dated 05/22/2018.
Issued on 05/22/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15524 6 and for economic injury is 15525 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Kentucky, Indiana.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day Notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before July 2, 2018.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 01/01-0408 issued to SEED Ventures, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and void.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State, including by Section 1 of the Department of State Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), and by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs:
(1) The authority set forth in section 101(a)(27)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101) to approve recommendations for the granting of special immigrant status to aliens who qualify under this section in exceptional circumstances and to find that it is in the national interest to grant such status; and
(2) The authority set forth in 22 CFR 42.32(d)(2)(v) to extend the validity of such approval of special immigrant status or of a petition issued on the basis of such status for not more than one additional year.
Any act, executive order, regulation, or procedure subject to, or affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation, or procedure as amended from time to time. The authorities covered by this delegation of authority may be re-
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, and the Under Secretary for Management may at any time exercise any authority or function delegated herein.
This delegation of authority does not supersede or amend Delegation of Authority 367 or any other delegation of authority currently in effect.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
Department of State.
Notice.
The Department of State announces the renewal of the Charter for the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG). The DTAG advises the Department on its support for and regulation of defense trade to help ensure the foreign policy and national security of the United States continue to be protected and advanced, while helping to reduce unnecessary impediments to legitimate exports in order to support the defense requirements of U.S. friends and allies. It is the only Department of State advisory committee that addresses defense trade related topics. The DTAG will remain in existence for two years after the filing date of the Charter unless terminated sooner.
Mr. Anthony Dearth, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Defense Trade Advisory Group, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 663-2836 or email
The DTAG is authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2651a and 2656 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) establishment.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the establishment of the NAC for 2 years. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is establishing the NAC under agency authority in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The NAC is necessary and in the public interest. The nature and purpose of the NAC is to seek resolution of issues and challenges involving concepts, requirements, operational capabilities, the associated use of technology, and related considerations to aeronautical operations that affect the future of the Air Traffic Management System and the integration of new technologies.
Pamela Gomez at
The Federal advisory committee's meetings will be open to the public and announced in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) establishment.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the establishment of the DAC for 2 years. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is establishing the DAC under agency authority in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The DAC is necessary and in the public interest.
The nature and purpose of the DAC is to provide an open venue for FAA and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) stakeholders to work in partnership to develop a consensus-based set of resolutions for issues and challenges regarding the efficiency and safety of integrating UAS into the National Airspace System and to develop recommendations to address these issues and challenges.
Chris Harm at
The Federal advisory committee's meetings will be open to the public and announced in the
The meetings will occur on the following schedule and will take place in the Eastern (Daylight) Time Zone:
The Board meeting will be held from 12:00 noon to 3:00 p.m.
These meetings will be open to the public at the Sonesta Ft. Lauderdale Beach Blvd. Hotel, 999 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304, and via conference call. Those not attending the meetings in person may call toll-free 1-877-422-1931, passcode 2855443940, to listen and participate in the meetings.
Open to the public.
The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board. An agenda for these meetings will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, May 25, 2018 at:
Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the extension of a currently approved information collection: Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program.
Comments must be submitted before July 30, 2018.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Elan Flippin, Office of Program Management (202) 366-3800 or email:
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of Allocation of Emergency Relief funds.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the allocation of $277.5 million under the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program (Emergency Relief Program) to States, Territories, and public transportation agencies affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. Within the $277.5 million announced in this notice, FTA is allocating $233.3 million for response, recovery, and rebuilding projects and $44.2 million for project elements or stand-alone projects that increase the resilience of the affected transit systems to future disasters. Such resilience investments shall be subject to specific conditions cited in this notice.
Contact the appropriate FTA regional office found at
Beginning in August 2017, President Trump issued major disaster declarations associated with Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria for the following States and Territories: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, and the United States Virgin Islands. Numerous counties and parishes in these States and Territories have been designated as eligible for assistance under the major disaster declarations.
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-123) appropriated $330 million for FTA's Emergency Relief Program (49 U.S.C. 5324, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance #20.527) for transit systems affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. FTA is allocating funds consistent with the requirements of the final rule for the Emergency Relief Program, 49 CFR part 602, published in the
From the remaining $327,525,000 currently available for allocation, FTA is allocating $277,525,000 as follows:
1. $232,308,000 for response, recovery, and rebuilding for States, Territories, and FTA direct recipients with estimated FTA Emergency Relief costs, including costs of subrecipients, eligible for reimbursement of more than $25,000
2. $44,217,000 for resilience projects in Florida, Puerto Rico, Texas, and the United States Virgin Islands
3. $1 million for response, recovery, and rebuilding for States, FTA direct recipients, and their subrecipients without a direct allocation of funds
FTA is reserving $50 million for latent damages, damages not assessed in smaller areas, cost increases, and additional Emergency Relief needs that exceed the amounts made available in this notice. FTA may update allocations without further notice based on revised validated damage assessments.
Recipients are strongly encouraged to review FTA's Emergency Relief Manual, found at
FTA is allocating funding in this notice for response, recovery, and rebuilding based on emergency operations costs and detailed damage assessments submitted by affected agencies and prepared in cooperation with FTA and the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) staff. The total estimated cost for emergency transit operations and damage to transit agency assets from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria is $254.1 million. Emergency operations costs, including evacuations and other
Based on these estimates, FTA is allocating a total of $232.3 million for the Federal share (discussed in more detail below) of response, recovery, and rebuilding for States, Territories and FTA direct recipients estimated to have Hurricane Harvey, Irma, and Maria related costs (including costs of subrecipients) eligible for reimbursement by the FTA Emergency Relief Program in excess of $25,000.
In the event an affected recipient believes there has been a change to their overall damage assessment, the recipient should notify the relevant FTA regional office and provide documentation supporting the change for FTA review and validation. If, upon review, FTA concurs in the change, FTA may allocate additional funds to that agency.
Eligible State, Territory and FTA direct recipients not listed in Table B may apply for funding through the appropriate FTA regional office by following the same process as those entities that have been allocated funds in this notice. See Table C: FTA Regional Office Contact Information.
FTA will host a webinar for FTA recipients interested in applying for FTA Emergency Relief funds on a date to be determined. The webinar will be announced on FTA's website and through an email announcement to those who have signed up at
FTA is allocating an additional $44.2 million in Emergency Relief Program funding for projects intended to increase the resilience of public transportation systems (resilience projects) in the major disaster declaration areas of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria to States and Territories that sustained at least $1 million in transit asset damage across all reporting transit providers within the State or Territory based on the validated preliminary damage assessments. States and Territories that met the $1 million threshold are Florida, Puerto Rico, Texas, and the United States Virgin Islands.
The amount of this allocation has been determined by first allocating $5 million in Emergency Relief funds for resilience projects to each of these States and Territories, plus an additional $24.2 million allocated proportionally by ratio of total damage claimed in the validated preliminary damage assessments for each State or Territory to the total damage claimed in the validated preliminary damage assessments for all four States and Territories combined. States and Territories are responsible for allocating funds to eligible resilience projects within the disaster area.
FTA Emergency Relief funds are eligible for Federal share as follows:
• 100 percent Federal share for emergency operations, emergency protective measures, and emergency repair costs incurred for up to 270 days from the date of the major disaster declaration;
• 90 percent Federal share for permanent repairs which include recovery and rebuilding as well as emergency operations, emergency protective measures, and emergency repair costs incurred after 270 days from the date of the declared disaster; and
• 80 percent Federal share for resilience projects.
Pre-award authority is described in the Emergency Relief Program final rule at 49 CFR 602.11. In considering the use of pre-award authority, recipients should be aware of the following:
(i) Pre-award authority is not a legal or implied commitment that the subject project will be approved for FTA assistance or that FTA will obligate Federal funds. Furthermore, it is not a legal or implied commitment that all activities undertaken by the applicant will be eligible for inclusion in the project.
(ii) Except as waived pursuant to the waiver process described in Section I.I of this notice, all FTA statutory, procedural, and contractual requirements must be met.
(iii) The recipient must take no action that prejudices the legal and administrative findings that FTA must make in order to approve a project.
(iv) The Federal amount of any future FTA assistance awarded to the recipient for the project will be determined on the basis of the overall scope of activities and the prevailing statutory provisions with respect to the Federal/non-Federal match ratio at the time the funds are obligated.
(v) When FTA subsequently awards a grant for the project, the Federal Financial Report in TrAMS indicates the use of pre-award authority.
FTA grants pre-award authority to affected recipients for response, recovery, and rebuilding expenses incurred as a result of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. Pre-award authority applies to expenses incurred in preparation for the arrival of the storms in response to forecasts specific to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. Pre-award authority allows affected recipients to incur certain project costs before grant approval and retain the eligibility of those costs for subsequent reimbursement after grant approval.
If a recipient intends to use pre-award authority for recovery and rebuilding expenses, FTA recommends the recipient work with the appropriate FTA regional office (see Table C) to verify that all of the proposed costs are all eligible under the Emergency Relief Program, in advance of incurring any costs to the extent practicable.
Resilience projects may be granted pre-award authority after FTA reviews and approves a State or Territory's resilience projects, as discussed later in this notice.
Resilience projects funded through the FTA Emergency Relief Program resilience allocations to Florida, Puerto Rico, Texas, and United States Virgin Islands must be submitted to FTA for review and approval in either a program of projects (POP) or individually prior to grant award. For the purposes of this notice, a POP is a list of resilience projects proposed by the State or Territory to be funded from the resilience allocations in this notice. If more than one recipient will apply for grants for projects in the POP, each grant application must include the portion of the POP that identifies the projects to be funded in the grant. The POP must include a description of each project to be funded from the State or Territory's allocation, including any suballocation among public transportation providers, total project costs, local share, and Federal share for each project. Eligibility for resilience funding also requires the applicable Metropolitan Planning Organization(s) (MPO) to list projects in the approved Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for metropolitan areas or the approved STIP for nonmetropolitan areas.
FTA is implementing a blanket waiver to relieve FTA recipients from its useful life requirement with respect to assets that were destroyed as a result of the storms and taken out of service before the end of their useful life. Such assets are presumed to have no remaining useful life. As a result of this waiver, recipients may apply for funds to replace assets at a 90% Federal share without regard to the Federal interest remaining in the destroyed asset.
Although FTA has determined that Federally-funded assets destroyed by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria have no remaining useful life, recipients may have a financial obligation to FTA for assets that have a fair market value (FMV) in excess of $5,000 at the time of disposition. For disposition requirements, please see FTA Circular 5010.1E, “Award Management Requirements,” Chapter IV, subsection 4.
As described in the Emergency Relief Program Manual, and consistent with the Emergency Relief Program final rule and FTA's Circular 5010.1E: Award Management Requirements, if a recipient receives or allocates insurance proceeds to a cost for which FTA either allocated or awarded Emergency Relief Program funds, the recipient will be required to amend the grant to reflect a reduced Federal amount, and will be required to reimburse FTA for any FTA payments (drawdown of funds) in excess of the new Federal amount. FTA will deobligate any excess or unliquidated funds from the grant. FTA may subsequently reallocate these funds through the Emergency Relief Program for other eligible projects.
In the event a recipient receives insurance proceeds for an asset and decides not to replace that asset, the waiver of useful life described in Section I.F does not apply, and the recipient must reimburse FTA the remaining Federal interest in that asset in accordance with FTA Circular 5010.1E.
The non-Federal share of Emergency Relief grants may be provided from an undistributed cash surplus, a replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve, or new capital. In addition, recipients may utilize the following provisions for complying with the non-Federal share requirement.
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) statute at 42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(9) provides that “payment of the non-Federal share required in connection with a Federal grant-in-aid program undertaken as part of activities assisted under [chapter 53 of title 42]” is an eligible activity. Since the CDBG statute specifically is available to fund the “non-Federal share” of other Federal
Recipients may also utilize Transportation Development Credits (TDCs), formerly known as Toll Revenue Credits, in place of the non-Federal share. The use of TDCs must be approved by the State, which must send a letter to the FTA regional office certifying the availability of sufficient TDCs and approving their use prior to submitting a grant application. Recipients are advised that the use of TDCs means that no local funds will be required for projects in the grant, and that the funds allocated by FTA may not alone be sufficient to fund the entirety of the proposed Emergency Relief projects. FTA will not allocate additional Federal funds to recipients that use TDCs in place of the non-Federal share, so sufficient alternative funds may need to be located to fully finance projects utilizing TDCs. FTA will not approve a retroactive application of TDCs. Recipients are advised to contact the applicable FTA regional office regarding any questions about eligible sources of local matching funds.
Recipients may request waivers of FTA administrative requirements by submitting a request to
Once FTA allocates Emergency Relief funds to a recipient, the recipient will be required to submit a grant application electronically via FTA's TrAMS system. Prior to submitting a grant application for response, recovery, or rebuilding projects, recipients are encouraged to submit a proposed list of projects and expenses to FTA's regional office for review. This review will ensure that all proposed projects and costs are eligible under the Emergency Relief Program.
States and FTA direct recipients not reporting Hurricane Harvey, Irma, and Maria related expenses of $25,000 or more were not given a direct allocation of Emergency Relief funds in this notice. However, such entities may apply for Emergency Relief funds for response, recovery, and rebuilding by following the same process as those entities that have been allocated funds in this notice.
Each State or Territory allocated resilience funds, in consultation with the public transportation providers in the Hurricane Harvey, Irma, or Maria major disaster declaration areas in their State or Territory, must submit proposed resilience projects either individually or as part of a program of projects to FTA for review and approval prior to submitting a grant application or modification in TrAMS. States and Territories allocated resilience funding may apply for funding on behalf of public transportation providers in Hurricane Harvey, Irma, and Maria major disaster declaration areas in their State or Territory. Direct recipients of FTA funding may also apply directly to FTA for funding for resilience projects previously identified by the State or Territory and approved by FTA.
FTA has assigned distinct project identification numbers for recovery/rebuilding projects and for resilience projects. Recipients should work with the FTA regional offices to determine when, if appropriate, multiple grant applications may be required. While there is nothing that precludes the obligation of funding allocated for resilience projects in the same grant as recovery and rebuilding projects, recipients will be required to track these costs separately and to include a separate scope for costs associated with resilience projects. This will allow FTA to track the obligation of funds for resilience costs.
