| Page Range | 31641-31840 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 31641 - Honoring the Victims of the Tragedy in Annapolis, Maryland | |
| 83 FR 31783 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science Board | |
| 83 FR 31773 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 83 FR 31755 - Notification of a Public Meeting of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards Review Panel for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur | |
| 83 FR 31739 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; EnZinc, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 31766 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Draft Recovery Plan for Coquí Llanero | |
| 83 FR 31756 - Notice of Open Meeting of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) | |
| 83 FR 31753 - Notice of Intent To Hold a Workshop for a Study on the Impacts of Compliance With the ECA Fuel Sulfur Limits on U.S. Coastal Shipping | |
| 83 FR 31752 - Request for Nominations of Candidates to the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) and SAB Standing Committees | |
| 83 FR 31736 - Endangered Species; File No. 21858 | |
| 83 FR 31737 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21585 | |
| 83 FR 31834 - Supplemental Guidance on the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) for Fiscal Years 2018-2020 | |
| 83 FR 31756 - Receipt of Information Under the Toxic Substances Control Act | |
| 83 FR 31768 - Notice of Realty Action: Competitive Sale of 20 Parcels of Public Land in Clark County, NV; Termination of Recreation and Public Purposes Classification | |
| 83 FR 31833 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water | |
| 83 FR 31725 - Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 31804 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Futures Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change to the Interpretive Notice to NFA Compliance Rule 2-30(b): Risk Disclosure Statement for Security Futures Contracts | |
| 83 FR 31827 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Shares of the Western Asset Total Return ETF | |
| 83 FR 31810 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fees Schedule With Respect to Expiring Fee Waivers and Remove the FLEX Trader Incentive Program | |
| 83 FR 31677 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Final Rule To Revise Atlantic Shark Fishery Closure Regulations | |
| 83 FR 31800 - Vivaldi Opportunities Fund and Vivaldi Asset Management, LLC | |
| 83 FR 31684 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Special Management Zones for 13 New Jersey Artificial Reefs | |
| 83 FR 31736 - Broad Agency Announcement 2018 | |
| 83 FR 31840 - Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation, Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 31808 - Altaba Inc. | |
| 83 FR 31801 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 31802 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 31827 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 31822 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 31816 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 31824 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 31762 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 31762 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 31837 - Open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee | |
| 83 FR 31838 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 31838 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 31837 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 31780 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 83 FR 31758 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 31839 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 31838 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 31838 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee | |
| 83 FR 31654 - Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological and Ethnological Material From Libya | |
| 83 FR 31728 - Rubber Bands From Thailand: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination | |
| 83 FR 31729 - Rubber Bands From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Determination | |
| 83 FR 31764 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Malarone Tablets | |
| 83 FR 31836 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; Extension of Comment Period; Small Business in Transportation Coalition | |
| 83 FR 31697 - Lacey Act Implementation Plan: De Minimis Exception | |
| 83 FR 31711 - Exclusion of Gender Alterations From the Medical Benefits Package | |
| 83 FR 31737 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 31739 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 31738 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Stock Identification Joint Cooperator Technical Review Webinar for Atlantic Cobia (Rachycentron canadum) | |
| 83 FR 31702 - Lacey Act Implementation Plan: Composite Plant Materials | |
| 83 FR 31839 - Interest Rate Paid on Cash Deposited To Secure U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bonds | |
| 83 FR 31837 - Mutual Savings Association Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 31833 - National Small Business Development Centers Advisory Board | |
| 83 FR 31713 - Periodic Reporting | |
| 83 FR 31733 - Notice of Scope Rulings | |
| 83 FR 31725 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 21-Charleston, South Carolina; Authorization of Production Activity; AGRU America Charleston, LLC; (High Density Polyethylene Pipe); North Charleston, South Carolina | |
| 83 FR 31724 - Foreign-Trade Zone 76-Bridgeport, Connecticut; Application for Expansion of Subzone 76A; ASML US, LLC; Wilton and Bethel, Connecticut | |
| 83 FR 31767 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Industrial Minerals Surveys | |
| 83 FR 31659 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Black Narrows and Lewis Creek Channel, Chincoteague Island, VA | |
| 83 FR 31739 - Availability for Non-Exclusive, Exclusive, or Partially Exclusive Licensing of U.S. Patent Concerning System and Method for Rapid Dissemination of Image Products | |
| 83 FR 31724 - Foreign-Trade Zone 116-Port Arthur, Texas; Expansion of Subzone 116A; Motiva Enterprises LLC; Jefferson and Hardin Counties, Texas | |
| 83 FR 31727 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018 | |
| 83 FR 31731 - Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review | |
| 83 FR 31734 - Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Semiannual Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2017-2018 | |
| 83 FR 31725 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 21-Charleston, South Carolina; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; AGRU America Charleston, LLC (Polyethylene Fittings and Floaters); North Charleston, South Carolina | |
| 83 FR 31704 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Water-Source Heat Pumps | |
| 83 FR 31723 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meetings of the South Dakota Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 31740 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Federal Perkins/NDSL Loan Assignment Form | |
| 83 FR 31771 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 83 FR 31772 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 83 FR 31778 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection: National Corrections Reporting Program | |
| 83 FR 31777 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted Program, Analysis of Officers Feloniously Killed and Assaulted; and Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted Program, Analysis of Officers Accidentally Killed | |
| 83 FR 31777 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection | |
| 83 FR 31763 - Waterway Suitability Assessment for Operation of Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal; Cameron, LA | |
| 83 FR 31782 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Contribution Operations | |
| 83 FR 31715 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 31758 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate Receivership | |
| 83 FR 31757 - Notice of Termination of Receiverships | |
| 83 FR 31723 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 31722 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Minnesota Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 31839 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Certification of Change or Correction of Name Government Life Insurance | |
| 83 FR 31775 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on ROS-Industrial Consortium-Americas | |
| 83 FR 31776 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Hedge IV | |
| 83 FR 31774 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Particle Sensor Performance and Durability | |
| 83 FR 31776 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-ASTM International Standards | |
| 83 FR 31775 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 31774 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 31781 - Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO): Meeting | |
| 83 FR 31722 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest; California; I-5 Corridor Fuels Reduction Project | |
| 83 FR 31775 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Petroleum Environmental Research Forum | |
| 83 FR 31774 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Pistoia Alliance, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 31775 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-UHD Alliance, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 31776 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Mechanical Stratigraphy and Natural Deformation in the Permian Strata of Texas and New Mexico: Implications for Exploitation of the Permian Basin | |
| 83 FR 31659 - Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment | |
| 83 FR 31747 - San Diego County Water Authority, City of San Diego; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 83 FR 31745 - Village of Enosburg Falls, Municipal Water and Light Department; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process | |
| 83 FR 31747 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 31750 - Flambeau Hydro, LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment | |
| 83 FR 31744 - KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment | |
| 83 FR 31748 - Enterprise Crude Pipeline LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 83 FR 31741 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-552); Comment Request; Extension | |
| 83 FR 31749 - Coolidge Solar I, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 83 FR 31740 - American Municipal Power, Inc; Notice of Filing | |
| 83 FR 31748 - Meldahl, LLC; Notice of Filing | |
| 83 FR 31744 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 83 FR 31746 - Portland Natural Gas Transmission System; Notice of Applications | |
| 83 FR 31749 - Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Application | |
| 83 FR 31743 - RH energytrans, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Risberg Line Project | |
| 83 FR 31742 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 31750 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 83 FR 31742 - City of Englewood, Colorado; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
| 83 FR 31806 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.420 Concerning the Order Audit Trail System Requirements To Make Conforming and Technical Changes | |
| 83 FR 31825 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fees Schedule To Adopt a Financial Incentive Program for Lead Market-Makers Appointed in MSCI EAFE Index Options and MSCI Emerging Markets Index Options | |
| 83 FR 31823 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fees Schedule Concerning MSCI EAFE Index Options and MSCI Emerging Markets Index Options | |
| 83 FR 31802 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 24.6, Days and Hours of Business Concerning Expiring MSCI EAFE Index Options and MSCI Emerging Markets Index Options | |
| 83 FR 31828 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Structure of its Fee Schedule and Make Several Conforming and Clarifying Changes, Pursuant to IEX Rule 15.110(A) and (C) | |
| 83 FR 31816 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to the IPO Auction Processes for Trading in an IEX-Listed Security That Is the Subject of an Initial Public Offering | |
| 83 FR 31812 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 602, Appointment of Market Makers | |
| 83 FR 31783 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Rules Related to Complex Orders | |
| 83 FR 31694 - General Schedule Locality Pay Areas | |
| 83 FR 31783 - New Postal Products | |
| 83 FR 31757 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (OMB No. 3064-0179) | |
| 83 FR 31715 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Comment Request-Background Investigation Request for Contractor Employees-FNS-775 | |
| 83 FR 31716 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request: Assessment of Mandatory Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Employment & Training (E&T) Programs | |
| 83 FR 31760 - Revised Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Zika Virus Transmission by Blood and Blood Components; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 31710 - Retrospective Study of Respirable Coal Mine Dust Rule | |
| 83 FR 31759 - Indications and Usage Section of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products-Content and Format; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 31653 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mineral Point, WI | |
| 83 FR 31708 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Hillsdale, MI | |
| 83 FR 31781 - Advisory Board; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 31705 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 31646 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 31643 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 31648 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 31650 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 31712 - New Mailing Standards for Mailpieces Containing Liquids |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
Minority Business Development Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Institute of Corrections
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports indicating that corrosion was found on the main landing gear (MLG) retraction actuator brackets and their associated pins. This AD requires an inspection of the retraction actuator brackets, their associated pins and hardware, and the mating lugs on the MLG outer cylinder for any corrosion, and replacement if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 13, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 13, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address undetected corrosion on the MLG retraction actuator brackets and their associated pins, which could lead to a MLG collapse.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-34, dated October 19, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:
There have been in-service reports of corrosion on the main landing gear (MLG) retraction actuator bracket and its associated pins. Bombardier's investigation determined that the corrosion is the consequence of inadequate corrosion protection being applied during production. Undetected corrosion on the MLG retraction actuator bracket and its associated pins could result in a MLG collapse.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the inspection of the MLG retraction actuator bracket, its associated pins and hardware, and the mating lugs on the MLG outer cylinder for corrosion. This [Canadian] AD also mandates the replacement of corroded MLG parts and the application of corrosion protection in order to mitigate the risk of MLG collapse.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-32-060, Revision B, dated November 10, 2017. The service information describes a detailed visual inspection of the retraction actuator brackets, their associated pins and hardware, and the mating lugs on the MLG outer cylinder for any corrosion, and replacement if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 541 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective August 13, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.
(1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10002 and subsequent.
(2) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 and subsequent.
(3) Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by reports indicating that corrosion was found on the main landing gear (MLG) retraction actuator brackets and their associated pins. We are issuing this AD to address undetected corrosion on the MLG retraction actuator brackets and their associated pins, which could lead to a MLG collapse.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For any MLG dressed shock strut assembly with part numbers and serial numbers specified in paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-060, Revision B, dated November 10, 2017, at the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, do a detailed visual inspection of the retraction actuator brackets, their associated pins and hardware, and the mating lugs on the MLG outer cylinder for any corrosion, and do all applicable replacements, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-060, Revision B, dated November 10, 2017. Do all applicable replacements before further flight.
(1) For any MLG dressed shock strut assembly that has accumulated less than 10,000 total flight hours on the MLG dressed shock strut assembly and has been in service for less than 60 months since its first installation on an airplane: Within 6,600 flight hours or 39 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For any MLG dressed shock strut assembly that has accumulated less than or equal to 14,000 total flight hours on the MLG dressed shock strut assembly, and has been in service for less than 84 months since its first installation on an airplane, and does not meet the criteria in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Within 4,400 flight hours or 26 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, but not to exceed 16,600 total flight hours on the MLG dressed shock strut assembly or 99 months since its first installation on an airplane, whichever occurs first.