Recipients are required to maintain records, including but not limited to all invoices, contracts, time sheets, and other evidence of expenses to assist FTA in validating the eligibility and completeness of a recipient's reimbursement requests under the Improper Payment Information Act.
Upon application, the eligible recipient should provide the information outlined in 49 CFR 602.17. For grant applications for reimbursement for emergency operations costs, applicants should include summary information as described in 49 CFR 602.17(c) (dates, hours, number of vehicles, and total fare revenues, if any, received for the emergency service), as well as cost and a description of services in sufficient detail for FTA to identify the costs as reasonable and eligible under the Emergency Relief Program. Back-up or supporting documentation may be requested upon FTA's review of the application or at a later date. Any costs determined to be ineligible after disbursement of funds must be refunded to FTA.
Upon award, payments to recipients will be made by electronic transfer to the recipient's financial institution through FTA's Electronic Clearing House Operation (ECHO) system.
Emergency Relief funds may only be used for eligible purposes as defined under 49 U.S.C. 5324 and as described in the Emergency Relief Program final rule (49 CFR part 602) and this notice.
Recipients of section 5324 funds must comply with all applicable Federal requirements, including FTA's Master Agreement. Each grant for section 5324 funds will include special grant conditions, including but not limited to, application of insurance proceeds, application of any FEMA funds received, and Federal share. These special conditions will be incorporated into the grant agreement for all Hurricane Harvey, Irma, and Maria Emergency Relief funds.
Post-award reporting requirements include submission of the Federal Financial Report and Milestone Progress Reports in TrAMS consistent with FTA's grants management Circular 5010.1E.
FTA will provide oversight of grants funded through the Emergency Relief Program using its standard oversight programs, including Triennial Reviews and State Management Reviews. FTA may assign program level reviews such as Procurement System Reviews or Financial Management Oversight reviews. FTA will monitor the use of insurance proceeds to ensure they meet program requirements. FTA may undertake other reviews of projects, such as Technical Capacity and Capability Assessments; Risk Assessments; Cost, Schedule, and Scope Reviews; and other reviews FTA determines are necessary.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
This notice provides interested parties with the opportunity to comment on the Maritime Administration's (MARAD) application process to designate training entities as Centers of Excellence for Domestic Maritime Workforce Training and Education (CoE). The Secretary of Transportation, acting through the Maritime Administrator, may make CoE designations and enter Cooperative Agreements with CoE designees. MARAD is developing the below Proposed Applicant Guide and invites public comment to ensure that the designation procedure and guidance is simple, clear, and comprehensive.
Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2018. MARAD will consider comments filed after this date to the extent practicable.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2018-0088 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All comments received will be posted without change to
You may contact Nuns Jain, Maritime Administration, at 757-322-5801 or by electronic mail at
Following the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2018, Public Law 115-91 (the “NDAA”), MARAD is developing a procedure to designate eligible institutions as Centers of Excellence for Domestic Maritime Workforce Training and Education (CoE). Qualified training entities seeking to be designated as a CoE will be required to apply with MARAD. The application will include information to demonstrate that the applicant institution meets certain eligibility criteria, designation requirements, and attributes consistent with Section 3507 of the NDAA, codified at 46 U.S.C. 54102. The final MARAD application process and procedure will be made available to the public on its website
In addition to seeking general comments on the proposed applicant guide, the agency is interested in learning 1. Whether the proposed definitions of “Community or Technical College”, “Maritime Training Center” and “Operated by, or under the supervision of a State” are clear, appropriate and adequate to cover all institutions who may be eligible to apply for designation under the statute; 2. Whether the proposed Designation Requirements and Designation Attributes are clear, appropriate, and adequate; and 3. Whether there are less burdensome methods to evidence applicant qualifications.
a. “Afloat Career” means a career as a merchant mariner compensated for service aboard a vessel in the U.S. merchant marine. This includes vessels of all types covering all U.S. Merchant Marine segments, whether or not documented, including, but not limited to—oceangoing, coastwise, Great Lakes, inland, harbor, towing, offshore industry, cruise, pleasure boats, tourist boats, ferries, dredging, research vessels, government-owned, etc.;
b. “Arctic”—means all United States and foreign territory north of the Arctic Circle and all United States territory north and west of the boundary formed by the Porcupine, Yukon, and Kuskokwim Rivers; all contiguous seas, including the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi Seas; and the Aleutian chain. [Section 112 of the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, codified at 15 U.S.C. 4111];
c. “Ashore Career” means a career in in the shore based maritime industry. Ashore based maritime industry includes, but is not limited to vessel operations, ship management, ship building and ship repair, port operations and management, marine terminal operations and management, vessel design, ship brokerage, marine insurance, pilotage, towing industry, offshore industry, dredging and maritime-oriented supply chain operations;
d. “Community or Technical College” means an institution of higher education that
(A) admits as regular students, persons who are beyond the age of compulsory school attendance in the State in which the institution is located; and
(B) does not provide an educational program for which the institution awards a bachelor's degree (or an equivalent degree); and
(C) (i) provides an educational program of not less than 2 years in duration that is acceptable for full credit toward a bachelor's or equivalent degree; or
(ii) offers at least a 2-year program in engineering, mathematics, or the physical or biological sciences, designed to prepare a student to work as a technician or at the semiprofessional level in an industry field that involves engineering, scientific, or other technological fields requiring the understanding and application of basic engineering, scientific, or mathematical principles of knowledge; and
(D) that is partially supported by public funds from the state or its political subdivisions.
e. “Maritime Training Center” means a training institution—
(A) that provides a structured program of training courses to prepare students and/or enhance their skills for Afloat Careers and/or Ashore Careers in the maritime industry; and
(B) that is not a “Community or Technical College”
f. “Mississippi River System” means the mostly riverine network of the United States which includes the Mississippi River, and all connecting waterways, natural tributaries and distributaries. The system includes the Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Red, Allegheny, Tennessee, Wabash and Atchafalaya rivers. Important connecting waterways include the Illinois Waterway, the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway;
g. “Operated by, or under the supervision of a State” means operated by or under the supervision or control of a public entity of a State government or one of its subdivisions, including, but not limited to, county governments, city or local governments, and public-school systems;
h. United States Maritime Industry includes all segments of the working community involving the maritime related transportation activities involving the transportation system of the United States, both in domestic and foreign trade, blue water and brown water, coastal and inland waters, as well as non-commercial maritime activities, such as pleasure boating, and all of the industries that support such uses, including, but not limited to vessel construction and repair, vessel operations, ship logistics supply, berthing, port operations, port intermodal operations, marine terminal operations, vessel design, marine brokerage, marine insurance, marine financing, chartering, maritime-oriented supply chain operations, offshore industry.
Pursuant to Section 3507 of the National Defense Authorization Act, 2018, Public Law 115-91 (December 12, 2017), codified at 46 U.S.C. 54102, the Secretary of Transportation may:
a. Designate a covered training entity as a Center of Excellence for Domestic Maritime Workforce Training and Education (CoE).
b. Enter into a cooperative agreement with a designated CoE.
An educational institution that provides training and education for the domestic maritime workforce is eligible to apply to MARAD for designation as a CoE if it can demonstrate satisfactory compliance with the following Eligibility Criteria for a covered training entity under the statute:
I. The institution is in a State that borders on the:
a. Gulf of Mexico;
b. Atlantic Ocean;
c. Long Island Sound;
d. Pacific Ocean;
e. Great Lakes;
f. Mississippi River System;
g. Arctic; or
h. Gulf of Alaska.
II. The institution is either:
a. A Community or Technical College; or
b. A Maritime Training Center.
i. Operated by, or under the supervision of a State; and
ii. With a maritime training program in operation in its curriculum on 12/12/2017.
An eligible training institution applicant must demonstrate satisfactory compliance with the Designation Requirements listed under III through V and the qualitative Designation Attributes listed under VI below.
III. The academic programs offered by the institution will include:
a. One or more Afloat Career preparation tracks in the United States Maritime Industry, and/or
b. One or more Ashore Career preparation tracks in the United States Maritime Industry.
IV. Institutions offering Afloat Career tracks will:
a. Meet Regional and/or state accreditation, as applicable; and
b. Maintain United States Coast Guard (USCG) approval for the merchant mariner training program and/or merchant mariner training course(s) offered by the institution, as applicable; and
c. Provide recruitment and placement statistics that clearly document institutional effectiveness.
V. Institutions offering Ashore Career tracks will:
a. Meet Regional and/or state accreditation, as applicable; and
b. Maintain authorization and/or endorsement of the program and/or course(s) by an applicable professional society or industry body (Welding, Electrician, Electronics etc.) to issue industry accepted Certifications that reflect a professionally recognized level of educational or technical skill achievement; and
c. Provide recruitment and placement statistics that clearly document institutional effectiveness.
VI. In addition to meeting the requirements listed above, the CoE is expected to foster the following desirable attributes:
a. Support the workforce needs of the local, state, or regional economy; and
b. Build the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) competencies of local/future workforce to meet emerging local, regional, and national economic interests; and
c. Promote diversity and inclusion among the student body; and
d. Offer a broad-based curriculum and stackable credentials where applicable; and
e. Engage and/or collaborate with the maritime industry; and
f. Engage and/or collaborate with maritime high schools; and
g. Engage and/or collaborate with maritime academies and other institutions for advanced proficiency and higher education.
The Maritime Administrator, or designee, may enter into a cooperative agreement with a covered training entity that has been designated a CoE to support maritime workforce training and education, including but not limited to efforts of the CoE to:
a. Recruit, admit and train students;
b. Recruit and train faculty;
c. Expand and enhance facilities;
d. Create new maritime career pathways;
e. Award students credit for prior experience, including military service;
f. Provide funding to the CoE by grants or otherwise where such funding is appropriated for such purposes; or
g. Such other activities that are determined by the Maritime Administration and the CoE that would further maritime workforce training and education.
The specific assistance that the Maritime Administration may offer under the cooperative agreement includes, but is not limited to:
a. Donation of surplus equipment to CoEs that also meet the requirements of 46 U.S.C. 51103(b)(2)(C);
b. Temporary use of MARAD vessels and assets for indoctrination, training, and assistance, subject to availability and approval by MARAD, and where applicable, the Department of Defense;
c. Availability of MARAD subject matter experts to address students when feasible; and
d. The provision of funding, to the extent such funds are appropriated, available for CoEs under appropriations law, and notification to CoEs.
All applications for CoE designation
MARAD will publish a
The application should include sufficient information to demonstrate that the applicant institution meets the Eligibility Criteria, Designation Requirements and Designation Attributes listed above.
During the evaluation of the application and the supporting documentation. MARAD may request clarifications or additional information from the applicant. MARAD will notify the applicant of the decision regarding approval or disapproval for designation within 120 days after receipt of the application. In the case of approval, MARAD will thereafter publish the designated CoE's name and contact information on its website.
Upon designation, MARAD may enter into a cooperative agreement with the designated institution in accordance with Sections 5 and 6 of this applicant guide. MARAD will develop and forward an agreement draft for the designated institution's review before the agreement is executed.
The designated institution shall submit an annual statement of continued compliance with the designation criteria listed under Questions 3 and 4 and an annual update to the recruitment and placement statistics proffered in their application. At any time, MARAD may request a designated institution to provide updated information to support its continued status as a CoE.
The duration of a CoE designation shall be for a period of five years from the date of designation.
A designated training institution may apply for renewal of its CoE designation six months prior to its expiration. MARAD may renew the CoE designation and the Cooperative Agreement if the designated institution successfully demonstrates sustained excellence at a level which initially earned the institution the CoE designation. The institution must also demonstrate excellence in accordance with the applicable Designation Requirements and Attributes in place at the time of such renewals. There is no limit on the number of times MARAD may renew the CoE designation of a particular training institution.
DOT/MARAD may, after notice and an opportunity to respond, suspend or revoke the CoE designation of a training institution, if there is evidence of the designated institution's non-compliance with the designation criteria or the terms of the cooperative agreement. A CoE designation shall be subject to removal if it ceases to meet either the CoE requirements and attributes identified in this applicant guide, loses its approvals to teach accredited courses, or for good cause shown as determined by the Maritime Administration. Designated institutions can appeal revocation of the designation by appealing to the Maritime Administrator or his designated representative. The appeal must be in writing and address the specific reasons why you believe your designation should be reinstated by MARAD.
Please submit your comments, including any attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Please note that even after the comment period has closed, MARAD will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available.
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR Sections 1.92 and 1.93.
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to start a new information collection. Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
Comments must be received on or before July 30, 2018.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-NHTSA-2018-0034] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michael Frenchik, Office of Data Acquisition, Safety Systems Management Division (NSA-0130), Room W53-303, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Frenchik's telephone number is (202) 366-0641. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
Historically, NHTSA has been collecting vehicle crash data from States through several programs, including, the State Data System (SDS), the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) and the Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS). Even though each of these data collection programs collects data for its own focus area, all these programs include crash data from the States' crash data systems. Each of these programs retrieves data from the States separately. The process of retrieving data from States is also not automated, requiring manual data entry. The following are brief descriptions of these data collection programs:
• FARS is a nationwide census of fatalities suffered in motor vehicle traffic crashes;
• CRSS is a nationally representative sample of police-reported crashes involving all types of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists, ranging from property-damage-only crashes to those that result in fatalities;
• CISS is a nationally representative sample of minor, serious, and fatal crashes involving at least one passenger vehicle—cars, light trucks, sport utility vehicles, and vans—towed from the scene;
• SDS collects vehicle crash data files from a limited number of States.
Over the last decade or so, efforts have been underway to consolidate, improve, and automate data management at Federal and State levels. Many States have built centralized databases for their crash data. With the adoption of new data management technologies and increased adoption of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) guideline, the timing is now ideal to pursue the electronic transfer of State crash data to NHTSA. The State Data Transfer effort will automate the transfer of the State's motor vehicle crash data, including crashes resulting in fatalities, injuries and property damage only, into a federal data warehouse. NHTSA will use the data collected in this federal data warehouse to replace the manual data collection and coding to the extent possible for SDS, FARS, CRSS, and CISS. Data in this federal data warehouse will also be available to other federal agencies to analyze safety trends and identify safety issues across the nation. Through NHTSA's State Data Transfer collection effort, NHTSA seeks to reduce or eliminate the redundant processes and have more accurate, high quality and timely data to help save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic costs due to motor vehicle crashes.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (Department) or (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Office of the Secretary (OST) announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. Executive Order 12862 directs Federal agencies to provide service to the public that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. In order to work continuously to ensure that our programs are effective and meet our customers' needs, the Department of Transportation (DOT) seeks to obtain OMB approval of a generic clearance to collect feedback on our service delivery. The
Comments on this notice must be received by July 2, 2018.
Your comments should be identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0031 and may be submitted through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Habib Azarsina, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-1965 (Voice), 202-366-7870 (Fax), or
The Department will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary.
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government.
• The collections are noncontroversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies.
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future.
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained.
Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the Department (if released, the Department must indicate the qualitative nature of the information).
This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional
On May 18, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. CONTRERAS HERNANDEZ, Marleny Josefina (Latin: CONTRERAS HERNÁNDEZ, Marleny Josefina) (a.k.a. CONTRERAS DE CABELLO, Marleny; a.k.a. CONTRERAS DE CABELLO, Marleny Josefina; a.k.a. CONTRERAS, Marleny), Monagas, Venezuela; DOB 14 Jun 1963; citizen Venezuela; Gender Female; Cedula No. 6437804 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA]. Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of Executive Order 13692 of March 8, 2015, “Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela” (E.O. 13692), for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
2. CABELLO RONDON, Diosdado (Latin: CABELLO RONDÓN, Diosdado), Monagas, Venezuela; DOB 15 Apr 1963; citizen Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. 8370825 (Venezuela); Passport A0237802 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA]. Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692 for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
3. CABELLO RONDON, Jose David (Latin: CABELLO RONDÓN, José David), Monagas, Venezuela; DOB 11 Sep 1969; citizen Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. 10300226 (Venezuela); Passport B0133819 (Venezuela) expires 08 Apr 2013 (individual) [VENEZUELA]. Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692 for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
4. SARRIA DIAZ, Rafael Alfredo (a.k.a. SARRIA, Rafael; a.k.a. SARRIA-DIAZ, Rafael A), Miranda, Venezuela; La Moraleja, Madrid, Spain; 9410 NW 14th Street, Pembroke Pines, FL 33024, United States; 5599 NW 23rd Ave, Boca Raton, FL 33496, United States; 480 Park Avenue, Apt. 10B, New York, NY 10022, United States; Calle de la Pena Pintada, 11, Madrid, Comunidad de Madrid 28034, Spain; Calle Los Malabares, Quinta Anauco, Valle Arriba, Caracas, Miranda 1080, Venezuela; DOB 11 Nov 1965; Gender Male; Cedula No. 6974302 (Venezuela); Passport 114910699 (Venezuela) expires 02 Feb 2020; alt. Passport F0018546 (Venezuela) expires 02 Jul 2014 (individual) [VENEZUELA] (Linked To: CABELLO RONDON, Diosdado). Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(E) of E.O. 13692 for having acted for or on behalf of CABELLO RONDON, Diosdado, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13692.
1. 11420 CORP., 5599 NW 23rd Avenue, Boca Raton, FL 33496, United States; 11420 NW 4 Street, Plantation, FL 33325, United States; Company Number 27-0746046 (United States) [VENEZUELA] (Linked To: SARRIA DIAZ, Rafael Alfredo). Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(E) of E.O. 13692 for being owned or controlled by SARRIA DIAZ, Rafael Alfredo, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13692.
2. NOOR PLANTATION INVESTMENTS LLC, 5599 NW 23rd Avenue, Boca Raton, FL 33496, United States; 11401 NW 2 Street, Plantation, FL 33325, United States; 11441 NW 2 Street, Plantation, FL 33325, United States; 11481 NW 2 Street, Plantation, FL 33325, United States; Company Number 27-1713953 (United States) [VENEZUELA] (Linked To: SARRIA DIAZ, Rafael Alfredo). Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(E) of E.O. 13692 for being owned or controlled by SARRIA DIAZ, Rafael Alfredo, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13692.
3. SAI ADVISORS INC., 5599 NW 23rd Avenue, Boca Raton, FL 33496, United States; 11251 NW 2 Street, Plantation, FL 33325, United States; 11250 NW 4 Street, Plantation, FL 33325, United States; 11201 NW 2 Street, Plantation, FL 33325, United States; 11351 NW 2 Street, Plantation, FL 33325, United States; 11301 NW 2 Street, Plantation, FL 33325, United States; 11300 NW 4 Street, Plantation, FL 33325, United States; 11350 NW 4 Street, Plantation, FL 33325, United States; 11200 NW 4 Street, Plantation, FL 33325, United States; Company Number 68-0678326 (United States) [VENEZUELA] (Linked To: SARRIA DIAZ, Rafael Alfredo). Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(E) of E.O. 13692 for being owned or controlled by SARRIA DIAZ, Rafael Alfredo, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13692.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of intent to distribute offset for Fiscal Year 2018.
Pursuant to the
Certifications to obtain a continued dumping and subsidy offset under a particular order or finding must be received by July 30, 2018. Any certification received after July 30, 2018 will be summarily denied, making claimants ineligible for the distribution.
Certifications and any other correspondence (whether by mail, or an express or courier service) must be addressed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Revenue Division, Attention: CDSOA Team, 6650 Telecom Drive, Suite 100, Indianapolis, IN 46278.
Sean Wuethrich, CDSOA Team, Revenue Division, 6650 Telecom Drive, Suite 100, Indianapolis, IN 46278; telephone (317) 614-4462.
The
The CDSOA amended title VII of the
(A) Was a petitioner or interested party in support of a petition with respect to which an antidumping order, a finding under the
(B) Remains in operation continuing to produce the product covered by the countervailing duty order, the antidumping duty order, or the finding under the
(C) Has not been acquired by another company or business that is related to a company that opposed the antidumping or countervailing duty investigation that led to the order or finding (
Section 7601(a) of the
Historically, the antidumping and countervailing duties assessed and received by CBP on CDSOA-subject entries, along with the interest assessed and received on those duties pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1677g, were transferred to the CDSOA Special Account for distribution. 66 FR 48546, Sept. 21, 2001;
Section 605 of the
On May 23, 2017, President Trump ordered the sequester of non-exempt budgetary resources for Fiscal Year 2018 pursuant to section 251A of the
Because of the statutory constraints in the assessments of antidumping and countervailing duties, as well as the additional time involved when the Government must initiate litigation to collect delinquent antidumping and countervailing duties, the CDSOA distribution process will be continued for an undetermined period. Consequently, the full impact of the CDSOA repeal on amounts available for distribution may be delayed for several years. It should also be noted that amounts distributed may be subject to recovery as a result of reliquidations, court actions, administrative errors, and other reasons.
It is the responsibility of the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to ascertain and timely forward to CBP a list of the affected domestic producers that are potentially eligible to
A significant amount of litigation has challenged various provisions of the CDSOA, including the definition of the term “affected domestic producer.” In two decisions the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) upheld the constitutionality of the support requirement contained in the CDSOA. Specifically, in
Domestic producers who are not on the USITC list but believe they nonetheless are eligible for a CDSOA distribution under one or more antidumping and/or countervailing duty cases are required, as are all potential claimants that expressly appear on the list, to properly file their certification(s) within 60 days after this notice is published. Such domestic producers must allege all other bases for eligibility in their certification(s). CBP will evaluate the merits of such claims in accordance with the relevant statutes, regulations, and decisions. Certifications that are not timely filed within the requisite 60 days and/or that fail to sufficiently establish a basis for eligibility will be summarily denied. Additionally, CBP may not make a final decision regarding a claimant's eligibility to receive funds until certain legal issues which may affect that claimant's eligibility are resolved. In these instances, CBP may withhold an amount of funds corresponding to the claimant's alleged
It should also be noted that the Federal Circuit ruled in
It is noted that CBP published Treasury Decision (T.D.) 01-68 (Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset to Affected Domestic Producers) in the
This document announces that CBP intends to distribute to affected domestic producers the assessed antidumping or countervailing duties, 1677g interest, and interest provided for in 19 U.S.C. 4401 that are available for distribution in Fiscal Year 2018 in connection with those antidumping duty orders or findings or countervailing duty orders that are listed in this document. All distributions will be issued by paper check to the address provided by the claimants. Section 159.62(a) of title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 159.62(a)) provides that CBP will publish such a notice of intention to distribute at least 90 calendar days before the end of a fiscal year. Failure to publish the notice at least 90 calendar days before the end of the fiscal year will not affect an affected domestic producer's obligation to file a timely certification within 60 days after the notice is published.
To obtain a distribution of the offset under a given order or finding (including any distribution under 19 U.S.C. 4401), an affected domestic producer (and anyone alleging eligibility to receive a distribution) must submit a certification for each order or finding under which a distribution is sought, to CBP, indicating its desire to receive a distribution. To be eligible to obtain a distribution, certifications must be received by CBP no later than 60 calendar days after the date of publication of this notice of intent to distribute in the
As required by 19 CFR 159.62(b), this notice provides the case name and number of the order or finding concerned, as well as the specific instructions for filing a certification under section 159.63 to claim a distribution. Section 159.62(b) also provides that the dollar amounts subject to distribution that are contained in the Special Account for each listed order or finding are to appear in this notice. However, these dollar amounts were not available in time for inclusion in this publication. The preliminary amounts will be posted on the CBP website (
CBP will provide general information to claimants regarding the preparation of certification(s). However, it remains the sole responsibility of the domestic producer to ensure that the certification is correct, complete, and accurate so as to demonstrate the eligibility of the domestic producer for the distribution requested. Failure to ensure that the certification is correct, complete, and accurate as provided in this notice will result in the domestic producer not receiving a distribution and/or a demand for the return of funds.
Specifically, to obtain a distribution of the offset under a given order or finding (including any distribution under 19 U.S.C. 4401), each potential claimant must timely submit a certification containing the required information detailed below as to the
A successor to a company that was an affected domestic producer at the time of acquisition should consult 19 CFR 159.61(b)(1)(i). Any company that files a certification claiming to be the successor company to an affected domestic producer will be deemed to have consented to joint and several liability for the return of any overpayments arising under section 159.64(b)(3) that were previously paid to the predecessor. CBP may require the successor company to provide documents to support its eligibility to receive a distribution as set out in section 159.63(d). Additionally, any individual or company who purchases any portion of the operating assets of an affected domestic producer, a successor to an affected domestic producer, or an entity that otherwise previously received distributions may be jointly and severally liable for the return of any overpayments arising under section 159.64(b)(3) that were previously paid to the entity from which the operating assets were purchased or its predecessor, regardless of whether the purchasing individual or company is deemed a successor company for purposes of receiving distributions.
A member company (or its successor) of an association that appears on the list of affected domestic producers in this notice, where the member company itself does not appear on this list, should consult 19 CFR 159.61(b)(1)(ii). Specifically, for a certification under 19 CFR 159.61(b)(1)(ii), the claimant must name the association of which it is a member, specifically establish that it was a member of the association at the time the association filed the petition with the USITC, and establish that the claimant is a current member of the association. In order to promote accurate filings and more efficiently process the distributions, we offer the following guidance:
• If claimants are members of an association but the association does not file on their behalf, the association will need to provide its members with a statement that contains notarized company-specific information including dates of membership and an original signature from an authorized representative of the association.
• An association filing a certification on behalf of a member must also provide a power of attorney or other evidence of legal authorization from each of the domestic producers it is representing.
• Any association filing a certification on behalf of a member is responsible for verifying the legal sufficiency and accuracy of the member's financial records, which support the claim, and is responsible for that certification. As such, an association filing a certification on behalf of a member is jointly and severally liable with the member for repayment of any claim found to have been paid or overpaid in error.
The association may file a certification in its own right to claim an offset for that order or finding, but its qualifying expenditures would be limited to those expenditures that the association itself has incurred after the date of the order or finding in connection with the particular case.
As provided in 19 CFR 159.63(a), certifications to obtain a distribution of an offset (including any distribution under 19 U.S.C. 4401) must be received by CBP no later than 60 calendar days after the date of publication of the notice of intent in the
A list of all certifications received will be published on the CBP website (
While there is no required format for a certification, CBP has developed a standard certification form to aid claimants in filing certifications. The certification form is available at
Regardless of the format for a certification, per 19 CFR 159.63(b), the certification must contain the following information:
(1) The date of this
(2) The Department of Commerce antidumping or countervailing duty case number (for example, A-331-802);
(3) The case name (product/country);
(4) The name of the domestic producer and any name qualifier, if applicable (for example, any other name under which the domestic producer does business or is also known);
(5) The mailing address of the domestic producer (if a post office box, the physical street address must also appear) including, if applicable, a specific room number or department;
(6) The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) number (with suffix) of the domestic producer, employer identification number, or social security number, as applicable;
(7) The specific business organization of the domestic producer (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship);
(8) The name(s) of any individual(s) designated by the domestic producer as the contact person(s) concerning the certification, together with the phone number(s), mailing address, and, if available, facsimile transmission number(s) and electronic mail (email) address(es) for the person(s). Correspondence from CBP may be directed to the designated contact(s) by either mail or phone or both;
(9) The total dollar amount claimed;
(10) The dollar amount claimed by category, as described in the section below entitled “Amount Claimed for Distribution”;
(11) A statement of eligibility, as described in the section below entitled “Eligibility to Receive Distribution”; and
(12) For certifications not submitted electronically through
Qualifying expenditures that may be offset under the CDSOA encompass those expenditures incurred by the domestic producer after issuance of an antidumping duty order or finding or a countervailing duty order (including expenditures incurred on the date of the order's issuance), and prior to its
For the convenience and ease of the domestic producers, CBP is providing guidance on what the agency takes into consideration when making a calculation for each of the following categories:
(1) Manufacturing facilities (Any facility used for the transformation of raw material into a finished product that is the subject of the related order or finding);
(2) Equipment (Goods that are used in a business environment to aid in the manufacturing of a product that is the subject of the related order or finding);
(3) Research and development (Seeking knowledge and determining the best techniques for production of the product that is the subject of the related order or finding);
(4) Personnel training (Teaching of specific useful skills to personnel, that will improve performance in the production process of the product that is the subject of the related order or finding);
(5) Acquisition of technology (Acquisition of applied scientific knowledge and materials to achieve an objective in the production process of the product that is the subject of the related order or finding);
(6) Health care benefits for employees paid for by the employer (Health care benefits paid to employees who are producing the specific product that is the subject of the related order or finding);
(7) Pension benefits for employees paid for by the employer (Pension benefits paid to employees who are producing the specific product that is the subject of the related order or finding);
(8) Environmental equipment, training, or technology (Equipment, training, or technology used in the production of the product that is the subject of the related order or finding, that will assist in preventing potentially harmful factors from affecting the environment);
(9) Acquisition of raw materials and other inputs (Purchase of unprocessed materials or other inputs needed for the production of the product that is the subject of the related order or finding); and
(10) Working capital or other funds needed to maintain production (Assets of a business that can be applied to its production of the product that is the subject of the related order or finding).