(3) For any MLG dressed shock strut assembly that has accumulated more than 14,000 total flight hours on the MLG dressed shock strut assembly or 84 months or more since its first installation on an airplane: Within 2,600 flight hours or 15 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
For any MLG dressed shock strut assembly with part numbers and serial numbers specified in paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-060, Revision B, dated November 10, 2017: The actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD are not required provided that the actions in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD have been done.
(1) The actions in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), (h)(1)(iii), and (h)(1)(iv) of this AD, as applicable, have been done on the MLG dressed shock strut assembly since its entry-into-service date.
(i) Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task 32-32-05-400-803, Installation of the Outboard MLG Retraction Actuator Bracket Pin, or equivalent task in Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) 32-11-05 (for Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes), or CMM 32-11-06 (for Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes), or CMM 32-11-34 (for Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes); and
(ii) AMM Task 32-32-05-400-804, Installation of the Inboard MLG Retraction-Actuator Bracket Pin, or equivalent task in CMM 32-11-05 (for Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes), or CMM 32-11-06 (for Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes), or CMM 32-11-34 (for Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes); and
(iii) AMM Task 32-32-05-400-805, Installation of the Inboard-MLG Retraction-Actuator Pin, or AMM Task 32-32-05-400-801, Installation of the MLG Retraction-Actuator, or AMM Task 32-11-05-400-801, Installation of the MLG Shock-Strut Assembly; and
(iv) For Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes equipped with MLG auxiliary actuators: AMM Task 32-32-03-400-801, Installation of the MLG Auxiliary Actuator, or AMM Task 32-11-05-400-801, Installation of the MLG Shock-Strut Assembly.
(2) AMM Task 32-32-05-400-806, Installation of the MLG Retraction-Actuator Bracket has been accomplished on the MLG dressed shock strut assembly since its entry-into-service date.
(3) AMM Task 32-11-00-610-801, Restoration (Overhaul) of the MLG Assembly has been accomplished on the MLG dressed shock strut assembly since its entry-into-service date.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-060, dated May 2, 2017, or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-060, Revision A, dated June 22, 2017.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2017-34, dated October 19, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-060, Revision B, dated November 10, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that a functional test to ensure that there is no blockage of vent pipes was not done on the trim tank of certain airplanes during production. This AD requires doing a trim tank functional test, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 13, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 13, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address blocked vent pipes, which, in combination with a high level sensor failure, could lead to over-pressurization of the trim tank during refueling or aft fuel transfer. This condition could lead to trim tank rupture and consequent reduced control of the airplane.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0152, dated August 17, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
It was discovered that the production functional test to verify the “Tank Pressures during Refuel Overflow” was not performed on the Trim Tank (TT) of A330 and A340 aeroplanes up to MSN [manufacturer serial number] 1711. This test ensures that there is no blockage of the vent pipes.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead, in combination with a high level sensor failure, to an over-pressurisation of the TT during refueling or during aft fuel transfer, possibly resulting in a TT rupture and consequent reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus published Service Bulletin (SB) A330-28-3130, SB A340-28-4140 and SB A340-28-5061, to provide functional test instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time functional test of the TT overflow and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
Corrective actions include a general visual inspection of the aperture leading to the flame arrestors (NACA duct), a detailed inspection of the flame arrestor, and blockage removal or repair of any discrepant NACA duct.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), indicated its support for the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued the following service information:
• Service Bulletin A330-28-3130, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017.
• Service Bulletin A340-28-4140, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017.
• Service Bulletin A340-28-5061, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017.
This service information describes procedures for doing a trim tank overflow functional test, a general visual inspection of the aperture leading to the flame arrestors (NACA duct), a detailed inspection of the flame arrestor, and blockage removal or repair of discrepant NACA ducts. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 97 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary inspections that would be required based on the results of the functional test. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these inspections:
We have received no definitive data that would allow us to provide cost estimates for the blockage removal or repair of a discrepant NACA duct specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective August 13, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) of this AD, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 1 through 1711 inclusive.
(1) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213 airplanes.
(5) Airbus Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.
(6) Airbus Model A340-541 airplanes.
(7) Airbus Model A340-642 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by a determination that a functional test to ensure that there is no blockage of vent pipes was not done on the trim tank of certain airplanes during production. We are issuing this AD to address blocked vent pipes, which, in combination with a high level sensor failure, could lead to over-pressurization of the trim tank during refueling or aft fuel transfer. This condition could lead to trim tank rupture and consequent reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 42 months after the effective date of this AD, do a trim tank overflow functional test in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3), as applicable.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3130, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-4140, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-5061, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017.
(1) If, during the functional test required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the trim tank maximum allowable pressure is exceeded: Before further flight, contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) to obtain instructions for corrective actions, and within the compliance time indicated in those instructions accomplish the corrective actions accordingly.
(2) If, during the functional test required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the trim surge tank maximum allowable pressure is exceeded: Before further flight, do a general visual inspection of the aperture leading to the flame arrestors (NACA duct) and do a detailed inspection of the flame arrestor in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3130, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-4140, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-5061, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017; as applicable.
(3) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, any discrepancy (blockage or damage of the NACA duct) is found: Before further flight, accomplish the applicable corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3130, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-4140, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-5061, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017; as applicable.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0152, dated August 17, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3130, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-4140, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-5061, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of fire incidents of the auxiliary power unit (APU) inlet, which caused tail cone damage after an initial failed APU start followed by two or more in-flight APU start attempts. This AD requires modification of the APU electronic control unit (ECU) wiring harness. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 13, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 13, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531; email
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to address failure of the APU inlet, which could result in a fire during flight.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-26, dated July 31, 2017, (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The MCAI states:
APU inlet fire incidents causing tail cone damage have been reported after an initial failed APU start followed by two or more in-flight APU start attempts. Bombardier, Inc. (BA) has determined that the in-flight negative pressure differential at the APU inlet allows flash fires of residual fuel in the APU combustor to exit through the APU inlet.
As an interim mitigating action, BA has revised the affected aeroplane Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) procedure for in-flight APU start to limit the number of APU start attempts.
To further address the safety concerns associated with in-flight APU inlet fire, BA is introducing a modification to the APU Electronic Control Unit (ECU) wiring harness that will prevent a second attempt to start the APU following a failed start in flight. This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate compliance with BA Service Bulletin (SB) 100-49-04 or SB 350-49-001, as applicable, on affected aeroplanes.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 100-49-04, dated March 29, 2017; and Service Bulletin 350-49-001, dated March 29, 2017. This service information describes a modification of the APU ECU harness. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 198 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective August 13, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 20003 through 20500 inclusive and 20501 through 20696 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 49, Airborne auxiliary power.
This AD was prompted by reports of fire incidents of the auxiliary power unit (APU) inlet, which caused tail cone damage after an initial failed APU start followed by two or more in-flight APU start attempts. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the APU inlet, which could result in a fire during flight.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the APU electronic control unit (ECU) wiring harness, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-49-04, dated March 29, 2017 (for S/N 20003 through 20500 inclusive); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-49-001, dated March 29, 2017 (for S/N 20501 through 20696 inclusive).
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-26, dated July 31, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, New York ACO Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-49-04, dated March 29, 2017.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-49-001, dated March 29, 2017.
(3) For Bombardier, Inc. service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that additional areas of Boeing Material Specification (BMS) 8-39 flexible urethane foam were found during a routine inspection. This AD requires an inspection for foam insulation on the dripshield above the overhead panel support structure and replacement if necessary. For certain airplanes, this AD also requires replacement of foam insulation on the overhead panel support structure. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 13, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 13, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Scott Craig, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3566; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. Boeing and United Airlines stated that they supported the NPRM.
Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we correct a typo in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0621, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2017. DAL stated that during its review of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0621, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2017, it found a typo in the instructions in step 4 of figures 1 and 3 in the “More Data” column. DAL stated that the instructions refer to Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter “777 AMM 23-92-02,” but the correct chapter should be “777 AMM 23-93-02.”
We agree with the commenter that there is a typo in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0621, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2017. The correct reference should be “777 AMM 23-93-02.” However, the typo is not in an “RC” (required for compliance) step in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0621, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2017, and the AMM is provided only as a reference in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0621, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2017. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0621, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2017. This service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection for foam insulation on the dripshield above the overhead panel support structure and replacement if necessary. This service information also describes procedures for replacement of foam insulation on the overhead panel support structure. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 132 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective August 13, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0621, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2017.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports that additional areas of Boeing Material Specification (BMS) 8-39 flexible urethane foam were found during a routine inspection pursuant to a previously issued AD. The degradation of the foam over time increases the potential for an uncontrolled fire below the passenger compartment floor and other locations outside the areas covered by smoke detection and fire protection systems. We are issuing this AD to address BMS 8-39 flexible urethane foam found in certain areas of an airplane, which, if exposed to an ignition source, could cause loss of control of the airplane during a fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0621, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0621, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2017.
For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0621, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2017, uses the phrase “the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”
This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0621, dated December 10, 2014.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Scott Craig, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3566; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0621, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI, by making the airspace full-time and removing the part-time status and language from the airspace legal description. The Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) requested this action. This action also makes an editorial change to the airspace description by removing the city from the airport name.
Effective 0901 UTC, September 13, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI, to support instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The development of the Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Iowa County airport takes into consideration and provides for terrain clearance within the airspace and provides for the protection of instrument procedures, taking other obstacles, such as wind turbines, into consideration; however, obstacle avoidance is ultimately the responsibility of the pilot in command.
The air traffic services currently provided by Chicago ARTCC will be the same as previously provided; however, those services will now be provided on a full-time basis.
Airspace is not designed nor meant to support noise abatement policies. Airspace is designed to support air traffic services, provide protection for and improve the safety of IFR operations. Therefore, noise abatement policies were not taken into consideration in this airspace amendment.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI, by making the airspace full-time and removing the part-time status language from the airspace legal description. This amendment is made at the request of Chicago ARTCC.
This action also makes an editorial change by removing the name of the city associated with the airport in the airspace legal description to comply with a change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Within a 4.1-mile radius of Iowa County Airport.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to continue the import restrictions on archaeological and ethnological material from Libya previously imposed on an emergency basis in a final rule published on December 5, 2017. These restrictions are being imposed pursuant to an agreement between the United States and Libya that has been entered into under the authority of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. The document also contains the Designated List of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Libya that describes the articles to which the restrictions apply. Accordingly, this document amends the CBP regulations by removing Libya from the listing of countries for which emergency actions imposed the import restrictions, and adding Libya to the list of countries for which an agreement has been entered into for imposing import restrictions.
For regulatory aspects, Lisa L. Burley, Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, (202) 325-0030,
Pursuant to the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601
Libya has been one of the countries whose archaeological and ethnological material has been afforded emergency protection. On December 5, 2017, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a final rule, CBP Dec. 17-19, in the
Import restrictions are now being imposed on the same categories of archaeological and ethnological material from Libya as a result of a bilateral agreement entered into between the United States and Libya. This agreement was entered into on February 23, 2018, pursuant to the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 2602. Protection of the archaeological and ethnological material from Libya
In reaching the decision to recommend that negotiations for an agreement with Libya should be undertaken to continue the imposition of import restrictions on certain archaeological and ethnological material of Libya, the Acting Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, State Department, after consultation with and recommendations by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, determined that the cultural heritage of Libya is in jeopardy from pillage of certain categories of archaeological and ethnological material, and that import restrictions should be imposed for a five-year period until February 23, 2023. Importation of such material continues to be restricted through that date unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.
The bilateral agreement between Libya and the United States covers the material set forth below in a Designated List of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Libya. Importation of material on this list is restricted unless the material is accompanied by documentation certifying that the material left Libya legally and not in violation of the export laws of Libya.