In calculating the amount of the distribution being claimed as an offset, the certification must indicate:
(1) The total amount of any qualifying expenditures previously certified by the domestic producer, and the amount certified by category;
(2) The total amount of those expenditures which have been the subject of any prior distribution for the order or finding being certified under 19 U.S.C. 1675c; and
(3) The net amount for new and remaining qualifying expenditures being claimed in the current certification (the total amount previously certified as noted in item “(1)” above minus the total amount that was the subject of any prior distribution as noted in item “(2)” above). In accordance with 19 CFR 159.63(b)(2)(i)-(iii), CBP will deduct the amount of any prior distribution from the producer's claimed amount for that case. Total amounts disbursed by CBP under the CDSOA for some prior Fiscal Years are available on the CBP website.
Additionally, under 19 CFR 159.61(c), these qualifying expenditures must be related to the production of the same product that is the subject of the order or finding, with the exception of expenses incurred by associations which must be related to a specific case. Any false statements made to CBP concerning the amount of distribution being claimed as an offset may give rise to liability under the
As noted, the certification must contain a statement that the domestic producer desires to receive a distribution and is eligible to receive the distribution as an affected domestic producer or on another legal basis. Also, the domestic producer must affirm that the net amount certified for distribution does not encompass any qualifying expenditures for which distribution has previously been made (19 CFR 159.63(b)(3)(i)). Any false statements made in connection with certifications submitted to CBP may give rise to liability under the
Furthermore, under 19 CFR 159.63(b)(3)(ii), where a domestic producer files a separate certification for more than one order or finding using the same qualifying expenditures as the basis for distribution in each case, each certification must list all the other orders or findings where the producer is claiming the same qualifying expenditures.
Moreover, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1675c(b)(1) and 19 CFR 159.63(b)(3)(iii), the certification must include information as to whether the domestic producer remains in operation at the time the certifications are filed and continues to produce the product covered by the particular order or finding under which the distribution is sought. If a domestic producer is no longer in operation, or no longer produces the product covered by the order or finding, the producer will not be considered an affected domestic producer entitled to receive a distribution.
In addition, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1675c(b)(5) and 19 CFR 159.63(b)(3)(iii), the domestic producer must state whether it has been acquired by a company that opposed the investigation or was acquired by a business related to a company that opposed the investigation. If a domestic producer has been so acquired, the producer will not be considered an affected domestic producer entitled to receive a distribution. However, CBP may not make a final decision regarding a claimant's eligibility to receive funds until certain legal issues which may affect that claimant's eligibility are resolved. In these instances, CBP may withhold an amount of funds corresponding to the claimant's alleged
The certification must be executed and dated by a party legally authorized to bind the domestic producer and it must state that the information contained in the certification is true and accurate to the best of the certifier's knowledge and belief under penalty of law, and that the domestic producer has records to support the qualifying expenditures being claimed (see section below entitled “Verification of
A certification that is submitted in response to this notice of intent to distribute and received within 60 calendar days after the date of publication of the notice in the
Certifications are subject to CBP's verification. The burden remains on each claimant to fully substantiate all elements of its certification. As such, claimants may be required to provide copies of additional records for further review by CBP. Therefore, parties are required to maintain, and be prepared to produce, records adequately supporting their claims for a period of five years after the filing of the certification (19 CFR 159.63(d)). The records must demonstrate that each qualifying expenditure enumerated in the certification was actually incurred, and they must support how the qualifying expenditures are determined to be related to the production of the product covered by the order or finding. Although CBP will accept comments and information from the public and other domestic producers, CBP retains complete discretion regarding the initiation and conduct of investigations stemming from such information. In the event that a distribution is made to a domestic producer from whom CBP later seeks verification of the certification and sufficient supporting documentation is not provided as determined by CBP, then the amounts paid to the affected domestic producer are recoverable by CBP as an overpayment. CBP reserves the right to use all available collection tools to recover overpayments, including but not limited to garnishments, court orders, administrative offset, enrollment in the Treasury Offset Program, and/or offset of tax refund payments. CBP considers the submission of a certification and the negotiation of any distribution checks received as acknowledgements and acceptance of the claimant's obligation to return those funds upon demand. Additionally, the submission of false statements, documents, or records in connection with a certification or verification of a certification may give rise to liability under the
The name of the claimant, the total dollar amount claimed by the party on the certification, as well as the total dollar amount that CBP actually disburses to that affected domestic producer as an offset, will be available for disclosure to the public, as specified in 19 CFR 159.63(e). To this extent, the submission of the certification is construed as an understanding and acceptance on the part of the domestic producer that this information will be disclosed to the public and a waiver of any right to privacy or non-disclosure. Additionally, a statement in a certification that this information is proprietary and exempt from disclosure may result in CBP's rejection of the certification.
The list of individual antidumping duty orders or findings and countervailing duty orders is set forth below together with the affected domestic producers associated with each order or finding who are potentially eligible to receive an offset. Those domestic producers not on the list must allege another basis for eligibility in their certification. Appearance of a domestic producer on the list is not a guarantee of distribution.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from United States Geological Survey (USGS) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to a marine geophysical survey in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations, and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than July 2, 2018.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Jonathan Molineaux, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
Accordingly, NMFS is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the environmental impacts associated with the issuance of the proposed IHA. We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.
On March 20, 2018, NMFS received a request from USGS for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to a marine geophysical survey in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. On April 11, 2018, we deemed USGS's application for authorization to be adequate and complete. USGS's request is for take a small number of 29 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment only. Neither USGS nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity; and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. The planned activity is not expected to exceed one year; hence, we do not expect subsequent MMPA incidental harassment authorizations would be issued for this particular activity.
The USGS intends to conduct a seismic survey aboard the
The purpose of the proposed MATRIX survey is to collect data to constrain the lateral and vertical distribution of gas hydrates and shallow natural gas in marine sediments relative to seafloor gas seeps, slope failures, and geological and erosional features.
The seismic survey's airgun operations are scheduled to occur for up to 19 days during a cruise that may be as long as 22 days, departing port on August 8, 2018. Some minor deviation from these dates is possible, depending on logistics and especially weather.
The survey is bound within the region ~34.75° N-40° N, ~71-75° W in the northwest Atlantic Ocean (See Figure 1), with the closest approach to the U.S. coastline at 70 km (North Carolina) to 130 km (New Jersey). The survey area starts 35 nmi south of Hudson Canyon on the north and is bound by Cape Hatteras on the south, the nominal shelf break (~100 m water depth) on the west, and the ~3,500 m bathymetric contour on the east.
The procedures that will be used for the seismic surveys would be similar to those used during previous research seismic surveys funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) or conducted by the USGS and would utilize a conventional seismic methodology. The survey will involve only one source vessel, the
The Optimal Survey (GG mode) (See Table 1) for the Proposed Action would acquire the portion of the solid lines in Figure 1 at water depths greater than 1,000 m using the GI-guns in “GG” mode. In this mode, the four GI guns would produce a total of 840 in
The Base Survey (GI mode) (See Table 1) assumes that all of the solid lines in Figure 1, as well as all of the interseismic connecting lines, would be acquired using four GI guns operating in normal mode (GI mode), producing a total air volume of 420 in
During the cruise, the USGS would continuously use an echosounder (EK60/EK80) with 38 kHz transducer at water depths less than ~1,800 m to locate water column anomalies associated with seafloor seeps emitting gas bubbles. The 38 kHz transducer would be mounted in the
The
In standard GI mode, the generator chamber of each GI airgun is the primary source, the one responsible for introducing the sound pulse into the ocean, is 105 in
The Base Configuration, Configuration 1, will use 4 GI guns and generate 420 in
The GG Configuration, Configuration 2, will use four GI guns and generate 840 in
The Backup Configuration (Configuration 3) is two GI airguns producing 210 in
As the GI airguns are towed along the survey line, the towed hydrophone array receives the reflected signals and
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 3 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the northwest Atlantic Ocean 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' SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Atlantic SARs (Hayes
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in Table 3. However, density estimates in Roberts
Humpback whales inhabit all major ocean basins from the equator to subpolar latitudes. They generally follow a predictable migratory pattern in both hemispheres, feeding during the summer in the higher latitudes (40 to 70 degrees latitude) and migrating to lower latitudes (10 to 30 degrees latitude) where calving and breeding take place in the winter (Perry
Based on density modeling by Mannocci
Of the more than 43,000 global sightings of humpback whale individuals or groups dating back more than 50 years in the Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS) database (2017), only 79 occurred within a rectangular block containing the exemplary proposed USGS seismic survey lines. Of these, fourteen sightings occurred during July, August, or September, primarily on the continental shelf between north of Washington Canyon and the mouth of Delaware Bay (See Figure 6 of IHA Application). Three of these sightings have been at or seaward of the shelf break, near the landward ends of the two northernmost exemplary USGS seismic lines. Humpback whales could
The sei whale occurs in all ocean basins (Horwood 2009) but appears to prefer mid-latitude temperate waters (Jefferson
Based on density modeling by Mannocci
Of the more than 11,000 sightings of sei whale individuals or groups dating back more than 50 years in the OBIS database, only seven occurred within a rectangular block containing the exemplary proposed USGS seismic survey lines. Of these, only two sightings, comprising three individuals in total, occurred between in July, August, or September (See Figure 6 IHA Application). Sei whales could be encountered in the proposed project area during an August survey, but this would be an extremely rare occurrence.
Fin whales are found throughout all oceans from tropical to polar latitudes. The species occurs most commonly offshore but can also be found in coastal areas (Aguilar, 2009). Most populations migrate seasonally between temperate waters where mating and calving occur in winter, and polar waters where feeding occurs in summer (Aguilar, 2009). However, recent evidence suggests that some animals may remain at high latitudes in winter or low latitudes in summer (Edwards
Based on density modeling by Mannocci
Sperm whales are found throughout the world's oceans in deep waters between about 60° N and 60° S latitudes. Their distribution is dependent on their food source and suitable conditions for breeding, and varies with the sex and age composition of the group. They are generally distributed over large areas that have high secondary productivity and steep underwater topography, in waters at least 1,000 m deep (Jaquet and Whitehead 1996; Whitehead 2009). Based on density modeling by Mannocci
The survey slightly intersects with a core abundance area for sperm whales. This area is centered on a large, deepwater valley system that is fed by a complex series of canyons and gullies incising the slope between Hendrickson and Baltimore Canyons (NMFS 2017). In the OBIS database, 686 sperm whale sightings occur within a rectangular area encompassing the survey area, and 395 occurred during July through September. As shown in Figure 6 of the IHA Application, most of these sightings are seaward of the shelf-break in deepwater, overlapping the area of the Proposed Action. Thus, sperm whales are likely to be encountered in the proposed project area during August 2018.
Pygmy sperm whales are found in tropical and warm-temperate waters throughout the world (Ross and Leatherwood 1994) and prefer deeper waters with observations of this species in greater than 4,000 m depth (Baird
Only four pygmy sperm whale sightings in the OBIS database occurred within the general area of the survey, and three of these were during the July through September period. Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales would likely be rare in the proposed project area.
Cuvier's beaked whale is the most widespread of the beaked whales occurring in almost all temperate, subtropical, and tropical waters and even some sub-polar and polar waters (MacLeod
Of the usable records in the OBIS database, 155 sightings of Cuvier's beaked whales overlap with the survey area, and 76 of these were during the July to September period. Cuvier's beaked whales could be encountered in the proposed project area.
Mesoplodont beaked whales are distributed throughout deep waters and along the continental slopes of the North Atlantic Ocean. True's beaked whale is mainly oceanic and occurs in warm temperate waters of the North Atlantic and southern Indian oceans (Pitman 2009). Gervais' beaked whale is mainly oceanic and occurs in tropical and warmer temperate waters of the Atlantic Ocean (Jefferson
Records of Mesoplodont beaked whale observations in the proposed survey area are varied. There are two sightings of Trues beaked whale in the OBIS database which occured in the general survey area, but only one of these was during the summer season that overlaps the Proposed Action. As a result, True's beaked whale would likely be rare in the proposed project area. No OBIS sightings of the Gervais' beaked whale have occurred in the survey area. However, given the geographic and depth range of the species, Gervais' beaked whale could be encountered in the proposed project area.
There are eleven OBIS database sightings of Sowerby's beaked whale in the polygon enclosing the larger area of the proposed surveys, and nine of these were during the summer months. Due to this, Sowerby's beaked whale could be encountered in the proposed project area. In addition, one sighting of Blainsvill occurred in the survey area during the summer months. Blainville's beaked whale could be encountered in the proposed project area.
Northern bottlenose whales are distributed in the North Atlantic from Nova Scotia to about 70° N in the Davis Strait, along the east coast of Greenland to 77° N and from England, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands to the south coast of Svalbard. It is largely a deep-water species and is very seldom found in waters less than 2,000 m deep (Mead, 1989; Whitehead and Hooker, 2012). Of the sightings in the OBIS database, one occurred within the survey area and none during July through September. Nonetheless, northern bottlenose whales could be encountered in the proposed project area.