The Designated List covers archaeological material of Libya and Ottoman ethnological material of Libya (as defined in section 302 of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2601)), including, but not limited to, the following types of material. The archaeological material represents the following periods and cultures: Paleolithic, Neolithic, Punic, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Islamic and Ottoman dating approximately 12,000 B.C. to 1750 A.D. The ethnological material represents categories of Ottoman objects derived from sites of Islamic cultural importance, made by a nonindustrial society (Ottoman Libya), and important to the knowledge of the history of Islamic Ottoman society in Libya from 1551 A.D. through 1911 A.D.
The Designated List set forth below is representative only. Any dimensions are approximate.
1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
a.
b.
c.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
1.
2.
This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
CBP has determined that this document is not a regulation or rule subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13771 because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866 and section 4(a) of Executive Order 13771.
This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1), pertaining to the Secretary of the Treasury's authority (or that of his/her delegate) to approve regulations related to customs revenue functions.
Cultural property, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Prohibited merchandise.
For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12) is amended as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624;
Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612;
(a) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the SR 175 Bridge, which carries SR 175 across the Black Narrows and Lewis Creek Channel, mile 0.0, at Chincoteague Island, VA. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the 2018 Annual Pony Run and Auction. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
The deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on July 25, 2018, through 6 p.m. on July 26, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0639 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6557, email
The Virginia Department of Transportation, owner and operator of the SR 175 Bridge that carries SR 175 across the Black Narrows and Lewis Creek Channel, mile 0.0, at Chincoteague Island, VA, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to ensure the safety of the participants and spectators associated with the 2018 Annual Pony Run and Auction on July 25, 2018, and July 26, 2018. This bridge is a single-span bascule drawbridge, with a vertical clearance of 15 feet above mean high water in the closed position and unlimited vertical clearance in the open position.
The current operating regulation is set out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m. on July 25, 2018, and July 26, 2018.
The Black Narrows and Lewis Creek Channel is used by a variety of vessels including recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternative route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, a Second Report and Order takes a number of actions to accelerate the deployment of next-generation networks and services through removing barriers to infrastructure investment. The Second Report and Order takes further action to revise the discontinuance process, network change notification processes, and the customer notice process. It also forbears from applying discontinuance requirements for services with no customers and no reasonable requests for service during the preceding 30 days.
This rule is effective August 8, 2018, except for the amendments to 47 CFR 51.333(g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(2), 63.71(f), (h), (k) introductory text, (k)(1) and (3), and (l), which contain information collection requirements that have not been approved by OMB. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the
Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Michele Berlove, at (202) 418-1477,
This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order in WC Docket No. 17-84, FCC 18-74, adopted June 7, 2018 and released June 8, 2018. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It is available on the Commission's website at
1. Removing regulatory barriers causing unnecessary costs or delay when carriers seek to transition from legacy networks and services to broadband networks and services is an important piece of our work to encourage deployment of next-generation networks and to close the digital divide. In this Report and Order, we continue to act on our commitment by further reforming regulatory processes that unnecessarily stand in the way of this important transition that benefits the American public.
2. The actions we take today focus on further streamlining our processes by which carriers discontinue outdated services, eliminating unnecessary and burdensome or redundant requirements, and helping ensure that our network
3. The Commission initiated this proceeding last spring by adopting a
4. On November 16, 2017, the Commission adopted a
5. Today, we take additional steps to eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens when carriers decide to replace legacy voice and lower-speed data services with improved technological alternatives. The reforms we adopt here, like those adopted late last year, reflect the reality of today's marketplace and the decreasing demand for legacy voice and lower-speed data services as customers move towards more advanced competing alternatives. As demand for legacy services declines, expediting the discontinuance process for such services will allow carriers to focus their resources on providing next-generation IP-based services. The revisions we make today to our rules implementing the section 214(a) discontinuance approval process decrease needless costs and delay in transitioning from legacy voice services and lower-speed data services to next-generation IP-based services so that customers can receive innovative services that meet their needs. As a matter of convenience, unless otherwise noted, in this Report and Order, we use the terms “discontinue” or “discontinuance” as a shorthand for the statutory language “discontinue, reduce, or impair.”
6. At the outset, we reiterate that section 214(a)'s discontinuance obligations apply to interstate voice and data telecommunications services, and to interconnected VoIP service to which the Commission has extended section 214(a)'s discontinuance requirements. Our rules governing the discontinuance process do not preempt state requirements regarding the discontinuance of intrastate services. They do not apply to any carrier's provision of information services, to data or other services offered on a private carriage basis, or to any other communications or non-communications lines of business in which a carrier is engaged that do not come within the purview of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).
7. To encourage carriers to transition to next-generation technologies, and to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and costs that would otherwise be imposed on carriers as part of a technology transition, we revise our rules to provide streamlined treatment for lower-speed services in circumstances where the carrier already provides replacement data services at speeds of at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. Specifically, we streamline our discontinuance processes for applications seeking to (i) grandfather data services with download/upload speeds below 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, and (ii) subsequently discontinue on a permanent basis such data services once they have been grandfathered for at least 180 days. Previously, the Commission adopted streamlined comment and automatic grant periods of 10 and 25 days, respectively, for applications to grandfather voice and data services below 1.544 Mbps. We now extend this same streamlined treatment to applications seeking to grandfather data services with speeds below 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, so long as the applying carrier provides fixed replacement data services at speeds of at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps throughout the affected service area. We recognize that data services subject to section 214 discontinuance authority typically have symmetrical upload and download speeds. We nevertheless specify a non-symmetrical speed threshold here to provide maximum flexibility to carriers to the extent they now or in the future offer any non-symmetrical common carrier data service having download speeds less than 25 Mbps and upload speeds less than 3 Mbps that is subject to our discontinuance rules. The Commission also previously adopted streamlined comment and automatic grant periods of 10 and 31 days, respectively, for applications to permanently discontinue data services below 1.544 Mbps, provided the Commission has previously authorized such services to be grandfathered for at least the prior 180-day period. We now revise our rules to provide the same expedited 10-day comment and 31-day automatic grant periods to all previously-grandfathered data services with download/upload speeds below 25 Mbps/3 Mbps.
8. The record strongly supports extending this streamlined processing to these additional grandfathered and previously-grandfathered data services. Most importantly, these streamlining measures meet our objective of providing carriers with incentives to develop and deploy higher-speed data services at or above 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. Expediting the discontinuance process for additional data services provided that the carrier offers replacement data services at or above our specified speed threshold will spur the ongoing technology transition to next-generation IP-based services and promote
9. We reject some commenters' suggestion that extending the streamlined treatment to this class of data services “does not strike the appropriate balance between providing carriers flexibility and ensuring that customers have access to adequate alternatives.” Because carriers seeking to use this streamlined process must provide replacement data services at speeds of at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps throughout the affected service area, concerns about adequate alternatives are misplaced. Moreover, as other commenters recognize, extending our expedited discontinuance process to cover additional grandfathered and previously-grandfathered data services below 25 Mbps/3 Mbps protects existing customers in the same manner as our expedited process for grandfathered and previously-grandfathered low-speed legacy voice and data services. Commenters also note that more flexible speed thresholds are justified by the fact that grandfathering has no impact on existing services. We have thus heeded concerns that we proceed with caution in extending relief to higher speed data services. Existing customers will be grandfathered and they will have sufficient time to raise concerns, if any, about the carrier's grandfathering plans if they are impacted. What's more, the grandfathering period provides customers a far longer actual notice period and opportunity to transition to alternative services than our existing, more general, streamlined processing rules. It also provides us with sufficient time to conduct a thorough examination as to whether the proposed discontinuance would adversely affect the present or future public convenience and necessity during the application review process.
10. Carriers, of course, remain free to seek approval to discontinue a data service below 25 Mbps/3 Mbps without first grandfathering such service. But if they choose to do so, they are not eligible for the further streamlined processing we adopt today for previously-grandfathered data services below this speed threshold. Our further streamlining actions reflect common-sense reforms that balance the needs of customers and carriers in fulfilling our section 214(a) discontinuance obligations.
11. The Commission proposed the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps threshold in the
12. Similarly, we decline requests to apply an expedited discontinuance process where the proposed replacement data services are below 25 Mbps/3 Mbps as long as the discontinuing carrier offers “another data service of at least the same . . . speed throughout the affected service area as the service being discontinued.” Allowing carriers that do not commit to provide replacement data services having speeds of at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps to qualify for this streamlined treatment would not encourage carriers to deploy and offer data services meeting at least our current benchmark speed threshold for fixed advanced telecommunications capability of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. As the Commission has explained, data services having download/upload speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps “enable[ ] users to originate and receive high quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications”—capabilities that consumers demand. We recognize commenter concerns that a higher-speed data service may be more costly than a service providing speeds of less than 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. However, this is precisely the type of concern that can be addressed during the section 214 discontinuance public comment period. We also note that while the cost of the replacement service might be outweighed by other considerations, the Commission will consider whether the price for the replacement service is so high as to be unaffordable to most users.
13. In the
14. Finally, Windstream and Ad Hoc urge us again to incorporate specific prescribed safeguards in any further streamlining of data service applications to protect grandfathered business customers. The Commission rejected these same recommendations in its most recent wireline infrastructure item because they are inconsistent with the goal of streamlining processes and because businesses—like other consumers—benefit overall when carriers invest in deployment of next-generation services rather than outdated technologies. There is nothing in the current record that leads us to a different conclusion. We therefore decline to adopt these proposals here, as the Commission did just over six months ago.
15. We forbear from applying the discontinuance approval obligations set forth in section 214(a) of the Act and section 63.60 through 63.602 of our rules to carriers choosing to discontinue services for which the carrier has had no customers and no reasonable requests for service for at least the immediately preceding 30 days. When we refer to services without customers in this subsection, we are referring to applications for services having both no existing customers
16. The Act requires us to forbear from applying any requirement of the Act or of our regulations to a telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service if and only if we determine that: (1) Enforcement of the requirement is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of that requirement is not necessary for the protection of consumers; and (3) forbearance from applying that requirement is consistent with the public interest. In making the public interest determination, we must also consider, pursuant to section 10(b) of the Act, “whether forbearance from enforcing the provision or regulation will promote competitive market conditions.” As discussed below, we find that the criteria for forbearance are satisfied here.
17.
18.
19. CWA's assertion that it is only through Commission review and public comment during the discontinuance process that the Commission can determine whether a service has no customers is at odds with our experience with discontinuance applications for services identified as having no customers. To date, we have not received a single comment in opposition to any application to discontinue service with no customers. We previously took more incremental steps to streamline discontinuance obligations for certain services with no customers, and the record does not identify any harms that arose as a result. In the
20.
21. Our decision to forbear from the discontinuance requirements for services with no customers, obviates our need to consider further streamlining applications for discontinuance of services with no customers. For the same reason, it obviates the rationale for the Commission's previous decision to streamline applications for certain services with no customers. We therefore revise the present text of section 63.71(g) and remove section 63.71(k)(5), which created varying degrees of streamlining for discontinuance applications for services with no customers. We take this action to make clear to carriers that they need
22. We also eliminate the uncodified education and outreach mandates adopted in the
23. We agree with commenters that argue that service providers have strong marketplace incentives to communicate with, and educate, customers about replacement services related to their technology transitions. As the Commission found in the
24. In the face of carriers' incentives to communicate with customers, one-size-fits-all regulatory intrusion is unnecessarily burdensome. We disagree with those commenters that claim that the 2016 requirements provide consumers with “the minimum amount of information” they need to transition from legacy to alternative services and provide carriers “with a flexible blueprint to follow.” The record demonstrates that the 2016 outreach obligations translate to a long list of inflexible and burdensome mandates. We are therefore persuaded by those commenters that argue that the outreach requirements impose real, and in some cases, quite burdensome, costs on service providers.
25. Furthermore, our discontinuance obligations and accessibility and 911 rules also protect customers by requiring their carriers to provide timely and necessary information regarding replacement voice services when those carriers seek to cease offering legacy TDM voice service. The Commission extended section 255 accessibility requirements to interconnected VoIP services in 2007. For example, our rules require carriers seeking to discontinue a legacy voice service to provide substantially similar information about available replacement service alternatives in their application, including price, as the separate outreach requirement mandates. The Commission also puts discontinuance applications on public notice, thus triggering its discontinuance review process which gives affected customers the opportunity to comment or object to the application. Carriers also must ensure, through accessible call centers and customer support—akin to the 2016 telephone hotline accessibility requirement—that information about their voice services and accessibility features are accessible to individuals with disabilities at no additional cost. Carriers must also train customer service representatives to communicate with individuals with disabilities in order to comply with our accessibility rules. In developing training programs, carriers “are encouraged to consider topics on accessibility requirements, means of communicating with individuals with disabilities, commonly used adaptive technology, designing for accessibility, and solutions for accessibility and compatibility.”
26. If customers facing a discontinuance of their legacy voice service do not believe that they have sufficient information about a replacement service from a carrier seeking Commission approval to discontinue a legacy voice service, then they can raise these issues in objections to the carrier's discontinuance application and seek to have the Commission remove the application from streamlined processing. Thus, the discontinuance process provides an additional backstop that encourages carriers to communicate with their customers up-front. We agree with USTelecom that “there is no evidence in the record that existing applicable notice requirements are inadequate to notify consumers of service changes.” Consequently, we find it unnecessary to continue to impose prescriptive outreach obligations when our rules already obligate carriers to ensure that customers are appropriately informed. We reject the argument that we should retain the education and outreach requirements because “public safety and public welfare are at stake” when carriers transition from legacy TDM voice to IP-based or other voice technologies. These objections are irrelevant here because they concern the circumstances in which transitions are permitted, rather than education and outreach requirements concerning those transitions. We note that the Act and our existing rules protect vulnerable consumers during technology transitions—for instance, voice service providers have independent consumer protection obligations addressing important accessibility and public safety issues, even when they use IP to deliver their voice services.
27. PK/CRS state that “the test to eliminate these rules is not simply whether they impose cost but whether the public understands what is going on, [and] maintains critical services.” Our decision to eliminate these outreach rules meets that “test.” The record reflects that carriers' ongoing customer relationship experience best positions them, not the Commission, to understand and implement effective
28. What's more, by eliminating these prescriptive and unnecessary requirements, we help accelerate the important and ongoing process of technology transitions to next-generation IP-based services and networks by significantly reducing additional costs and unnecessary regulatory burdens that would be imposed on carriers as part of this transition. Eliminating unnecessary costs and burdens having scant apparent countervailing benefits, frees up carrier resources to devote to a more rapid and efficient transition to next-generation networks and services. Apart from duplicating information already provided to customers through normal business practices or other Commission requirements, one carrier submits that this “exhaustive information” may so overwhelm its customers that they ignore it altogether. At the same time, we reiterate that we expect and encourage carriers to continue to collaborate with and educate their customers and state entities to ensure that customers are given sufficient time to accommodate the transition to new technologies, such that key functionalities are not lost during this period of change.
29. In the interest of further encouraging deployment of next-generation networks, we amend our rules to allow carriers to use either the “adequate replacement test” or a new “alternative options test” to qualify for streamlined treatment of applications to discontinue legacy voice services. Under the adequate replacement test, applications seeking to discontinue a legacy TDM-based voice service as part of a transition to a newer technology, such as VoIP, wireless, or some other advanced service (technology transition discontinuance applications), are required to satisfy a three-pronged test in order to be entitled to streamlined treatment. Specifically, the adequate replacement test requires a technology transition discontinuance application to “certify[ ] or show[ ] that one or more replacement service(s) offers all of the following: (i) Substantially similar levels of network infrastructure and service quality as the applicant service; (ii) compliance with existing federal and/or industry standards required to ensure that critical applications such as 911, network security, and applications for individuals with disabilities remain available; and (iii) interoperability and compatibility with an enumerated list of applications and functionalities determined to be key to consumers and competitors.” We clarify that we are not making any findings that the stand-alone interconnected VoIP service necessary for the discontinuing carrier to meet the first prong of the test and whatever alternative voice service(s) meets the second prong of the test are necessarily substitutes or in the same product market for all potential customers in the affected service area. Rather, we merely intend to ensure that under this streamlined test, the community has, at a minimum, at least one alternative voice service to the discontinuing carrier's replacement service, as distinguished from the adequate replacement test where only a single voice replacement service need be available to meet that test. We also further streamline applications to grandfather legacy voice services at or above speeds of 1.544 Mbps.
30.
31. Importantly, the alternative options test complements, rather than replaces, the adequate replacement test adopted in the
32. As the record, and our own data, clearly demonstrate, the number of switched access lines has “continued to plummet,” while the “number of interconnected VoIP and mobile voice subscriptions have continued to climb.” According to the most recent statistics released by the Commission's Industry Analysis and Technology Division of the Wireline Competition Bureau, there were 58 million traditional “switched access” lines in service, 63 million interconnected VoIP subscriptions, and 341 million mobile subscriptions in the United States as of December 2016. These figures represented a three-year compound annual growth rate of 10 percent for interconnected VoIP subscriptions and 3 percent for mobile voice subscriptions, while retail switched access lines declined at 12 percent per year over the same period. The record also shows strong support for further streamlining the section 214(a) discontinuance process for legacy voice services for carriers in the midst of a technology transition. By providing additional opportunities to streamline the discontinuance process for legacy voice services, with appropriate limitations to protect consumers and the public interest, we allow carriers to more quickly redirect resources to next-generation networks, and the public to receive the benefit of those new networks.
33. Some commenters urge us to eliminate the adequate replacement test in favor of a simpler approach to streamlined treatment of applications to discontinue legacy voice services.
34. We find the better course is to retain the adequate replacement test and give applicants the choice of seeking streamlined treatment under either the adequate replacement test or the alternative options test. This action is consistent with the Commission's requests for comment on ways to further streamline the discontinuance process for legacy voice services. Applicants seeking streamlined treatment under the adequate replacement test must engage in testing and other regulatory compliance obligations to demonstrate the existence of at least one adequate replacement service. In addition, the streamlined treatment afforded such carriers depends on whether they are treated as dominant or non-dominant with respect to the legacy voice service they are seeking to discontinue. By contrast, applicants seeking streamlined treatment under the alternative options test must themselves offer stand-alone interconnected VoIP, and at least one other stand-alone facilities-based voice service must be available from another unaffiliated provider throughout the affected service area. Where only one potential replacement service exists, a carrier must meet the more rigorous demands of the adequate replacement test in order to receive streamlined treatment of its discontinuance application. But where there is more than one facilities-based alternative, at least one of which is a stand-alone interconnected VoIP offering provided by the discontinuing carrier, we expect customers will benefit from competition between facilities-based providers. For example, where the alternative voice option is another facilities-based VoIP service offered by a competing wireline provider, consumers will benefit from both choice and competition between the two providers. The stand-alone interconnected VoIP service option required to meet the alternative options test embodies managed service quality and underlying network infrastructure, and disabilities access and 911 access requirements, key components of the Commission's 2016 streamlining action. The managed nature of the stand-alone interconnected VoIP service option embodies the concept articulated in the
35. We recognize that some commenters have advocated for an even simpler approach to qualifying for streamlined treatment of legacy voice discontinuance applications. Most notably, there is some support in the record for AT&T's recommendation that a discontinuing carrier only be required to show that any “fixed or mobile voice service, including interconnected VoIP” be available to qualify for streamlined treatment. We do not think this approach strikes the right balance between facilitating the technology transition and our statutory obligation to ensure that “neither the present nor future public convenience and necessity will be adversely affected” by discontinuance of legacy voice services. AT&T's approach would allow further streamlined processing for discontinuance applications where only one replacement voice service is available, and where the replacement service could be
36. We also disagree with AT&T's assertion that our requirement that carriers must offer stand-alone interconnected VoIP service in order to qualify for the alternative options test “warrants further notice and comment.” In the
37. We also reject certain commenters' requests that we make a generalized finding that discontinuing a legacy voice service in favor of any type of voice replacement service would not adversely affect the public convenience and necessity, effectively amounting to blanket discontinuance authority for legacy voice services. Likewise, to be clear, the alternative options test we adopt today makes no such generalized finding about the services meeting the two-part test, thereby eliminating any concern regarding such a potential
38. Finally, we are unpersuaded by commenter concerns that large enterprise or government customers will be adversely affected by further streamlined processing of legacy voice discontinuance applications that do not meet the adequate replacement test. By our actions today, like all our streamlining actions, we do not intend to disturb existing contractual obligations between carriers and their customers. Large enterprise and government customers generally enter into negotiated contracts for the provision of telecommunications services given their unique requirements. And as the Commission has found, carriers are accustomed to working with customers, such as government users, to avoid service disruptions. We have no reason to depart from the expectation that carriers will “continue to collaborate with their [enterprise or government] customers, especially utilities and public safety and other government customers, to ensure that they are given sufficient time to accommodate the transition to [next-generation services] such that key functionalities are not lost during this period of change.” The record confirms such collaborations routinely occur. Moreover, as with all discontinuance applications, customers are able to file comments in opposition to a discontinuance application and seek to have the Commission remove the application from streamlined processing.
39.
40. As the Commission found in the
41.
42. Commenters seeking forbearance assume the ubiquitous availability of next-generation advanced services. However, this assumption does not bear out in many rural areas of this country, thus implicating our statutory obligation to ensure that “[c]onsumers in all regions of the Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services, that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas.” The Commission has previously recognized Congress' concern that “discontinuance by the only carrier serving a market . . . would leave the public without adequate communications service.” We thus find that forbearance would not “promote competitive market conditions” because it would eliminate our ability to ensure the existence of any alternatives. We reject NTCA's argument that we should look only to whether a discontinuance will result in the cessation of voice service for the same reasons we reject forbearance. Moreover, if we forbear from our section 214(a) discontinuance requirements, we will be unable to ensure that there is adequate notice of a planned discontinuance, regardless of the availability of multiple alternatives. And should we forbear from requiring that discontinuing carriers file applications and related certifications before discontinuing service, we would lose the opportunity to ensure the accuracy of carriers' own determinations regarding, among other things, the reliability and affordability of the replacement services and the availability of those services to all affected customers. Thus, on this record, enforcement of our section 214(a) discontinuance requirements is “necessary for the protection of consumers” and forbearance would not be consistent with the public interest, making forbearance from those requirements inappropriate at this time. Indeed, because the service at issue is basic telephone service, we must be given the opportunity to scrutinize whether the planned discontinuance would result in an unreasonable degree of consumer hardship, including considering “the availability of reasonable substitutes, and whether customers have had a reasonable opportunity to migrate.”
43.
44. Today, recognizing significant changes in the marketplace and technology over the past several years, we take additional actions to further reduce unnecessary and redundant regulatory burdens and delay on incumbent LECs when making network changes while continuing to ensure that interconnecting carriers have adequate information and time to accommodate such changes. We also eliminate unnecessary notice requirements pertaining to the connection of customer premises equipment (CPE) to the public switched telephone network (PSTN). And we take action to ensure that carriers can expeditiously return their communications networks to working order in the face of events beyond their control. Finally, we retain the way in which the Commission calculates the waiting period for short-term network change notices.