The rough-toothed dolphin occurs in tropical and subtropical waters, rarely ranging farther north than 40° N (Jefferson
Bottlenose dolphins are widely distributed throughout the world in tropical and warm-temperate waters (Perrin
The Clymene dolphin only occurs in tropical and subtropical waters of the Atlantic Ocean (Jefferson
The Atlantic spotted dolphin is distributed in tropical and warm temperate waters of the North Atlantic from Brazil to New England and to the coast of Africa (Jefferson
The pantropical spotted dolphin is distributed worldwide in tropical and some sub-tropical oceans (Perrin
The spinner dolphin is pantropical in distribution, with a range nearly identical to that of the pantropical spotted dolphin, including oceanic tropical and sub-tropical waters between 40° N and 40° S (Jefferson
Striped dolphins are found in tropical to warm-temperate waters throughout the world (Carretta
The short-beaked common dolphin is distributed in tropical to cool temperate waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans from 60° N to ~50° S (Jefferson
Fraser's dolphin is a deepwater (>1,000 m) species that occurs in subtropical to tropical waters, nominally as far north as 30° N. This species can dive to substantial water depths in search of prey. The dolphins often occur in large groups (100 or more). The OBIS database has fewer than 200 sightings of Fraser dolphins. Only three sightings were within the larger project area, and only two of those were during the summer months. Fraser's dolphins could be encountered within the survey area during the Proposed Action.
White-sided dolphins are found in temperate and sub-polar waters of the North Atlantic, primarily in continental shelf waters to the 100-m depth contour. In the western North Atlantic the species inhabits waters from central West Greenland to North Carolina (about 35° N) and perhaps as far east as 29° W in the vicinity of the mid-Atlantic Ridge (Evans 1987; Hamazaki 2002; Doksaeter
Risso's dolphins are found in tropical to warm-temperate waters (Carretta
The melon-headed whale is a pantropical species usually occurring between 40° N and 35° S (Jefferson
The Roberts
Killer whales have been observed in all oceans and seas of the world (Leatherwood and Dahlheim 1978). Killer whale distribution in the Western Atlantic extends from the Arctic ice edge to the West Indies. Although reported from tropical and offshore waters (Heyning and Dahlheim 1988), killer whales prefer the colder waters of both hemispheres, with greatest abundances found within 800 km of major continents (Mitchell 1975). Killer whales have been sighted in shelf and offshore waters of Newfoundland and Labrador during June to September (DFO Sightings Database 2017; OBIS 2017).
Killer whales are large and conspicuous, often traveling in close-knit matrilineal groups of a few to tens of individuals (Dahlheim and Heyning 1999). Killer whales appear to prefer coastal areas but are also known to occur in deep water (Dahlheim and Heyning 1999). In over 3,000 usable killer whale sightings in the OBIS database, only 0.1 percent were within the larger rectangular area enclosing the survey, and none was during the summer months. Killer whales could be encountered within the proposed project area.
The false killer whale is distributed worldwide throughout warm temperate and tropical oceans (Jefferson
The pygmy killer whale is distributed worldwide in temperate to tropical waters (Caldwell and Caldwell, 1989; McAlpine, 2002). Sightings in the western North Atlantic occur in oceanic waters (Mullin and Fulling, 2003). Pygmy killer whales are usually found in deep water and rarely are found close to shore except where deepwater approaches the shore (Jefferson
Short-finned pilot whales are found in all oceans, primarily in tropical and warm-temperate waters (Carretta
Long-finned pilot whales occur in temperate and sub-polar zones (Jefferson
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
• Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35 kilohertz (kHz);
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 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;
• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. Twenty nine marine mammal species (all cetaceans) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 3. Of the cetacean species that may be present, three are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document 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.
This section contains a brief technical background on sound, the characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals found later in this document.
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in Hz or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave (length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths than lower frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the “loudness” of a sound and is typically described using the relative unit of the dB. A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a measured pressure and a reference pressure (for underwater sound, this is 1 microPascal (μPa)) and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, a relatively small change in dB corresponds to large changes in sound pressure. The source level (SL)
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 μPa
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 a manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either directed in a beam or beams or may radiate in all directions (omnidirectional sources), as is the case for pulses produced by the airgun arrays considered here. 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 human activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types: Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (
Pulsed sound sources (
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (
Airgun arrays produce pulsed signals with energy in a frequency range from about 10-2,000 Hz, with most energy radiated at frequencies below 200 Hz. The amplitude of the acoustic wave emitted from the source is equal in all directions (
In addition to airguns, the USGS would continuously use a fisheries echosounder (EK60/EK80) with 38 kHz transducer at water depths less than ~1,800 m from the
Richardson
We describe the more severe effects certain non-auditory physical or physiological effects only briefly as we do not expect that use of airgun arrays are reasonably likely to result in such effects (see below for further discussion). Potential effects from impulsive sound sources can range in severity from effects such as behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton
1.
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, and there is no PTS data for cetaceans but such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least several decibels above (a 40-dB TS approximates PTS onset;
For mid-frequency cetaceans in particular, potential protective mechanisms may help limit onset of TTS or prevent onset of PTS. Such mechanisms include dampening of hearing, auditory adaptation, or behavioral amelioration (
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.
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Finneran
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise) exposed to a limited number of sound sources (
Critical questions remain regarding the rate of TTS growth and recovery after exposure to intermittent noise and the effects of single and multiple pulses. Data at present are also insufficient to construct generalized models for recovery and determine the time necessary to treat subsequent exposures as independent events. More information is needed on the relationship between auditory evoked potential and behavioral measures of TTS for various stimuli. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall
2.
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 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 (
Visual tracking, passive acoustic monitoring, and movement recording tags were used to quantify sperm whale behavior prior to, during, and following exposure to airgun arrays at received levels in the range 140-160 dB at distances of 7-13 km, following a phase-in of sound intensity and full array exposures at 1-13 km (Madsen
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
Cerchio
Castellote
Seismic pulses at average received levels of 131 dB re 1 µPa
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a
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 more subtle 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). Disruption 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
Stone (2015) reported data from at-sea observations during 1,196 seismic surveys from 1994 to 2010. When large arrays of airguns (considered to be 500 in
3.
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 sufficiently 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 (
4.
Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is man-made, it may be considered harassment when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect.
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 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 ocean 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 (
Vessel collisions with marine mammals, or ship strikes, can result in death or serious injury of the animal. Wounds resulting from ship strike may include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, broken bones, or propeller lacerations (Knowlton and Kraus 2001). An animal at the surface may be struck directly by a vessel, a surfacing animal may hit the bottom of a vessel, or an animal just below the surface may be cut by a vessel's propeller. Superficial strikes may not kill or result in the death of the animal. These interactions are typically associated with large whales (
Pace and Silber (2005) also found that the probability of death or serious injury increased rapidly with increasing vessel speed. Specifically, the predicted probability of serious injury or death increased from 45 to 75 percent as vessel speed increased from 10 to 14 kn, and exceeded 90 percent at 17 kn. Higher speeds during collisions result in greater force of impact, but higher speeds also appear to increase the chance of severe injuries or death through increased likelihood of collision by pulling whales toward the vessel (Clyne, 1999; Knowlton
The
It is possible for ship strikes to occur while traveling at slow speeds. For example, a hydrographic survey vessel
Although the likelihood of the vessel striking a marine mammal is low, we require a robust ship strike avoidance protocol (see “Proposed Mitigation”), which we believe eliminates any foreseeable risk of ship strike. We anticipate that vessel collisions involving a seismic data acquisition vessel towing gear, while not impossible, represent unlikely, unpredictable events for which there are no preventive measures. Given the required mitigation measures, the relatively slow speed of the vessel towing gear, the presence of bridge crew watching for obstacles at all times (including marine mammals), the presence of marine mammal observers, and the short duration of the survey (22 days), we believe that the possibility of ship strike is discountable and, further, that were a strike of a large whale to occur, it would be unlikely to result in serious injury or mortality. No incidental take resulting from ship strike is anticipated, and this potential effect of the specified activity will not be discussed further in the following analysis.
When a living or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto shore and becomes “beached” or incapable of returning to sea, the event is a “stranding” (Geraci
Marine mammals 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. However, the cause or causes of most strandings are unknown (Geraci
Use of military tactical sonar has been implicated in a majority of investigated stranding events, although one stranding event was associated with the use of seismic airguns. This event occurred in the Gulf of California, coincident with seismic reflection profiling by the
Here, we briefly address the potential risks due to entanglement and contaminant spills. We are not aware of any records of marine mammal entanglement in towed arrays such as those considered here. The discharge of trash and debris is prohibited (33 CFR 151.51-77) unless it is passed through a machine that breaks up solids such that they can pass through a 25-milimeter (mm) mesh screen. All other trash and debris must be returned to shore for proper disposal with municipal and solid waste. Some personal items may be accidentally lost overboard. However, U.S. Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Act regulations require ship crews to become proactive in avoiding accidental loss of solid waste items by developing waste management plans, posting informational placards, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. There are no meaningful entanglement risks posed by the described activity, and entanglement risks are not discussed further in this document.
Marine mammals could be affected by accidentally spilled diesel fuel from a vessel associated with proposed survey activities. Quantities of diesel fuel on the sea surface may affect marine mammals through various pathways: Surface contact of the fuel with skin and other mucous membranes, inhalation of concentrated petroleum vapors, or ingestion of the fuel (direct ingestion or by the ingestion of oiled prey) (
Information on seismic airgun impacts to zooplankton, which represent an important prey type for mysticetes, is limited. However, McCauley
In general, impacts to marine mammal prey are expected to be limited due to the relatively small temporal and spatial overlap between the proposed survey and any areas used by marine mammal prey species. The proposed survey would occur over a relatively short time period (22 days) and would occur over a very small area relative to the area available as marine mammal habitat in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. We do not have any information to suggest the proposed survey area represents a significant feeding area for any marine mammal, and we believe any impacts to marine mammals due to adverse effects to their prey would be insignificant due to the limited spatial and temporal impact of the proposed survey. However, adverse impacts may occur to a few species of fish and to zooplankton.
Soundscapes are also defined by, and acoustic habitat influenced by, the total contribution of anthropogenic sound. This may include incidental emissions from sources such as vessel traffic, or may be intentionally introduced to the marine environment for data acquisition purposes (as in the use of airgun arrays). Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its frequency content, duration, and loudness and these characteristics greatly influence the potential habitat-mediated effects to marine mammals (please see also the previous discussion on masking under “Acoustic Effects”), which may range from local effects for brief periods of time to chronic effects over large areas and for long durations. Depending on the extent of effects to habitat, animals may alter their communications signals (thereby potentially expending additional energy) or miss acoustic cues (either conspecific or adventitious). For more detail on these concepts see,
Problems arising from a failure to detect cues are more likely to occur when noise stimuli are chronic and overlap with biologically relevant cues used for communication, orientation, and predator/prey detection (Francis and Barber 2013). Although the signals emitted by seismic airgun arrays are generally low frequency, they would also likely be of short duration and transient in any given area due to the nature of these surveys. As described previously, exploratory surveys such as these cover a large area but would be transient rather than focused in a given location over time and therefore would not be considered chronic in any given location.
In summary, activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat or populations of fish species or on the quality of acoustic habitat. Thus, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of “small numbers” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to airguns. Based on the nature of the activity, the cryptic behavior and low density for kogia spp (the only high-frequency cetacean authorized for take) within the action areas, and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of 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).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). As described above, USGS's proposed activity includes the use of intermittent and impulsive seismic sources. These thresholds are provided in Table 4.
These thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.
The proposed survey would entail the use of a 4-airgun array with a total maximum discharge of 840 in
For modeling of radial distances to predicted isopleths corresponding to harassment thresholds in deep water (>1,000 m), LDEO used the deep-water radii for various SELs obtained from LDEO model results down to a maximum water depth of 2,000 m (see Figures 4 and 5 in the IHA application). LDEO's modeling methodology is described in greater detail in the IHA application (USGS, 2018) and we refer to the reader to that document rather than repeating it here.
Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary based on marine mammal functional hearing groups (Table 4), were calculated based on modeling performed by LDEO using the Nucleus software program and the NMFS User Spreadsheet, described below. The updated acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds (such as airguns) contained in the Technical Guidance (NMFS, 2016) were presented as dual metric acoustic thresholds using both SEL
The values for SEL
In order to more realistically incorporate the Technical Guidance's weighting functions over the seismic array's full acoustic band, unweighted spectrum data for the
Note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used, isopleths produced may be overestimates to some degree. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For mobile sources, such as the proposed seismic survey, the User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which a stationary animal would not incur PTS if the sound source traveled by the animal in a straight line at a constant speed.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations. The best available scientific information was considered in conducting marine mammal exposure estimates (the basis for estimating take). For all cetacean species, densities calculated by Roberts
In addition to the density information provided by Roberts
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate. To estimate marine mammal exposures, the USGS used published, quantitative density models by Roberts
To determine takes, the USGS combined the Duke density grids with Level A and B zones (See Tables 5 and 7) arrayed on either side of each exemplary seismic line and linking/interseismic line. The Level B and Level A takes for each species in each 10 km x 10 km block of the IMG density grids were calculated based on the fractional area of each block intersected by the Level A and Level B zones for LF, MF, and HF cetaceans. Summing takes along all of the lines yields the total take for each species for the Proposed Action for the Base (Configuration 1) and Optimal (Configuration 2) surveys. The method also yields take for each survey line individually, allowing examination of those exemplary lines that will yield the largest or smallest take. No Level A takes were calculated while using this method.
As indicated earlier, estimated numbers of individuals potentially exposed to sound above the Level B harassment threshold are based on the 160-dB re 1μPa (rms) criterion for all cetaceans. It is assumed that marine mammals exposed to airgun sounds that strong could change their behavior sufficiently to be considered taken by harassment. Table 8 shows the estimates of the number of cetaceans that potentially could be exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) during the Proposed Action for the Base Survey and the Optimal Survey if no animals moved away from the survey vessel. The proposed takes in Table 8 represents 25 percent more than the number of takes calculated using the ArcGIS-based quantitative method devised by the USGS. This was used as a preventive measure to account for potential additional seismic operations that may
Also, as shown in Table 8, rough toothed dolphin, sei whale, and humpback whale calculated takes were increased to account for the average size of one group for each species. Takes for rare species of marine mammals in the action area were also increased to the average size of one group. Rare species that could be encountered and taken during the surveys are not presented in Table 8, but are presented in Table 9. These species were omitted from Table 8 due to their low reported densities in the action area (Roberts
The calculated takes in Table 8 also assume that the proposed surveys would be completed. However, it is unlikely that the entire survey pattern (exemplary lines plus 50 percent of the interseismic, linking lines) would be completed given the limitations on ship time, likely logistical challenges (compressor and GI gun repairs), time spent on transits and refueling, and the historical problems with weather during August in the Northwest Atlantic. The USGS calculated timelines indicate that 25 days, including contingency, could be required to complete the full survey pattern. However, only 22 days or fewer would be scheduled for this USGS survey. The lines that are actually acquired would be dependent on weather, strength of the Gulf Stream (affects ability to tow the streamer in the appropriate geometry), and other considerations.
Certain species potentially present in the proposed survey areas are expected to be encountered only extremely rarely, if at all. Although Roberts
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
USGS has reviewed mitigation measures employed during seismic research surveys authorized by NMFS under previous incidental harassment authorizations, as well as recommended best practices in Richardson
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli associated with the activities, USGS has proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
(1) Vessel-based visual mitigation monitoring;
(2) Establishment of a marine mammal exclusion zone (EZ);
(3) Shutdown procedures;
(4) Ramp-up procedures; and
(5) Vessel strike avoidance measures.
In addition to the measures proposed by USGS, NMFS has proposed the following mitigation measure: Establishment of a marine mammal buffer zone.
Protected Species Observer (PSO) observations would take place during all daytime airgun operations and nighttime start ups (if applicable) of the
During seismic operations, three visual PSOs would be based aboard the
The
The PSOs must have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, record observational data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation requirements. PSO resumes would be provided to NMFS for approval. At least one PSO must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working as PSOs during a seismic survey. One “experienced” visual PSO will be designated as the lead for the entire protected species observation team. The lead will serve as primary point of contact for the USGS scientist-in-charge or his/her designee. The PSOs must have successfully completed relevant training, including completion of all required coursework and passing a written and/or oral examination developed for the training program, and must have successfully attained a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the natural sciences and a minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the biological sciences and at least one undergraduate course in math or statistics. The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has acquired the relevant skills through alternate training, including (1) secondary education and/or experience comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous work experience conducting academic, commercial, or government-sponsored marine mammal surveys; or (3) previous work experience as a PSO; the PSO should demonstrate good standing and consistently good performance of PSO duties.
An EZ is a defined area within which occurrence of a marine mammal triggers mitigation action intended to reduce the potential for certain outcomes,
The 100 m radial distance of the standard EZ is precautionary in the sense that it would be expected to contain sound exceeding injury criteria (Level A thresholds) for all marine mammal hearing groups (Table 7) while also providing a consistent, reasonably observable zone within which PSOs would typically be able to conduct effective observational effort. As a result no Level A harassment is expected nor proposed for this action.
Our intent in prescribing a standard EZ distance is to (1) encompass zones within which auditory injury could occur on the basis of instantaneous exposure; (2) provide additional protection from the potential for more severe behavioral reactions (
PSOs would also establish and monitor an additional 100 m buffer zone beginning from the outside extant of the 100 m EZ. During use of the acoustic source, occurrence of marine mammals within the 100 m buffer zone would be communicated to the USGS scientist-in-charge or his/her designee to prepare for potential shutdown of the acoustic source. The 100 m buffer zone is discussed further under
If a marine mammal is detected outside the EZ but is likely to enter the EZ, the airguns would be shut down before the animal is within the EZ. Likewise, if a marine mammal is already within the EZ when first detected, the airguns would be shut down immediately.
Following a shutdown, airgun activity would not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the 100 m EZ. The animal would be considered to have cleared the 100 m EZ if the following conditions have been met:
• It is visually observed to have departed the 100 m EZ;
• it has not been seen within the 100 m EZ for 15 min in the case of small odontocetes; or
• it has not been seen within the 100 m EZ for 30 min in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy and dwarf sperm, beaked whales, and large delphinids.
This shutdown requirement would be in place for all marine mammals, with the exception of small delphinoids under certain circumstances. This exception to the shutdown requirement would apply solely to specific genera of small dolphins—
We propose this small delphinoid exception because shutdown requirements for small delphinoids under all circumstances represent practicability concerns without likely commensurate benefits for the animals in question. Small delphinoids are generally the most commonly observed marine mammals in the specific geographic region and would typically be the only marine mammals likely to intentionally approach the vessel. As described below, auditory injury is extremely unlikely to occur for mid-frequency cetaceans (
A large body of anecdotal evidence indicates that small delphinoids commonly approach vessels and/or towed arrays during active sound production for purposes of bow riding, with no apparent effect observed in those delphinoids (
Shutdown of the acoustic source would also be required upon observation beyond the 100 m EZ of any of the following:
• A large whale (
• An aggregation of large whales of any species (
• A marine mammal species not authorized (
• An authorized marine mammal species that has reached its total allotted Level B take that is approaching or entering the Level B zone.
These would be the only four potential situations that would require shutdown of the array for marine mammals observed beyond the 100 m EZ.
Ramp-up of an acoustic source is intended to provide a gradual increase in sound levels following a shutdown, enabling animals to move away from the source if the signal is sufficiently aversive prior to its reaching full intensity. Ramp-up would be required after the array is shut down for any reason. Ramp up to the full array would take 20 minutes, starting with operation of a single airgun and with one additional airgun added every 5 minutes.
At least two PSOs would be required to monitor during ramp-up. During ramp up, the PSOs would monitor the 100 m EZ, and if marine mammals were observed within or approaching the 100 m EZ, a shutdown would be implemented as though the full array were operational. If airguns have been shut down due to PSO detection of a marine mammal within or approaching the 100 m EZ, ramp-up would not be initiated until all marine mammals have cleared the EZ, during the day or night. Criteria for clearing the EZ would be as described above.
Thirty minutes of pre-clearance observation are required prior to ramp-up for any shutdown of longer than 30 minutes (
The USGS scientist-in-charge or his/her designee would be required to notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead PSO; the notification time should not be less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up. A designated PSO must be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures and the USGS scientist-in-charge or his/her designee must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed. The USGS scientist-in-charge or his/her designee must provide information to PSOs documenting that appropriate procedures were followed. Following deactivation of the array for reasons other than mitigation, the USGS scientist-in-charge or his/her designee would be required to communicate the near-term operational plan to the lead PSO with justification for any planned nighttime ramp-up.
Vessel strike avoidance measures are intended to minimize the potential for collisions with marine mammals. These requirements do not apply in any case where compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply.
The proposed measures include the following: The USGS scientist-in-charge or his/her designee, the vessel operator (The University of Delaware) and crew would maintain a vigilant watch for all marine mammals and slow down or stop the vessel or alter course to avoid striking any marine mammal. A visual observer aboard the vessel would monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel according to the parameters stated below. Visual
The vessel would maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from large whales (
In the event of a live stranding (or near-shore atypical milling) event within 50 km of the survey operations, where the NMFS stranding network is engaged in herding or other interventions to return animals to the water, the Director of OPR, NMFS (or designee) will advise the IHA-holder of the need to implement shutdown procedures for all active acoustic sources operating within 50 km of the stranding. Shutdown procedures for live stranding or milling marine mammals include the following:
• If at any time, the marine mammal(s) die or are euthanized, or if herding/intervention efforts are stopped, the Director of OPR, NMFS (or designee) will advise the IHA-holder that the shutdown is no longer needed.
• Otherwise, shutdown procedures will remain in effect until the Director of OPR, NMFS (or designee) determines and advises the IHA-holder that all live animals involved have left the area (either of their own volition or following an intervention).
• If further observations of the marine mammals indicate the potential for re-stranding, additional coordination with the IHA-holder will be required to determine what measures are necessary to minimize that likelihood (
Shutdown procedures are not related to the investigation of the cause of the stranding and their implementation is not intended to imply that the specified activity is the cause of the stranding. Rather, shutdown procedures are intended to protect marine mammals exhibiting indicators of distress by minimizing their exposure to possible additional stressors, regardless of the factors that contributed to the stranding.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant'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, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
USGS submitted a marine mammal monitoring and reporting plan in their IHA application. Monitoring that is designed specifically to facilitate mitigation measures, such as monitoring of the EZ to inform potential shutdowns of the airgun array, are described above and are not repeated here.
USGS's monitoring and reporting plan includes the following measures:
As described above, PSO observations would take place during daytime airgun operations and nighttime start-ups (if applicable) of the airguns. During seismic operations, three visual PSOs would be based aboard the
PSOs would record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data would be used to estimate numbers
(1) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (
(2) Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, visibility, and sun glare.
All observations and shutdowns would be recorded in a standardized format. Data would be entered into an electronic database. The accuracy of the data entry would be verified by computerized data validity checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database. These procedures would allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program and would facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, and other programs for further processing and archiving. The time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, visibility, and sun glare would also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch, and during a watch whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.
Results from the vessel-based observations would provide:
(1) The basis for real-time mitigation (
(2) Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS;
(3) Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted;
(4) Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity; and
(5) Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity.
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
• General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being conducted (if applicable);
• Status of all sound sources in use;
• Description of avoidance measures/requirements that were in place at the time of the strike and what additional measures were taken, if any, to avoid strike;
• Environmental conditions (
• Estimated size and length of animal that was struck;
• Description of the behavior of the marine mammal immediately preceding and following the strike;
• If available, description of the presence and behavior of any other marine mammals immediately preceding the strike;
• Estimated fate of the animal (
• To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
• Status of all sound source use in the 48 hours preceding the estimated time of stranding and within 50 km of the discovery/notification of the stranding by NMFS; and
• If available, description of the behavior of any marine mammal(s) observed preceding (
Examples of circumstances that could trigger the additional information request include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Atypical nearshore milling events of live cetaceans;
• Mass strandings of cetaceans (two or more individuals, not including cow/calf pairs);
• Beaked whale strandings;
• Necropsies with findings of pathologies that are unusual for the species or area; or
• Stranded animals with findings consistent with blast trauma.
In the event that the investigation is still inconclusive, the investigation of the association of the survey activities is still warranted, and the investigation is still being pursued, NMFS may provide additional information requests, in writing, regarding the nature and location of survey operations prior to the time period above.
A report would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the survey. The report would describe the operations that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report would provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring and would summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities). The report would also include estimates of the number and nature of exposures that occurred above the harassment threshold based on PSO observations, including an estimate of those on the trackline but not detected.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would occur as a result of USGS's proposed seismic survey, even in the absence of proposed mitigation. Thus, the proposed authorization does not authorize any mortality. As discussed in the
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed previously in this document (see
As described previously, there are multiple species that should be considered rare in the proposed survey areas and for which we propose to authorize only nominal and precautionary take of a single group. We do not expect meaningful impacts to these species (
The acoustic “footprint” of the proposed survey would be very small relative to the ranges of all marine mammals that would potentially be affected. Sound levels would increase in the marine environment in a relatively small area surrounding the vessel compared to the range of the marine mammals within the proposed survey area. The seismic array would be active 24 hours per day throughout the duration of the proposed survey. However, the very brief overall duration of the proposed survey (22 days with 19 days of airgun operations) would further limit potential impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed activity.
The proposed mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or severity of takes by allowing for detection of marine mammals in the vicinity of the vessel by visual and acoustic observers, and by minimizing the severity of any potential exposures via shutdowns of the airgun array. Based on previous monitoring reports for substantially similar activities that have been previously authorized by NMFS, we expect that the proposed mitigation will be effective in preventing all Level A harassment and most Level B harassment.
Of the marine mammal species under our jurisdiction that are likely to occur in the project area, the following species are listed as endangered under the ESA; fin, sei, and sperm whales. There are currently insufficient data to determine population trends for these species (Hayes
NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species due to USGS's proposed seismic survey would result in only short-term (temporary and short in duration) effects to individuals exposed, or some small degree of PTS to a very small number of individuals of four species. Marine mammals may temporarily avoid the immediate area but are not expected to permanently abandon the area. Major shifts in habitat use, distribution, or foraging success are not expected. NMFS does not anticipate the proposed take estimates to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival.
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 injury (Level A take), serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• The anticipated impacts of the proposed activity on marine mammals would primarily be temporary behavioral changes due to avoidance of the area around the survey vessel. The
• The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during the proposed survey to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity;
• The proposed project area does not contain areas of significance for feeding, mating or calving;
• The potential adverse effects on fish or invertebrate species that serve as prey species for marine mammals from the proposed survey would be temporary and spatially limited; and
• The proposed mitigation measures, including visual and acoustic monitoring and shutdowns, are expected to minimize potential impacts to marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
Please see Tables 8 and 9 and the related text for information relating to the basis for our small numbers analyses. Table 8 provides the numbers of predicted exposures above specified received levels, while Table 9 provides numbers of take proposed for authorization. For the northern bottlenose whale, Fraser's dolphin, melon-headed whale, false killer whale, pygmy killer whale, killer whale, spinner dolphin, and white-sided dolphin, we propose to authorize take resulting from a single exposure of one group of each species or stock, as appropriate (using average group size), for each applicant. As stated earlier, we believe that a single incident of take of one group of any of these species represents take of small numbers for that species. Therefore, based on the analyses contained herein of the specified activity, we preliminarily find that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken for each of these eight affected species or stocks for the specified activity. We do not discuss these eight species further in this small numbers analysis.
As shown in Table 8, we used mean abundance estimates from Roberts (2016) to calculate the percentage of population that is estimated to be taken during the proposed activities for non-rare species. These data present the best available abundance estimates for cetacean populations off of the Western Atlantic for this proposed activity. The activity is expected to impact a very small percentage of all marine mammal populations. As presented in Table 8, take of all 21 marine mammal species authorized for take is less than three percent of the abundance estimate.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has 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
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of three species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA: The sei whale, fin whale, and sperm whale. The Permits and Conservation Division has requested initiation of Section 7 consultation with the ESA Interagency Cooperation Division for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to USGS for conducting a marine geophysical survey in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean in August 2018, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This IHA is valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance.
2. This IHA is valid only for marine geophysical survey activity, as specified in the USGS IHA application and using an airgun array aboard the
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of USGS, the vessel operator (The University of Delaware) and other relevant personnel, the lead PSO, and any other relevant designees of USGS operating under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are listed in Table 9. The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the species and numbers listed in Table 9. Any taking exceeding the authorized amounts listed in Table 9 is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(c) The taking by serious injury or death of any species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(d) During use of the airgun(s), if marine mammal species other than those listed in Table 9 are detected by PSOs, the acoustic source must be shut down to avoid unauthorized take.