45. We eliminate the provision in section 51.325 of our rules requiring incumbent LECs to provide public notice of network changes that “will affect the manner in which customer premises equipment is attached to the interstate network.” As the record demonstrates, incumbent LECs' engagement and collaboration with CPE manufacturers today renders this separate notice requirement unnecessary.
46. When the Commission adopted section 51.325(a)(3), it was concerned that an incumbent LEC controlling the underlying transmission facilities that also had affiliates engaged in the manufacture of CPE might give those affiliates a competitive advantage. This is no longer the case. The record confirms that incumbent LECs no longer have the same control of the PSTN, nor do they enjoy the market power they did two decades ago with respect to the manufacture of CPE.
47. We find that CPE manufacturers, including those engaged in providing essential communications equipment and assistive technologies, will have the same access to information when changes to a provider's network or operations have the potential to render certain devices incompatible to ensure their ability to develop new compatible equipment. Incumbent LECs remain subject to sections 201 (interconnection) and 202 (non-discrimination) of the Act, and the Commission has held that the obligations imposed by these statutory provisions apply in the context of CPE. Moreover, CPE manufacturers have never been entitled to direct notice of network changes of any type, even those that might affect the compatibility of CPE. To the extent any manufacturers actively monitor carrier network change notice web pages or Commission announcements of network change notices, they will have the same access to these notices as they have always had. Significantly, no CPE manufacturer opposes the elimination of section 51.325(a)(3). Indeed, the only CPE manufacturer that submitted comments on this issue supports its elimination.
48. The role played by the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments (ACTA) in overseeing the adoption of specific technical criteria for terminal equipment further justifies elimination of section 51.325(a)(3). The Commission established ACTA, a non-governmental entity whose membership fairly and impartially represents all segments of the telecommunications industry, for the express purpose of privatizing the standards development and terminal equipment approval processes for the connection of CPE to the PSTN and certain private-line services. Through ACTA, incumbent LECs and other service providers work collaboratively with CPE manufacturers, independent testing labs, and other interested industry segments, to openly share the information necessary to ensure CPE compliance and compatibility with the incumbent LEC and other service providers' networks. Equipment manufacturers must also ensure that their products are registered in the ACTA database. ACTA must publish public notice of submitted technical criteria, and interested parties may appeal any aspect of those submissions to the Commission.
49. We similarly find that manufacturers will have the opportunity to develop modified or upgraded CPE ahead of network changes in the absence of section 51.325(a)(3), and thus that consumers will not be harmed. Incumbent LECs facing increasing competition from a variety of sources must engage their customers and keep them fully informed if they hope to retain their business. Because incumbent LECs no longer have a significant presence in the market for the manufacture of CPE, and they wish to remain competitive in today's ever-changing marketplace, they lack a significant incentive to hide changes to their networks that may impair the compatibility of CPE used by their customers. And as the Commission found in eliminating the requirement that incumbent LECs provide direct notice to retail customers of planned copper retirements, incumbent LECs already must engage their retail customers as a normal business practice in order to install the equipment necessary to accommodate fiber lines, at which time they also address CPE compatibility issues.
50. Unlike section 51.325(a)'s other delineated types of network changes that were adopted to protect interoperability and interconnection with other carriers' networks and facilities, the Commission adopted section 51.325(a)(3) specifically to protect competitive CPE manufacturers. That rationale no longer justifies the rule. Some commenters misunderstand the history of section 51.325(a)(3) and erroneously assert that the Commission's intention in promulgating section 51.325(a)(3) was “to maintain interoperability and uninterrupted, high quality service to the public.” While that was the Commission's articulated intention when it adopted section 51.325 in 1996, it was not until three years later that the Commission added subsection (a)(3). When the Commission first adopted its part 51 network change disclosure rules in 1996, it did not include section 51.325(a)(3) related to CPE. At that time, a different section of the Commission's rules already required incumbent LECs, and other facilities-based carriers, to publicly disclose,
51. Finally, our rules separately require that incumbent LECs and other service providers and equipment manufacturers ensure the accessibility and usability of their services and equipment by people with disabilities, which of necessity requires collaboration between these two groups, as well as with individuals with disabilities and disability-related organizations. In this regard, we expect that incumbent LECs and other service providers will communicate with state centers that distribute specialized customer premises equipment (SCPE) or
52. We also eliminate the requirement that carriers give notice to customers of changes to their facilities, equipment, operations, or procedures “[i]f such changes can be reasonably expected to render any customer's terminal equipment incompatible with the communications facilities of the provider of wireline telecommunications . . . to allow the customer to maintain uninterrupted service.” Part 68 applies to all wireline providers, not just incumbent LECs. We find that changes to the communications marketplace generally and to the market for terminal equipment specifically render this over 42 year old notice requirement unworkable and unnecessary. Indeed, consumers have available to them a vast range of CPE devices and, in many cases, have the option of using converter boxes to the extent they choose to keep their analog CPE after their service has been migrated to IP. The terms “terminal equipment” and “customer premises equipment (CPE)” are used interchangeably.
53. The rule made some sense when it was adopted in 1975 as part of the Commission's decision to require carriers to allow third party-manufactured terminal equipment to be directly connected to the network as long as the equipment met specific technical standards set forth by the Commission to prevent network harm. As part of that regime, the Commission required telephone company customers to notify their provider before connecting any third-party terminal equipment to the network to ensure that the equipment had been registered with the Commission under its new part 68 rules. At the same time, the Commission adopted the reciprocal section 68.110(b) requirement for telephone companies to notify those customers if the telephone company was making any changes to its operations that might affect the compatibility of the customer's third-party equipment. This notice requirement imposed no obligation on the carrier to refrain from or delay making its network change to accommodate its customer, nor was there any obligation on the part of the telephone company to ensure that other compatible CPE was available.
54. Attachment of third-party equipment is now the norm. Customers are no longer required to notify their carriers of the CPE they connect to their providers' networks unless their carrier has specifically required that they do so. In 1985, the Commission relaxed the customer requirement to notify the telephone company upon the development of a robust CPE registration database, but the corresponding notice to customers went unaddressed. When the Commission revised the part 68 rules in 2001, it again did not address section 68.110(b). Moreover, given the current universe of registered CPE that customers could potentially connect to their provider's network, as commenters explain, carriers cannot reasonably know which of their subscribers use which, if any, of that equipment. There are tens of thousands of approved pieces of terminal equipment listed in the ACTA database. Indeed, the database was not established for the purpose of enabling carriers to identify the CPE used by particular customers. Rather, it was intended to allow consumers and providers to identify the supplier of a particular piece of equipment. As a result, the only way a carrier could be certain of complying with section 68.110(b) was if it notified each and every one of its customers whenever
55. What's more, there are other safeguards in place to reduce the likelihood that manufacturers and customers will be left unaware of carriers' changes to their facilities, equipment, operations, or procedures that can be reasonably expected to render any terminal equipment incompatible with the carrier's facilities. Most significantly, ACTA's privatized, open, and balanced collaborative process among CPE manufacturers, service providers, testing laboratories, and other interested stakeholders ensures the adoption of technical criteria for compatible CPE that accommodates service providers' network evolutions, thus avoiding customer service interruptions.
56. Also, the types of network or operational changes that could impact customers' CPE will still result in notice to customers. Specifically, our rules require customer notice of service discontinuances, and the Commission has found that carriers must as a business necessity communicate with customers regarding copper retirements. Further, carriers have strong incentives to keep their customers informed of technology transitions, including changes in their networks, that might affect CPE compatibility if they hope to retain their customers in today's competitive marketplace. And as discussed earlier, other regulatory requirements are designed to ensure that covered services are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, or compatible with SCPE and peripheral devices commonly used by individuals with disabilities, such as TTYs and analog captioned telephones. And manufacturers of specialized equipment designed to ensure accessibility can refer to technical standards made available through ACTA to also ensure that their equipment is compatible with the network in accordance with part 68. Regardless, mandated notice requirements do not affect whether customers will have to replace their devices.
57. We are unpersuaded by commenter concerns that, if we eliminate this rule, large enterprise customers will be “required to redesign their networks on the fly and after the fact” or that “the reliability and security of utility applications” will be undermined. As the Commission has already found, such customers generally enter into contracts with their telecommunications carriers in which they can specify the amount of notice the carrier must provide about changes to its network. As the Commission noted in the
58. Today, we extend to all types of network changes the streamlined notice procedures the Commission recently adopted for copper retirements when
59. We find no reason in the record to further impede carriers' efforts to restore service necessitating network changes other than copper retirements in the face of
60. We retain the current rule that calculates the waiting period for short-term network change notices from the date the Commission issues its public notice after an incumbent LEC files its network change notification, and we decline to calculate the waiting period from the date of filing. We agree with commenters that urge us to retain this rule to ensure sufficient and complete public notice of short-term network changes, given the already short 10-day waiting period. Commencing the waiting period
61. We reject ITTA's assertion that because the Commission retained a distinction between copper retirement notice rules and other types of network change notice rules, this difference alone constitutes a basis for deviating from how we calculate the commencement of the waiting period for each. The record demonstrates that the reasons we declined to revise the calculation of the waiting period for copper retirement notices similarly warrant retaining the long-standing way in which we calculate the waiting period for short-term network change notices as well. Reducing the already-short waiting period further limits the notice to interconnecting carriers, affecting their ability to accommodate the planned network change or to object, if necessary, to the timing of the planned network change. Staff has as much need to “routinely contact filers to clarify or correct information contained in filings or to add required information that is missing” for short-term network change notices as for copper retirements.
62. Finally, we decline to adopt a requirement that the Commission release a public notice within a specified period of time after an incumbent LEC files a short-term network change notice. In the
63. We also make certain non-substantive updates and corrections to our codified rules required by the actions we take today and actions taken in the
64. In light of our elimination today of section 68.110(b) of our rules, we redesignate that current rule's paragraph (c) as paragraph (b). In turn, we must adjust any cross-references to section 68.110(c) elsewhere in our rules to reflect its redesignation as 68.110(b). We thus make the necessary changes to such cross-reference in section 68.105(d)(4). Similarly, in eliminating section 51.325(a)(3) today, we redesignate paragraph (a)(4) of that section as paragraph (a)(3). We thus adjust the cross-references to section 51.325(a)(4) that appear in section 51.333(b)(2) and (f).
65. Additionally, in the
66. We also make an administrative change to correct an inaccurate cross-reference in section 63.71(k)(1), adopted in the
67. To shorten the number of unnecessary subsections in our rules, we also revise section 63.71(a) by combining paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) into one consolidated new paragraph (a)(6). We also update any cross-references to paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) in section 63.71(a) to reflect this consolidation. We similarly update any cross-references to section 63.60(h) in section 63.71 to reflect the redesignation of paragraph (h) in section 63.60 as paragraph (i). This administrative change makes no substantive changes to the language or underlying requirements of the rule.
68. Finally, we correct an inadvertent error in the ordering clause of the
69. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Notice of Inquiry, and Request for Comment (
70. In the
71. Pursuant to the objectives set forth in the
72. The Commission did not receive comments specifically addressing the rules and policies proposed in the IRFAs in either the
73. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to this proceeding.
74. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the final rules adopted pursuant to the Order. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s)
75. The changes to our section 214 discontinuance, network change notification, and part 68 customer notification rules will affect obligations on incumbent LECs and, in some cases, competitive LECs. Other entities that choose to object to network change notifications for copper retirement or section 214 discontinuance applications may be economically impacted by the rules in the Order.
76.
77. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Data from the Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) reporting on nonprofit organizations registered with the IRS was used to estimate the number of small organizations. Reports generated using the NCCS online database indicated that as of August 2016 there were 356,494 registered nonprofits with total revenues of less than $100,000. Of this number, 326,897 entities filed tax returns with 65,113 registered nonprofits reporting total revenues of $50,000 or less on the IRS Form 990-N for Small Exempt Organizations and 261,784 nonprofits reporting total revenues of $100,000 or less on some other version of the IRS Form 990 within 24 months of the August 2016 data release date.
78. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicates that there were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. The Census of Government is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for years ending with “2” and “7.” Local governmental jurisdictions are classified in two categories—General purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) and Special purpose governments (special districts and independent school districts). Of this number there were 37,132 general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,184 special purpose governments (independent school districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000. There were 2,114 county governments with populations less than 50,000. There were 18,811 municipal and 16,207 town and township governments with populations less than 50,000. There were 12,184 independent school districts with enrollment populations less than 50,000. The U.S. Census Bureau data did not provide a population breakout for special district governments. The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the local government category shows that the majority of these governments have populations of less than 50,000. While U.S. Census Bureau data did not provide a population breakout for special district governments, if the population of less than 50,000 for this category of local government is consistent with the other types of local governments the majority of the 38,266 special district governments have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data we estimate that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91. In this Order, the Commission modifies its section 214 discontinuance and network change disclosure rules to improve the efficiency of these processes, as well as to increase broadband deployment. It also eliminates unnecessary and burdensome section 214 discontinuance, network change disclosure, and part 68 notification regulations that inhibit carriers from implementing the transition to next-generation networks and IP-based broadband services. Finally, it forbears from section 214 discontinuance requirements in limited circumstances, thus further reducing the burden on carriers seeking to discontinue services for which they have no customers and have had no reasonable request for customers for the
92.
93.
94. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
95.
96.
97.
98. In this document, we have assessed the effects of reforming our network change notification and section 214(a) discontinuance rules, and find that doing so will serve the public interest and is unlikely to directly affect businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
99. Accordingly,
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
Communications common carriers, Telecommunications.
Cable television, Communications common carriers, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telegraph, Telephone.
Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
For the reasons set forth above, Parts 51, 63, and 68 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151-55, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 220, 225-27, 251-54, 256, 271, 303(r), 332, 1302.
(b) * * *
(2)
(f)
(g)
(iii) If an incumbent LEC requires relief from the notice requirements under this section longer than 180 days after it invokes the disaster recovery plan, the incumbent LEC must request such authority from the Commission. Any such request must be accompanied by a status report describing the incumbent LEC's progress and providing an estimate of when the incumbent LEC expects to be able to resume compliance with the notice requirements under this section.
(2)
(ii) A short term network change or copper retirement notice subject to paragraph (g)(2) of this section must include a brief explanation of the circumstances necessitating the reduced waiting period and how the incumbent LEC intends to minimize the impact of the reduced waiting period on directly interconnected telephone exchange service providers.
(iii) For purposes of this section, circumstances outside of the incumbent LEC's control include federal, state, or local municipal mandates and unintentional damage to the incumbent LEC's network facilities not caused by the incumbent LEC.
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 214, 218, 403, and 571, unless otherwise noted.
(a) * * *
(6) For applications to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing retail service as part of a technology transition, as defined in § 63.60(i), except for applications meeting the requirements of paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section, in order to be eligible for automatic grant under paragraph (f) of this section:
(i) A statement that any service offered in place of the service being discontinued, reduced, or impaired may not provide line power;
(ii) The information required by § 12.5(d)(1) of this chapter;
(iii) A description of any security responsibilities the customer will have regarding the replacement service; and
(iv) A list of the steps the customer may take to ensure safe use of the replacement service.
(f)(1) The application to discontinue, reduce, or impair service, if filed by a domestic, non-dominant carrier, or any carrier meeting the requirements of paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section, shall be automatically granted on the 31st day after its filing with the Commission without any Commission notification to the applicant unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective. The application to discontinue, reduce, or impair service, if filed by a domestic, dominant carrier, shall be automatically granted on the 60th day after its filing with the Commission without any Commission notification to the applicant unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective. For purposes of this section, an application will be deemed filed on the date the Commission releases public notice of the filing.
(2) An application to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing retail service as part of a technology transition, as defined in § 63.60(i), may be automatically granted only if:
(i) The applicant provides affected customers with the notice required under paragraph (a)(6) of this section, and the application contains the showing or certification described in § 63.602(b); or
(ii) The applicant:
(A) Offers a stand-alone interconnected VoIP service, as defined in § 9.3 of this chapter, throughout the affected service area, and
(B) At least one other alternative stand-alone facilities-based wireline or wireless voice service is available from another unaffiliated provider throughout the affected service area.
(iii) For purposes of this paragraph (f)(2), “stand-alone” means that a customer is not required to purchase a separate broadband service to access the voice service.
(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a carrier is not required to file an application to discontinue, reduce, or impair a service for which the requesting carrier has had no customers or reasonable requests for service during the 30-day period immediately preceding the discontinuance.
(h) An application to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing retail service as part of a technology transition, as defined in § 63.60(i), except for an application meeting the requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (k) of this section, shall contain the information required by § 63.602. The certification or showing described in § 63.602(b) is only required if the applicant seeks eligibility for automatic grant under paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section.
(i) An application to discontinue, reduce, or impair a service filed by a competitive local exchange carrier in response to a copper retirement notice filed pursuant to § 51.333 of this chapter shall be automatically granted on the effective date of the copper retirement; provided that:
(k) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(6), and (f) of this section, the following requirements apply to applications for legacy voice services or data services operating at speeds lower than 1.544 Mbps:
(1) Where any carrier, dominant or non-dominant, seeks to:
(i) Grandfather any legacy voice service;
(ii) Grandfather any data service operating at speeds lower than 1.544 Mbps; or
(iii) Discontinue, reduce, or impair a legacy data service operating at speeds lower than 1.544 Mbps that has been grandfathered for a period of no less than 180 days consistent with the criteria established in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, the notice shall state:
The FCC will normally authorize this proposed discontinuance of service (or reduction or impairment) unless it is shown that customers would be unable to receive service or a reasonable substitute from another carrier or that the public convenience and necessity is otherwise adversely affected. If you wish to object, you should file your comments as soon as possible, but no later than 10 days after the Commission releases public notice of the proposed discontinuance. You may file your comments electronically through the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System using the docket number established in the Commission's public notice for this proceeding, or you may address them to the Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Washington, DC 20554, and include in your comments a reference to the § 63.71 Application of (carrier's name). Comments should include specific information about the impact of this proposed discontinuance (or reduction or impairment) upon you or your company, including any inability to acquire reasonable substitute service.
(3) An application filed by any carrier seeking to grandfather any legacy voice service or to grandfather any data service operating at speeds lower than 1.544 Mbps for existing customers shall be automatically granted on the 25th day after its filing with the Commission without any Commission notification to the applicant unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective.
(l) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(6), and (f) of this section, the following requirements apply to applications for data services operating at or above 1.544 Mbps in both directions but below 25 Mbps download, and 3 Mbps upload, provided that the carrier offers alternative fixed data services in the affected service area at speeds of at least 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload:
(1) Where any carrier, dominant or non-dominant, seeks to:
(i) Grandfather such data service; or
(ii) Discontinue, reduce, or impair such data service that has been grandfathered for a period of no less than 180 days consistent with the criteria established in paragraph (l)(2) of this section, the notice to all affected customers shall state:
The FCC will normally authorize this proposed discontinuance of service (or reduction or impairment) unless it is shown that customers would be unable to receive service or a reasonable substitute from another carrier or that the public convenience and necessity is otherwise adversely affected. If you wish to object, you should file your comments as soon as possible, but no later than 10 days after the Commission releases public notice of the proposed
(2) For applications to discontinue, reduce, or impair such data service that has been grandfathered for a period of no less than 180 days, in order to be eligible for automatic grant under paragraph (l)(4) of this section, an applicant must include in its application a statement confirming that it received Commission authority to grandfather the service at issue at least 180 days prior to filing the current application.
(3) An application seeking to grandfather such a data service shall be automatically granted on the 25th day after its filing with the Commission without any Commission notification to the applicant unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective.
(4) An application seeking to discontinue, reduce, or impair such a data service that has been grandfathered under this section for 180 days or more preceding the filing of the application, shall be automatically granted on the 31st day after its filing with the Commission without any Commission notification to the applicant, unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 610.
(d) * * *
(4) The provider of wireline telecommunications services shall make available information on the location of the demarcation point within ten business days of a request from the premises owner. If the provider of wireline telecommunications services does not provide the information within that time, the premises owner may presume the demarcation point to be at the MPOE. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 68.110(b), provider of wireline telecommunications services must make this information freely available to the requesting premises owner.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule revises the current closure regulations for commercial shark fisheries. These changes affect commercial shark fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean. Revisions include changes to the landings threshold that prompts a closure and the minimum time between filing of the closure with the
This rule is effective on August 8, 2018.
Copies of the supporting documents, including the Final Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and amendments are available from the HMS website at
Lauren Latchford, Guý DuBeck, Chanté Davis, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone at (301) 427-8503 or Delisse Ortiz at (240) 681-9037.
Atlantic sharks are directly managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). NMFS published in the
A brief summary of the background of this action is provided below; more detailed information can be found in the proposed rule (83 FR 8037, February 23, 2018) and is not repeated here. Additional information regarding Atlantic HMS management, specifically the commercial fisheries season structure, can be found in the Final EA for this action and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, found on the HMS website (see
On February 23, 2018, NMFS published a proposed rule (83 FR 8037) that proposed (1) changing the regulations from requiring a shark fishery species and/or management group to close when landings have reached or are projected to reach 80 percent of the available overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota, and instead allowing the fishery to remain open in such circumstances if the species and/or management group's landings are not projected to reach 100 percent before the end of the commercial fishing season, and (2) changing the minimum notice time between filing and the closure going into effect from five days to three. A 30-day public comment period closed on March 26, 2018. The comments received on the Draft EA and proposed rule, and our responses to those comments, are summarized below in the section labeled “Response to Comments.”
After reviewing the public comments and consulting with the HMS Advisory Panel, this final action allows a shark fishery to remain open after the fishery's landings have reached or are projected to reach 80 percent of the available overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota, if the fishery's landings are not projected to reach 100 percent of the applicable quota before the end of the season. This final action also changes the minimum notice time between filing of the closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register and the closure going into effect from five days to four days, which is a change from the proposed rule based on public comment.
During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS held one webinar and presented information about the proposed rule at the HMS Advisory Panel meeting. In addition to the nine verbal comments received at those meetings, NMFS also received 10 written comments regarding the proposed action from fishermen, states, environmental groups, academia, and other interested parties. All written comments can be found at
Some commenters supported a higher closure threshold than was analyzed in the proposed alternatives, such as closure when quota use reaches 100 percent, because they felt the combination of weekly electronic dealer reporting with advanced projection methodologies should allow for full quota utilization before closing the fishery. Most states in the Gulf of Mexico require all state-only dealers to report electronically, but some states still allow for paper reports, and/or require reporting once a month rather than weekly. That, in combination with late dealer reports prevent NMFS from setting the threshold at full utilization because of the risk of exceeding the quota. The 80-percent fishery-closure threshold for the shark management groups was implemented in Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (73 FR 35778, June 24, 2008; 73 FR 40658, July 15, 2008). At that time, NMFS relied on hard copy dealer reports that were mailed to the Agency and were often several weeks, or even months, out of date. Since then, NMFS has established weekly electronic reporting with weekly compliance monitoring. While dealer reporting now is electronic, except for some state-only dealers, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, and thus generally more timely, NMFS must still account for late reporting by shark dealers and provide a buffer to include landings received after the reporting deadline to avoid overharvests. A review of closures since NMFS began electronic reporting has showed that the current 80-percent threshold is not always effective at closing in time to prevent overharvest of small quotas, such as porbeagle sharks. Additionally, the review shows that on average, across all of the shark fisheries, 16 percent of the quota is landed after a closure is announced. Therefore, a 90-percent or greater closure threshold would likely result in overharvests of the quotas. For stocks with small quotas, we can anticipate that this higher closure threshold would result in consistent overharvests, with little opportunity to account for the overharvests in the next year (because overharvests would occur again) and this could be expected to have moderate adverse direct ecological effects on such shark species and result in the need to close the fisheries in future years.