(e) The USGS scientist-in-charge or his/her designee shall ensure that the vessel operator and other relevant vessel personnel are briefed on all responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, operational procedures, and IHA requirements prior to the start of
4. Mitigation Requirements
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures:
(a) USGS must use at least three (3) dedicated, trained, NMFS-approved PSOs. The PSOs must have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, record observational data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation requirements. PSO resumes shall be provided to NMFS for approval.
(b) At least one PSO must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working as a PSO during a deep penetration seismic survey, with no more than eighteen months elapsed since the conclusion of the at-sea experience. One experienced visual PSO shall be designated as the lead for the entire protected species observation team. The lead PSO shall serve as primary point of contact for the USGS scientist-in-charge or his/her designee.
(c) Visual Observation
(i) During survey operations (
(ii) Visual monitoring must begin not less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up, including for nighttime ramp-ups of the airgun array, and must continue until one hour after use of the acoustic source ceases or until 30 minutes past sunset.
(iii) PSOs shall coordinate to ensure 360° visual coverage around the vessel from the most appropriate observation posts and shall conduct visual observations using binoculars and the naked eye while free from distractions and in a consistent, systematic, and diligent manner.
(iv) PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of four consecutive hours followed by a break of at least one hour between watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours observation per 24 hour period.
(v) During good conditions (
(d) Exclusion Zone and Buffer Zone—PSOs shall establish and monitor a 100 m EZ and an additional 100 m buffer zone beginning from the outside extant of the 100 m EZ. The zones shall be based upon radial distance from any element of the airgun array (rather than being based on the center of the array or around the vessel itself). During use of the acoustic source, occurrence of marine mammals outside the EZ but within 100 m buffer zone from any element of the airgun array shall be communicated to the USGS scientist-in-charge or his/her designee to prepare for potential further mitigation measures as described below. During use of the acoustic source, occurrence of marine mammals within the EZ, shall trigger further mitigation measures as described below.
(i) Ramp-up—A ramp-up procedure is required at all times as part of the activation of the acoustic source. Ramp-up shall begin with starting one 105 in
(ii) If the airgun array has been shut down due to a marine mammal detection, ramp-up shall not occur until all marine mammals have cleared the EZ. A marine mammal is considered to have cleared the EZ if:
(A) It has been visually observed to have left the EZ; or
(B) It has not been observed within the EZ, for 15 minutes (in the case of small odontocetes) or for 30 minutes (in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes including sperm, pygmy and dwarf sperm, beaked whales, and large delphinids).
(iii) Thirty minutes of pre-clearance observation of the 100 m EZ and 100 m buffer zone are required prior to ramp-up for any shutdown of longer than 30 minutes. This pre-clearance period may occur during any vessel activity. If any marine mammal (including delphinids) is observed within or approaching the EZ or 100 m buffer zone during the 30 minute pre-clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting the EZ or 100 m buffer zone or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sightings (
(iv) During ramp-up, at least two PSOs shall conduct monitoring. Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal (including delphinids) is observed within or approaching the 100 m EZ or 100 m buffer zone. If a marine mammal is observed within or approaching the 100 m EZ during ramp-up, a shutdown shall be implemented as though the full array were operational. Ramp-up may not begin again until the animal(s) has been observed exiting the 100 m EZ or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sightings in the 100 m EZ (
(v) If the airgun array has been shut down for reasons other than mitigation (
(vi) Ramp-up at night and at times of poor visibility shall only occur where operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances. Ramp-up may occur at night and during poor visibility if the 100 m EZ and 100 m buffer zone have been continually monitored by visual PSOs for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up with no marine mammal detections.
(vii) The USGS scientist-in-charge or his/her designee must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up. The designated PSO must be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures and the USGS scientist-in-charge or his/her designee must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed.
(e) Shutdown requirements—A 100 m EZ shall be established and monitored by PSOs. If a marine mammal is observed within, entering, or approaching the 100 m exclusion zone all airguns shall be shut down.
(i) Any PSO on duty has the authority to call for shutdown of the airgun array. When there is certainty regarding the need for mitigation action on the basis of visual detection, the relevant PSO(s) must call for such action immediately.
(ii) The USGS scientist-in-charge or his/her designee must establish and maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and crew controlling the airgun array to ensure that shutdown commands are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch.
(iii) When a shutdown is called for by a PSO, the shutdown must occur and any dispute resolved only following shutdown.
(iv) The shutdown requirement is waived for dolphins of the following genera:
(v) Upon implementation of a shutdown, the source may be reactivated under the conditions described at 4(e)(vi). Where there is no relevant zone (
(vi) Shutdown of the array is required upon observation of a whale (
(vii) Shutdown of the array is required upon observation of an aggregation (
(viii) Shutdown of the array is required upon observations of a marine mammal species not authorized (
(ix) Shutdown of the array is required upon observations of an authorized marine mammal species that has reached its total allotted Level B take that is entering or approaching the vessel's respective Level B zone (See Table 5).
(f) Vessel Strike Avoidance—The USGS, PSOs, vessel operator, and crew must maintain a vigilant watch for all marine mammals and the vessel operator must slow down or stop the vessel or alter course, as appropriate, to avoid striking any marine mammal. These requirements do not apply in any case where compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel according to the parameters stated below. Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone can be either third-party observers or crew members, but crew members responsible for these duties must be provided sufficient training to distinguish marine mammals from other phenomena.
(i) The vessel must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from large whales. The following avoidance measures must be taken if a large whale is within 100 m of the vessel:
(A) The vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral, when feasible, and must not engage the engines until the whale has moved outside of the vessel's path and the minimum separation distance has been established.
(B) If the vessel is stationary, the vessel must not engage engines until the whale(s) has moved out of the vessel's path and beyond 100 m.
(ii) The vessel must maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other marine mammals, with an exception made for animals described in 4(e)(iv) that approach the vessel. If an animal is encountered during transit, the vessel shall attempt to remain parallel to the animal's course, avoiding excessive speed or abrupt changes in course.
(iii) Vessel speeds must be reduced to 10 knots or less when mother/calf pairs or large assemblages of cetaceans (what constitues “large” will vary depending on species) are observed within 500 m of the vessel. Mariners may use professional judgment as to when such circumstances warranting additional caution are present.
(g) Miscellaneous Protocols
(i) The airgun array must be deactivated when not acquiring data or preparing to acquire data, except as necessary for testing. Unnecessary use of the acoustic source shall be avoided. Operational capacity of 840 in
(ii) Testing of the acoustic source involving all elements requires normal mitigation protocols (
5. Monitoring Requirements
The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine mammal monitoring during survey activity. Monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the following requirements:
(a) The USGS scientist-in-charge or his/her designee must provide a night-vision device suited for the marine environment for use during nighttime ramp-up pre-clearance, at the discretion of the PSOs. At minimum, the device should feature automatic brightness and gain control, bright light protection, infrared illumination, and optics suited for low-light situations.
(b) PSOs must also be equipped with reticle binoculars (
(c) PSO Qualifications
(i) PSOs must have successfully completed relevant training, including completion of all required coursework and passing a written and/or oral examination developed for the training program.
(ii) PSOs must have successfully attained a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the natural sciences and a minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the biological sciences and at least one undergraduate course in math or statistics. The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has acquired the relevant skills through alternate experience. Requests for such a waiver must include written justification. Alternate experience that may be considered includes, but is not limited to (1) secondary education and/or experience comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous work experience conducting academic, commercial, or government-sponsored marine mammal surveys; or (3) previous work experience as a PSO; the PSO should demonstrate good standing and consistently good performance of PSO duties.
(d) Data Collection—PSOs must use standardized data forms, whether hard copy or electronic. PSOs shall record detailed information about any implementation of mitigation requirements, including the distance of animals to the acoustic source and description of specific actions that ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), any observed changes in behavior before and after implementation of mitigation, and if shutdown was implemented, the length of time before any subsequent ramp-up of the acoustic source to
(i) PSO names and affiliations;
(ii) Dates of departures and returns to port with port name;
(iii) Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and times corresponding with PSO effort;
(iv) Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort begins and ends; vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts;
(v) Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts and upon any line change;
(vi) Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, Beaufort wind force, swell height, weather conditions, cloud cover, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon;
(vii) Factors that may be contributing to impaired observations during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions change (
(viii) Survey activity information, such as acoustic source power output while in operation, number and volume of airguns operating in the array, tow depth of the array, and any other notes of significance (
(ix) If a marine mammal is sighted, the following information should be recorded:
(A) Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);
(B) PSO who sighted the animal;
(C) Time of sighting;
(D) Vessel location at time of sighting;
(E) Water depth;
(F) Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
(G) Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel;
(H) Pace of the animal;
(I) Estimated distance to the animal and its heading relative to vessel at initial sighting;
(J) Identification of the animal (
(K) Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);
(L) Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, calves, group composition, etc.);
(M) Description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics);
(N) Detailed behavior observations (
(O) Animal's closest point of approach and/or closest distance from the center point of the acoustic source;
(P) Platform activity at time of sighting (
(Q) Description of any actions implemented in response to the sighting (
6. Reporting
(a) USGS shall submit a draft comprehensive report on all activities and monitoring results within 90 days of the completion of the survey or expiration of the IHA, whichever comes sooner. The report must describe all activities conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the activities, must provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring, and must summarize the dates and locations of survey operations and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated survey activities). Geospatial data regarding locations where the acoustic source was used must be provided as an ESRI shapefile with all necessary files and appropriate metadata. In addition to the report, all raw observational data shall be made available to NMFS. The report must summarize the data collected as required under condition 5(d) of this IHA. The draft report must be accompanied by a certification from the lead PSO as to the accuracy of the report, and the lead PSO may submit directly to NMFS a statement concerning implementation and effectiveness of the required mitigation and monitoring. A final report must be submitted within 30 days following resolution of any comments from NMFS on the draft report.
(b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
(i) In the event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not prohibited by this IHA (if issued), such as serious injury or mortality, USGS shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and to regional stranding coordinators as soon as feasible. The report must include the following information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(B) Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
(C) Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being conducted (if
(D) applicable);
(E) Status of all sound sources in use;
(F) Description of avoidance measures/requirements that were in place at the time of the strike and what additional measures were taken, if any, to avoid strike;
(G) Description of the incident;
(H) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(I) Water depth;
(J) Environmental conditions (
(K) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(L) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(M) Fate of the animal(s); and
(N) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
(ii) Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with USGS to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. USGS may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
(iii) In the event that USGS 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 (
(iv) In the event that USGS 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 specified activities (
7. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed [action]. We also request comment on the potential for renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending the Federal meat inspection regulations to eliminate the requirements for both ready-to-eat (RTE) and not-ready-to-eat (NRTE) pork and pork products to be treated to destroy trichinae (
Roberta Wagner, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone: (202) 205-0495.
On February 27, 2001, FSIS proposed food safety performance standards for all RTE and all partially heat-treated meat and poultry products (66 FR 12590). The proposed performance standards included both levels of pathogen reduction and limits on pathogen growth that official meat and poultry establishments would be required to meet in the production of these products.
The Agency also proposed to rescind the requirements in the meat inspection regulations that prescribe treatments of pork and pork products to eliminate trichinae because the requirements are inconsistent with the HACCP regulations (9 CFR part 417).
The Agency further proposed to require that all thermally processed, commercially sterile meat and poultry products be processed to either eliminate or control the growth of
Finally, the Agency proposed that each establishment that produces RTE meat and poultry products would have to test food contact surfaces for
Because of the length of time since the publication of the proposed rule, FSIS published a supplemental proposed rule on March 28, 2016, to provide the public an additional opportunity to comment (81 FR 17337). In the supplemental proposed rule, FSIS only addressed the proposed changes to the regulations on control of trichinae in pork products and on thermally processed, commercially sterile meat and poultry products. FSIS withdrew the other provisions of the 2001 proposed rule because the Agency's current regulations and inspection program have been effective at preventing adulterated RTE product from entering commerce (81 FR 17337, 17338).
FSIS re-proposed the changes to remove the trichinae requirements, consistent with what FSIS originally proposed in 2001. FSIS explained that if the supplemental proposed rule was finalized, FSIS would end its
FSIS also is announcing the availability of a compliance guide to help establishments, particularly small and very small establishments, in understanding the controls that are effective for the prevention and elimination of trichinae in RTE and NRTE pork products. When FSIS published the supplemental proposed rule, FSIS posted a draft of the trichinae compliance guide on its website and requested comments on the guide. FSIS has revised the trichinae compliance guide based on comments on the supplemental proposed rule and draft compliance guide to clarify that FSIS is not requiring establishments to use validated cooking instructions. The changes to the trichinae compliance guide are discussed in more detail below. FSIS has posted the compliance guide on its web page (
FSIS received 11 comments from trade associations representing meat processors, official establishments, an organization supporting sustainable farming, a food safety consulting firm, a trade association representing shelf-stable food processors, and individuals. All but one of these comments supported the proposal to eliminate the prescriptive trichinae control regulations. One individual opposed the proposal because, according to the commenter, the trichinae control regulations are effective. Only comments from a trade association representing meat processors and a trade association representing shelf-stable food processors addressed the proposed changes to the thermally processed, commercially sterile regulations. Both comments supported
In addition to providing the guidance on trichinae discussed above, the Agency will host webinars for industry to explain how establishments can address trichinae in their HACCP systems. FSIS will also update instructions to our inspection program personnel to ensure that they are all aware that the Agency is removing the trichinae control regulations and that all establishments producing pork products will have to address trichinae under the HACCP regulations (9 CFR part 417).
FSIS considers the time and temperature combinations for commercial cooking and freezing of pork in 9 CFR 318.10 as safe harbors that have been scientifically validated and has incorporated these requirements into the trichinae compliance guidance discussed above. Establishments may continue to produce their products using these “safe harbors,” or they may choose to develop their own validated cooking or freezing procedures that will effectively eliminate
FSIS does not agree that removing the trichinae control regulations will waste Agency or industry resources because FSIS routinely updates the Export Library, and establishments must
One commenter from an official establishment stated that FSIS should revise the draft compliance guide because, according to the commenter, industry has eliminated exposure of animals to garbage and rodents and, therefore, science does not support that pigs raised in pasture operations are at a higher risk for trichinae than others. The same commenter stated that the claims that pasture operations create a higher risk for trichinae will significantly limit establishments' market opportunities.