Regarding the commenter who preferred no action, that alternative would require NMFS to continue closing the relevant management group when 80 percent of its shark quota had been landed. However, in recent years as a result of monitoring the fishery and changing the trip limits throughout the year, several management groups (
Regarding Alternative 1a, no action, NMFS does not prefer to keep the closure notice at five days because this alternative would not increase flexibility in NMFS' ability to manage the shark fisheries in a timely manner. As stated in the response to Comment 1, after NMFS announces a closure, approximately 16 percent of the quota is harvested before the fishery actually closes five days later. Under a no action alternative, continued landings during a five-day notice period would likely contribute to overharvests. When such overharvests occur on a frequent basis over the long-term, it can lead to overfishing, delayed rebuilding of overfished stocks, and overall negative impacts on fishermen and dealers. However, NMFS also recognizes that complementary state water closures are needed in order to prevent quotas from being overharvested. As such, in this final action, NMFS is finalizing a different alternative, Alternative 2d that changes the closure notification from five days to four days. This alternative is an appropriate compromise between needing to provide appropriate notice for states to implement complementary measures and for the closure to take effect quickly and prevent overharvests.
Regarding the concerns about the potential for fishermen to be out on long trips, and then having to discard their catch if they missed the closure date, historically (pre-2008), directed shark fishing trips, primarily targeting LCS, averaged between one and four days in length, but could be longer. However, because of reduced trip-based retention limits implemented in Amendment 2 in 2008, there has been a reduction in trip length, and the typical shark fishing trip is now only one or two days. Trips using pelagic longline gear, and interacting with pelagic sharks, can be longer, with the typical trip lasting nine days. Pelagic longline trips usually do not land many sharks, and the sharks they do land tend to be sharks in the pelagic shark management groups, which have never closed. Therefore, the four-day closure notice should not affect pelagic longline trips. NMFS has determined that a four-day closure notice should allow fishermen enough time to finish their trips, while still providing NMFS the flexibility to close the fishery as needed while still preventing overharvest. Similarly, a four-day closure notice would also allow fishermen to safely fish one or two more trips, depending on weather and other factors, once the closure notice is announced.
NMFS made one change to the proposed rule. Specifically, in § 635.28(b)(2) and (b)(3), NMFS is changing from the proposed action of a three-day minimum notice time between filing of the closure notice with
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the final rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was prepared for this rule. The FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. The full FRFA and analysis of economic and ecological impacts are available from NMFS. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see
Section 604(a)(1) of the RFA requires a succinct statement of the need for and objectives of the rule. The purpose of this final action is to allow shark fishermen to harvest available quota without exceeding it, consistent with conservation and management measures adopted in accordance with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to end overfishing and rebuild stocks. The final action is also intended to maximize economic benefits to stakeholders by allowing them to harvest available quota while achieving conservation goals, including preventing overfishing. To achieve this goal, this action considers modifications to the percent landings threshold that results in a closure, and modifications to the minimum amount of time before a closure is effective.
Section 604(a)(2) requires a summary of significant issues raised by the public comment in response to the IRFA and a summary of the assessment of the Agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the rule as a result of such comments. NMFS did not receive comments specific to the IRFA or any comments relating to economic impacts of the proposed action.
Section 604(a)(4) of the RFA requires Agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. This provision is made under the SBA's regulations for an agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with and an opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size standards that differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the agency's obligations under the RFA. To utilize this provision, NMFS must publish such size standards in the
The final rule would apply to the approximately 113 commercial shark dealers, 490 commercial limited access permit holders in the Atlantic shark fishery (221 directed and 269 incidental permits), and 154 open access smoothhound shark permit holders, based on an analysis of permit holders as of October 2017. Not all permit holders are active in the shark fishery in any given year. Active directed permit holders are defined as those with valid permits that landed one shark, based on HMS electronic dealer reports. Of those 221 commercial directed limited access permit holders, 32 (14 percent of permit holders) landed LCS, 30 (14 percent of permit holders) landed non-blacknose SCS, and 14 (6 percent of permit holders) landed blacknose sharks in the Atlantic. In the Gulf of Mexico region, 10 (5 percent of permit holders) landed LCS in the western sub-region, 6 (3 percent of permit holders) landed LCS in the eastern sub-region, and 8 (4 percent of permit holders) landed non-blacknose SCS throughout the region. Of directed limited access permit holders, 47 (21 percent of permit holders) landed pelagic sharks. Of the 154 open access smoothhound shark permit holders, 75 (49 percent of permit holders) landed sharks in the Atlantic region. NMFS has determined that the final rule would not likely affect any small governmental jurisdictions.
Section 603(a)(5) of the RFA requires agencies to describe any new reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. The action does not contain any new collection of information, reporting, or record-keeping requirements. The alternatives considered modify the percentage landings threshold that prompts a shark fishery closure and the length of time between public notice and the effective date of a given fishery closure with the goal of avoiding under- and overharvests in these fisheries.
Section 604(a)(6) of the RFA requires agencies is to describe the steps taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected. These impacts are summarized below and discussed in the accompanying Final EA.
Alternative 1a, the No Action alternative, would maintain the existing 80-percent threshold to close the shark fishery and maintain current shark quotas. Based on the 2017 ex-vessel prices, the potential average annual gross revenue for the 10 active directed permit holders from blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark meat in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be $312,411, and average annual gross revenue from shark fins would be $187,631. Thus, potential average annual gross revenue by each active directed permit holder for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be $50,004 ((312,411 + 187,631)/10 active vessels). The potential total average annual gross revenue for the six active directed permit holders from blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark meat in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be $113,327, and average annual gross revenue from shark fins would be $70,954. Thus, potential total average annual gross revenue by each active directed permit holder for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in the eastern Gulf of Mexico region would be $30,713 ((113,327 + 30,713)/6 active vessels). The potential total average annual gross revenue for the eight active directed permit holders for non-blacknose SCS and
Under Alternative 1b, NMFS would change the shark fishery closure threshold to 90 percent of the available overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota. This alternative would be likely to have neutral direct and indirect short- and long-term socioeconomic impacts because the base quotas would not change for any of the management groups and fishermen would still be limited in the total amount of sharks that could be harvested. This alternative could potentially lead to minor beneficial direct economic impacts if fishermen can land available quota that may have remained unharvested under the current 80-percent threshold. For example, in 2017, the quota for the blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead management groups from the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region was underutilized by 310,546 lb dw or 25 percent of the adjusted annual base quota, valued at $247,518 in potential ex-vessel revenue. Assuming all of this unharvested quota were caught, based on the 10 vessels that landed LCS in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, the individual vessel impact would be an approximate gain of $31,055 per year. This does not include incidental permit holders, who would receive a smaller amount per year. For example, in the Atlantic, the blacknose shark management group was underutilized by 21,238 lb dw or 35 percent of the quota, valued at $25,807 in potential ex-vessel revenue. Based on the 14 vessels that landed blacknose in the Atlantic region, the individual vessel impact would be an approximate gain of $1,843 per year. This does not include incidental permit holders, who would receive a smaller amount per year. Alternative 1b could also lead to minor adverse socioeconomic impacts in the short-term if the quotas are overharvested, which would lead to lower quotas the following year. In addition, this alternative could potentially lead to minor adverse socioeconomic impacts if there is a large increase of landings combined with late dealer reporting, after the fishery is closed, that resulted in overharvest. For instance, the current 80 percent threshold has not been effective at closing in time to prevent overharvest of shark species that have small quotas, such as porbeagle sharks. As such, changing the percent closure threshold to 90 percent might be detrimental to the porbeagle shark fishery, as it may not provide a sufficient buffer to prevent overharvest and season closures that occurred in 2013 and 2015. However, this negative impact would be only in the short-term, as NMFS has the ability to monitor quotas on a weekly basis and promptly close the shark fishery.
Under Alternative 1c, NMFS would change the shark fishery closure threshold to 70 percent of the available overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota. This change would potentially leave a larger buffer for fishermen to complete trips and receive delayed dealer reports. It is likely the change in threshold to 70 percent would have neutral direct and indirect short- and long-term socioeconomic impacts since none of the commercial quotas are being changed and NMFS is not expecting an increase in effort or fishing. This alternative could potentially have minor adverse direct socioeconomic impacts if there is a large amount of underharvest remaining every year, after accounting for late dealer reports, that fishermen would no longer be able to harvest as compared to the No Action alternative. For instance, a 10 percent decrease in realized revenue for the western Gulf of Mexico blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark fisheries would equate to approximately $50,004 (10 percent of $500,042) loss in ex-vessel revenue. Based on the 10 vessels that landed LCS in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, the individual vessel impact would be an approximate loss of $5,000 per year. This does not include incidental permit holders, who would receive a smaller amount per year. However, these would be only be in the short-term because the fisheries have achieved close to full quota utilization in recent years for some shark quotas.
Under Alternative 1d, NMFS would change the shark fishery closure threshold to 90 percent in the Atlantic Region, while maintaining the Gulf of Mexico closure threshold or overall non-regional threshold at 80 percent. Alternative 1d provides some flexibility in assigning different closure thresholds between the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. In the Atlantic region, this alternative could potentially lead to minor beneficial direct economic impacts if fishermen can land available quota that may have remained unharvested under the current 80-percent threshold. For instance, a 10 percent increase in realized revenue for the Atlantic aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark fisheries would equate to an approximate $38,119 (10 percent of $381,196) gain in ex-vessel
Under Alternative 1e, when any shark fishery species and/or management group landings reach or are projected to reach 80 percent of the available overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota, NMFS would evaluate the following criteriato determine if a closure is needed at the 80-percent threshold:
A. The stock status of the relevant species or management group and any linked species and/or management groups;
B. The patterns of over- and underharvest in the fishery over the previous five years;
C. The likelihood of continued landings after the federal closure of the fishery;
D. The effects of the closure on accomplishing the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments;
E. The likelihood of landings exceeding the quota by December 31 of each year; and
F. The impacts of the closure on the catch rates of other shark management groups, including likelihood of an increase in dead discards.
Alternative 1f, the preferred alternative, will allow a shark fishery to remain open after the fishery's landings have reached or are projected to reach 80 percent of the available overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota, if the fishery's landings are not projected to reach 100 percent of the applicable quota before the end of the season. If the 80 percent threshold is reached but a closure is not necessary, NMFS will notify the public of this determination in the first monthly shark landings update listserv notice following achievement of the 80 percent level. If a closure is needed, NMFS will file a Notice in the
Under Alternative 2a, NMFS would maintain the status quo and would not change the notice period of five days for the closure of a management group. This alternative would have no impact on the allowable level of fishing pressure, catch rates, or distribution of fishing effort. As such, it is likely that the No Action Alternative as well as this alternative in combination with any of the Alternatives 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, or 1f would have both neutral direct and indirect, short- and long-term socioeconomic impacts. If there is a large amount of landings made during the five-day notice and a later closure under Alternatives 1b, 1c, or 1d, then there could be the potential for minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts for those fisheries who have underutilized the quota in recent years. The majority of fishing trips for sharks are currently one day in length, so a five-day closure
Under Alternative 2b, NMFS would change the minimum notice period to three days instead of the current five-day notice once the fisheries reached a landings threshold necessitating a closure. This change would allow more timely action in closing shark fisheries, helping to prevent overharvest. In combination with all other Alternatives (1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, and 1f), except Alternative 1c, this alternative would reduce the risk of exceeding the quota, especially if the landings rate was high before the closure date is effective. In combination with Alternative 1c (
Under Alternative 2c, NMFS would change the timing of shark fishery species and/or management group closures to allow immediate closure upon filing of the closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register. This alternative would allow timely action in closing shark fisheries, helping to prevent overharvest. In combination with all other alternatives, this alternative would either reduce the risk of exceeding the quota (
Under Alternative 2d, the new preferred alternative, NMFS will change the minimum notice period to four days instead of the current five-day notice once the landings reach a threshold necessitating a closure. This alternative is preferred because it addresses the concerns from the States that they need more than three days' notice in order to close state waters in conjunction with federal waters while addressing NMFS' need to increase flexibility to close the fishery as needed while still preventing overharvest. In combination with all other alternatives (
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a listserv notice and a statement published online that also serves as small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this final rule and the guide are available upon request (see
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 971
(a) * * *
(8) * * *
(iii) Estimated date of fishery closure based on when the landings are projected to reach 80 percent of the quota given the realized catch rates and whether they are projected to reach 100 percent before the end of the fishing season;
(b) * * *
(2)
(3)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS approves and implements management measures to designate 13 New Jersey artificial reefs as special management zones under the black sea bass provisions of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. The intent of these measures is to reduce user group conflicts and help maintain the intended socioeconomic benefits of the artificial reefs to the maximum extent practicable.
This rule is effective August 8, 2018.
NMFS prepared an environmental assessment (EA) and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this action that describe the measures and other considered alternatives and analyzes of the impacts of the measures and alternatives. Copies of the EA and the IRFA are available upon request from Travis Ford, NOAA/NMFS, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The special management zone measures document is also accessible via the internet at:
Copies of the small entity compliance guide are available from Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298, or available on the internet at:
Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9233.
On November 6, 2015, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) requested that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) designate 13 artificial reef sites, currently permitted in Federal water by the U.S. Corps of Engineers (COE), as special management zones (SMZ) under the black sea bass provisions of the Council's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP), 50 CFR 648.148. The SMZ request noted that the NJDEP has received complaints from rod and reel anglers regarding fouling of their fishing gear on commercial pots/traps and lines on ocean reef sites for more than 20 years. It also noted that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Sportfish Restoration Program (SRP), which was the primary funding source of the New Jersey Reef Program, had discontinued its funding of the program and all reef construction and monitoring activities until the gear conflicts are resolved. These gear conflicts are not consistent with the objectives of the SRP program,
The Council established the SMZ Monitoring Team to develop an analysis of designating the 13 reefs as SMZs. On December 21, 2016, after a review of the Monitoring Team's report and input from 3 public hearings, the Council recommended that NMFS designate all 13 artificial reefs as SMZs through a regulatory amendment. This action approves and implements the Council's recommended measures that apply in the Federal waters of the EEZ and to all vessels: Within the established areas of the SMZs, all vessels are only allowed to conduct fishing by handline, rod and reel, or spear fishing (including the taking of fish by hand). All pot/trap gear must be removed from these reef sites by August 8, 2018.
The boundaries of the SMZs artificial reef sites encompass 19.71 square nautical miles (nmi
Figure 1 shows the location of the 13 artificial reef sites off the coast of New Jersey.
This rule includes a revision to the regulatory text to address text that is unnecessary, outdated, unclear, or that NMFS could otherwise improve. These changes are consistent with section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) which provides that the Secretary of Commerce may promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that amendments to an FMP are carried out in accordance with the FMP and the MSA. The revision, at § 648.148(a), clarifies that the Council may prohibit or restrain the use of specific types of fishing gear that are not compatible with the purpose of the artificial reef or fish attraction device or other habitat modification within the SMZ.
We made corrections to the coordinates for the Ocean City and Shark River Reef Sites to correct an error in the proposed rule.
We published a proposed rule for this action on February 13, 2018 (83 FR 6152), and the comment period closed on March 15, 2018. We received 348 comments about the SMZs during the comment period. There were 74 unique comments submitted in favor of the action. Of these, 13 were from recreational fishing/diving organizations and 61 were from individuals. One of the comments from an organization included 4,301 signatures in support of the action. In addition, we received 263 form letters from individuals in support of the action. We received eight comments against implementing the SMZs (two from industry organizations and six from individuals with commercial fishing interests). The
This action is consistent with the SMZ provisions of the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass FMP. The SMZ regulations at § 648.148 allow the Council to recommend to the Regional Administrator that an SMZ be approved. If the Regional Administrator concurs in the recommendation, an SMZ can be established. Within the SMZ, the Council may prohibit or restrain the use of specific types of fishing gear that are not compatible with the purpose of the artificial reef or fish attraction device or other habitat modification within an established SMZ. The Council already addressed these larger Magnuson-Stevens Act issues when it decided that the Regional Administrator could implement SMZs.
This action promotes conservation as described in the National Standard 4 guidelines because it encourages a rational, more easily managed use of the resource by reducing gear conflicts at the reef sites, and making the resource more accessible to rod and reel fishermen. More trips may be made to
Regarding avoidance of excessive shares, the National Standard 4 guidelines state that an allocation scheme must be designed to deter any person or other entity from acquiring an excessive share of fishing privileges, and to avoid creating conditions fostering inordinate control, by buyers or sellers, that would not otherwise exist. Designating these artificial reefs as SMZ does not represent an allocation scheme. Instead, it simply resolves user conflicts while enabling both commercial and recreational sectors to continue to harvest fish that are not controlled by vessel or group-specific allocations.
The SMZs will allow continued use among all to fish the artificial reefs. They will just be limited in the type of gear they can use. Anyone with proper commercial fishing permits may continue to fish on the artificial reefs using rod and reel or taking by hand, and private, charter, and party recreational vessels may continue to fish the artificial reefs with rod and reel gear. Although a robust commercial rod and reel fishery may not currently exist, one could operate under the restrictions of the SMZs.
NMFS is designating these artificial reefs as SMZs at the recommendation of the Council and NJDEP. While those entities may have considered the original source of the funding for the reefs and recommended this action to NMFS to restore SRP funding, NMFS is abiding by the regulations at § 648.148, which grant the Council the authority to designate artificial reefs as SMZs if the Regional Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office determines that the establishment of the SMZ is supported by the substantial weight of evidence in the record and consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The Regional Administrator has determined that establishing these SMZs is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The source of the funding for these sites and the opportunity for NJDEP to regain its SRP funding is not relevant to NMFS' decision to designate the reef sites as SMZs.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other applicable law.
OMB has determined that this rule is not significant pursuant to E.O. 12866.
This final rule does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications, as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
This action does not contain any collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
Pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), NMFS has completed a final regulatory
One individual commented that NMFS should include estimates of profits from vessels fishing commercially on the reef sites so the public could better gauge the impact of the rule. In addition, GSSA commented that they believe that the economic impacts are inconsistent with the degree of pot/trap fishing on the reef sites. They assert that if there is a minimal economic impact then the gear conflicts must not be substantial.
In our response to comments, we referenced a table (Table 14) from the EA that included commercial pot/trap revenue from the reef sites to help characterize the amount of revenue affected by this action.
Though NMFS predicts that removing pot/trap gear from the reefs will have a slight negative economic impact on the commercial pot/trap fleet, this does not translate to only a minimal benefit to the rod and reel fleet. A single pot or trap and the affiliated lines may be associated with multiple gear conflicts. Therefore, although there will likely be a minimal economic impact to the pot/trap fleet, this will likely relieve the majority of the gear conflicts on the reefs.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small commercial finfishing or shellfishing business as a firm with annual receipts (gross revenue) of up to $11.0 million. A small for-hire recreational fishing business is defined as a firm with receipts of up to $7.5 million.
This rule applies to all Federal permit holders except recreational for-hire permit holders and commercial permit holders using hand gear or dive gear. While virtually all commercial fishing permit holders employing gear other than pot/trap gear will technically be regulated if the artificial reefs are granted SMZ status, the vast majority of the commercial fishing effort on these artificial reefs comes from the pot/trap gear sector. Therefore, only pot/trap gear vessel trips are considered in this analysis. Hand gear and dive gear activities will continue to be allowed under SMZ designation, and vessels using other mobile gears and fixed gears stay clear of the reef site areas to avoid bottom hang-ups with reef materials. Additionally, not all business entities that hold Federal fishing permits fish in the areas identified as potential SMZs. Those who actively participate (
During 2013, 2014, and 2015: 24 vessels reported landings of fish caught at the reef sites in all 3 of those years; 10 vessels reported landings of fish caught at the reef sites in 2 of the 3 years; and 18 vessels reported landings of fish caught at the reef sites in only 1 of the 3 years. A total of 52 unique commercial vessels reported landings of catch estimated to be from within the coordinates of the 13 reef sites from 2013-2015.
Based on the ownership data classification process described above, the 52 directly affected participating commercial fishing vessels were owned by 45 unique fishing business entities. All revenue earned by these businesses was derived from finfishing or shellfishing, and no revenue was earned from for-hire recreational fishing. Thus, all 45 of the potentially affected businesses are classified as commercial fishing business entities.
Average annual gross revenue estimates calculated from 2013-2015 Greater Atlantic region dealer data indicate that only one of the potentially affected business entities under the preferred alternative will be considered large according to the SBA size standards. In other words, one business, classified as a commercial fishing business, averaged more than $11 million annually in gross revenues from all of its fishing activities during 2013-2015. Therefore, 44 of the 45 potentially affected business entities are considered small and one business entity is considered large.
This action contains no new collection-of-information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.
During the development of this action the SMZ Monitoring Team, the Council, and NMFS considered ways to reduce the regulatory burden on, and provide flexibility for, the regulated entities in this action. For instance, the SMZ Monitoring Team considered implementing buffer zones around each of the SMZs, but ultimately decided that including buffer zones would substantially increase the footprint of the SMZs and further increase the areas where pot/trap fishermen could deploy their gear. The Council and NMFS each took public comment from the commercial and recreational fleets on this action, but ultimately determined that the benefits of this action will outweigh the negligible to slight negative impacts. NMFS considered a slightly less restrictive alternative after receiving the Council's recommendation (Alternative 3). Under the No Action alternative, vessels would still have been able to fish with pot/trap gear on the 13 artificial reef sites. Alternative 3 would have designated 11 of the 13 artificial reefs as SMZs (excludes Shark River and Wildwood); 41 unique fishing business entities were estimated to have landings within the coordinates of the 11 reef sites from 2013-2015. The Shark River and Wildwood reef site were excluded under this alternative because these sites had higher percentage of commercial effort when compared to the percentage of recreational effort.
Alternative 2 was ultimately selected as the preferred alternative because it reduces gear conflicts on all 13 of the artificial reefs. For Alternatives 1 and 3, gear conflicts would remain on all reefs not designated as SMZs. Alternative 2 results in slight positive economic impacts to the recreational fleet and is likely to have slight negative to negligible economic effects on the commercial fishery compared to the No Action alternative. Further, under Alternative 2, the program to maintain the artificial reefs will not be in jeopardy of losing its FWS funding.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency will publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and will designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency will explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as a small entity compliance guide was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, and the guide (
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule with request for comments.
On behalf of the President's Pay Agent, the Office of Personnel Management is issuing proposed regulations to establish four new General Schedule locality pay areas, make certain changes to the definitions of existing locality pay areas, and make minor clarifying changes to the names of two locality pay areas. The proposed changes in locality pay area definitions would be applicable on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2019, subject to issuance of final regulations. Locality pay rates for the four new locality pay areas would be set by the President after the new locality pay areas would be established by regulation.
We must receive comments on or before August 8, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3206-AN64, by either of the following methods:
Joe Ratcliffe by email at
Section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, authorizes locality pay for General Schedule (GS) employees with duty stations in the United States and its territories and possessions. Section