FSIS has decided that the PQA Plus program is an acceptable pre-requisite program for fresh pork products that were previously covered under 9 CFR 318.10(a). However, the PQA Plus program alone is not sufficient for products that were covered under 9 CFR 318.10(b) because these products pose a greater risk for
The compliance guide states, “the risk of infection with
FSIS disagrees with the comments that it is not possible to make fully informed decisions on the risks of
Finally, FSIS agrees with commenters that current consumer guidelines for preparation of NRTE pork are effective for inactivation of
FSIS disagrees with the comment that the Agency should provide a cost estimate for developing HACCP plans that address trichinae. As FSIS explained in the supplemental proposed rule, many establishments producing pork products already address trichinae in their HACCP plans or in a pre-requisite program (81 FR 17337, 17339). Also, the HACCP regulations have been in place since 1996 and since that time have required that establishments conduct hazard analyses and HACCP plans to address hazards that are RLTO, including trichinae. As explained above, FSIS considers the time and temperature combinations for commercial cooking and freezing of pork in 9 CFR 318.10 as safe harbors and has incorporated these requirements into the compliance guidance on controlling for trichinae. Because many establishments are already addressing trichinae under their current HACCP systems, and establishments are not required to change the way that they cook or freeze pork to control for trichinae, establishments will not incur costs related to developing HACCP plans. FSIS did not include the costs of participation in on-farm programs like the U.S. Trichinae Certification Program because participation in these programs is a business decision not required by FSIS. FSIS also did not consider the costs of new validated cooking instruction labels because the Agency is not requiring establishments to add validated cooking instructions on raw, NRTE pork products.
Two trade associations representing meat processors and a trade association representing shelf-stable food processors stated that the current regulations have been effective in ensuring safe and unadulterated products. Additionally, the commenters stated that finalizing the proposed changes to the thermally processed, commercially sterile regulations will improve clarity and understanding.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule has been designated as a “non-significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. Accordingly, the final rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.
FSIS affirms the preliminary regulatory impact analysis
FSIS inspection program personnel will verify that establishments effectively address these hazards. Under the final rule, FSIS is ending the TALP
The Agency also is combining the regulations for thermally processed, commercially sterile meat and poultry products into one new 9 CFR part 431 and making minor changes to improve clarity and remove redundant requirements. As discussed earlier in this document, FSIS is removing the requirement for the Administrator's prior approval before an establishment may use an alternative time lapse between container closure and the initiation of the thermal process (9 CFR 318.301(f)(2); 381.301(f)(2)). FSIS also is replacing the redundant descriptions of equipment (
There are no additional costs associated with combining the canning regulations or with these other minor changes. FSIS is not implementing any new requirements for canning establishments and is providing additional flexibility by removing prior approval provisions.
This final rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. We have estimated that this final rule would yield cost savings.
The FSIS Administrator certifies that, for the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-602), the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in the United States. The rule will affect 447 very small establishments and 222 small establishments that produce pork and pork products in the United States. FSIS is providing additional flexibility to these establishments. FSIS has developed a draft compliance guide designed to help small and very small establishments to understand the controls that are effective for the prevention and elimination of trichinae and other parasites in RTE and NRTE pork products. There are 29 very small establishments and 80 small establishments that produce thermally processed, commercially sterile meat and poultry products in the United States. The final rule does not impose any additional costs on small and very small establishments because these establishments already are in compliance with the canning regulations, and combining the separate (meat and poultry) canning regulations into one part is an administrative action.
There are no paperwork or recordkeeping requirements associated with this final rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601,
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under this rule: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) no administrative proceedings will be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” E.O. 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.
FSIS has assessed the impact of this final rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rulemaking does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, the Food Safety and Inspection Service 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.
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA will, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
Meat inspection.
Meat inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Food additives, Food packaging, Laboratories, Meat inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Frozen foods, Meat inspection, Oils and fats.
Meat inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Meat inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Intergovernmental regulations, Meat inspection.
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal diseases, Crime, Exports, Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Food packaging, Government employees, Grant programs—agriculture, Intergovernmental relations, Laboratories, Meat inspection, Nutrition, Polycholorinated biphenyls (PCB's), Poultry and poultry products inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Meat inspection, Poultry and poultry products inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Food additives, Food packaging, Meat inspection, Poultry and poultry products.
Meat inspection, Poultry and poultry products inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Fish, Food additives, Food grades and standards, Food packaging, Laboratories, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Signs and symbols.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FSIS is amending title 9, chapter III, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1633, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.7, 2.18, 2.53.
21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
7 U.S.C. 1633, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
7 U.S.C. 1633, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
(b) * * *
(6) Records of canning as required by part 431 of this chapter.
7 U.S.C. 1633, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
7 U.S.C. 1633, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 451-472; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
(b) * * *
(3) Records of canning as required by part 431 of this chapter.
7 U.S.C. 1633, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 451-472, 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
(b) * * *
(3) HACCP plans for thermally processed/commercially sterile products do not have to address the food safety hazards associated with microbiological contamination if the product is produced in accordance with the requirements of part 431 of this chapter.
7 U.S.C. 1633, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 451-472, 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
7 U.S.C. 1633, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 451-472, 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Time(s) and temperature(s); or
(2) Minimum product temperature.
(a)
(2) All empty containers, closures, and flexible pouch roll stock must be stored, handled, and conveyed in such a manner that will prevent damage that could affect the hermetic condition of the sealed container.
(3) Just before filling, rigid containers must be cleaned to prevent incorporation of foreign matter into the finished product. Closures, semirigid containers, preformed flexible pouches, and flexible pouch roll stock contained in original wrappings do not need to be cleaned before use.
(b)
(2)
(i)
(A)
(
(
(
(
(
(B)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(c)
(2)
(d)
(ii)
(2)
(e)
(f)
(2) The maximum time lapse between closure of containers and initiation of thermal processing must be 2 hours unless data are available from the establishment's processing authority demonstrating that an alternative time period is safe and will not result in product spoilage.
(a)
(b)
(2) Any change in product formulation, ingredients, or treatments that are not already incorporated in a process schedule and that may adversely affect either the product heat penetration profile or sterilization value requirements must be evaluated by the establishment's processing authority. If it is determined that any such change adversely affects the adequacy of the process schedule, the processing authority must amend the process schedule accordingly.
(3) Complete records concerning all aspects of the development or determination of a process schedule, including any associated incubation tests, must be made available by the establishment to the Program employee upon request.
(c)
(2) Letters or other written communications from a processing authority recommending all process schedules must be maintained on file by the establishment. Upon request by Program employees, the establishment must make available such letters or written communications (or copies thereof). If critical factors are identified in the process schedule, the establishment must provide the inspector with a copy of the procedures for measuring, controlling, and recording these factors, along with the frequency of such measurements, to ensure that the critical factors remain within the limits used to establish the process schedule. Once submitted, the process schedules and associated critical factors and the procedures for measuring (including the frequency), controlling, and recording of critical factors must not be changed without the prior written submittal of the revised procedures (including supporting documentation) to the inspector at the establishment.
Critical factors specified in the process schedule must be measured, controlled, and recorded by the establishment to ensure that these factors remain within the limits used to establish the process schedule. Examples of factors that are often critical to process schedule adequacy may include:
(a)
(2) Arrangement of pieces in the container;
(3) Container orientation during thermal processing;
(4) Product formulation;
(5) Particle size;
(6) Maximum thickness for flexible containers, and to some extent semirigid containers, during thermal processing;
(7) Maximum pH;
(8) Percent salt;
(9) Ingoing (or formulated) nitrite level (ppm);
(10) Maximum water activity; and
(11) Product consistency or viscosity.
(b)
(2) Retort reel speed.
(c)
(2) [Reserved]
(d)
(2) Heating medium flow rate.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(B)
(v)
(B) Vents must not be connected to a closed drain system without an atmospheric break in the line. Where a retort manifold connects several pipes from a single retort, the manifold must be controlled by a gate, plug cock, or other full-flow valve and the manifold must be of a size such that the cross-sectional area of the manifold is larger than the total cross-sectional area of all connecting vents. The discharge must not be connected to a closed drain without an atmospheric break in the line. A manifold header connecting vents or manifolds from several still retorts must lead to the atmosphere. The manifold header must not be controlled by a valve and must be of a size such that the cross-sectional area is at least equal to the total cross-sectional area of all connecting retort manifold pipes from the maximum number of retorts to be vented simultaneously.
(C) Some typical installations and operating procedures are described below. Other retort installations, vent piping arrangements, operating procedures or auxiliary equipment such as divider plates may be used provided there is documentation that the air is removed from the retort before the process is started. Such documentation must be in the form of heat distribution data or other documentation from the equipment manufacturer or processing authority. This information must be maintained on file by the establishment and made available to Program employees for review.
(D) For crateless retort installations, the establishment must have heat distribution data or other documentation from the equipment manufacturer or from a processing authority that demonstrates that the venting procedure used accomplishes the removal of air and condensate. This information must be maintained on file
(E) Examples of typical installations and operating procedures that comply with the requirements of this section are as follows:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(3)
(ii)
(4)
(ii)
(5)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(c)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(3)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(d)
(2)
(3)
(e)
(2)
(f)
(g)
(2) At least once a year each thermal processing system must be examined by an individual not directly involved in daily operations to ensure the proper functioning of the system as well as all auxiliary equipment and instrumentation. In addition, each thermal processing system should be examined before the resumption of operation following an extended shutdown.
(3) Air and water valves that are intended to be closed during thermal processing must be checked by the establishment for leaks. Defective valves must be repaired or replaced as needed.
(4) Vent and bleeder mufflers must be checked and maintained or replaced by the establishment to prevent any reduction in bleeder efficiency.
(5) When water spreaders are used for venting, a maintenance schedule must be developed and implemented to assure that the holes are maintained at their original size.
(6) Records must be kept on all maintenance items that could affect the adequacy of the thermal process. Records must include the date and type of maintenance performed and the person conducting the maintenance.
(h)
(2) Cooling canal water must be chlorinated or treated with a chemical having a bactericidal effect equivalent to chlorination. There must be a measurable residual of the sanitizer in the water at the discharge point of the canal. Cooling canals must be cleaned and replenished with potable water to prevent the buildup of organic matter and other materials.
(3) Container cooling waters that are recycled or reused must be handled in systems that are so designed, operated, and maintained so there is no buildup of microorganisms, organic matter, and other materials in the systems and in the waters. System equipment, such as pipelines, holding tanks and cooling towers, must be constructed and installed so that they can be cleaned and inspected. In addition, the establishment must maintain, and make available to Program employees for review, information on at least the following:
(i) System design and construction;
(ii) System operation including the rates of renewal with fresh, potable water and the means for treating the water so that there is a measurable residual of an acceptable sanitizer, per paragraph (h)(2) of this section, in the water at the point where the water exits the container cooling vessel;
(iii) System maintenance including procedures for the periodic cleaning and sanitizing of the entire system; and
(iv) Water quality standards, such as microbiological, chemical and physical, monitoring procedures including the frequency and site(s) of sampling, and the corrective actions taken when water quality standards are not met.
(i)
At least the following processing and production information must be recorded by the establishment: Date of production; product name and style; container code; container size and type; and the process schedule, including the minimum initial temperature. Measurements made to satisfy the requirements of § 431.4 regarding the control of critical factors must be recorded. In addition, where applicable, the following information and data must also be recorded:
(a)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a) Whenever the actual process is less than the process schedule or when any critical factor does not comply with the requirements for that factor as specified in the process schedule, it must be considered a deviation in processing.
(b) Deviations in processing (or process deviations) must be handled according to:
(1) A HACCP plan for canned product that addresses hazards associated with microbial contamination; or,
(2) Alternative documented procedures that will ensure that only safe and stable product is shipped in commerce; or
(3) Paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Procedures for handling process deviations where the HACCP plan for thermally processed/commercially sterile product does not address food safety hazards associated with microbial contamination, where there is no approved total quality control system, or where the establishment has no alternative documented procedures for handling process deviations.
(1)
(i) Immediately reprocess the product using the full process schedule; or
(ii) Use an appropriate alternate process schedule provided such a process schedule has been established in accordance with § 431.3(a) and (b) and is filed with the inspector in accordance with § 431.3(c); or
(iii) Hold the product involved and have the deviation evaluated by a processing authority to assess the safety and stability of the product. Upon completion of the evaluation, the establishment must provide the inspector the following:
(A) A complete description of the deviation along with all necessary supporting documentation;
(B) A copy of the evaluation report; and
(C) A description of any product disposition actions, either taken or proposed.
(iv) Product handled in accordance with paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section must not be shipped from the establishment until the Program has reviewed all of the information submitted and approved the product disposition actions.
(v) If an alternate process schedule is used that is not on file with the inspector or if an alternate process schedule is immediately calculated and used, the product must be set aside for further evaluation in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section.
(vi) When a deviation occurs in a continuous rotary retort, the product must be handled in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section or in accordance with the following procedures:
(A)
(
(B)
(
(
(
(
(
(2)
(d)
(a) Finished product inspections must be handled according to:
(1) An HACCP plan for canned product that addresses hazards associated with microbiological contamination;
(2) An FSIS-approved total quality control system;
(3) Alternative documented procedures that will ensure that only safe and stable product is shipped in commerce; or
(4) Paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Procedures for handling finished product inspections where the HACCP plan for thermally processed/commercially sterile product does not address food safety hazards associated with microbial contamination, where there is no approved total quality control system, or where the establishment has no alternative documented procedures for handling process deviations.
(1)
(ii)
(iii)
(A) Low acid products as defined in § 431.1; and
(B) Acidified low acid products as defined in § 431.1.
(iv)
(B) For continuous rotary retorts, hydrostatic retorts, or other continuous-type thermal processing systems, the establishment must select at least one container per 1,000 for incubation.
(C) Only normal-appearing containers must be selected for incubation.
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(2) [Reserved]
(c)
(2)
All operators of thermal processing systems specified in § 431.6 and container closure technicians must be under the direct supervision of a person who has successfully completed a school of instruction that is generally recognized as adequate for properly training supervisors of canning operations.
Establishments must prepare and maintain a current procedure for the recall of all canned product covered by this subpart. Upon request, the recall procedure must be made available to Program employees for review.
7 U.S.C. 1633; 21 U.S.C. 601-602, 606-695; 7 CFR 2.7, 2.18, 2.53.
Done in Washington, DC.
Category | Regulatory Information | |
Collection | Federal Register | |
sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |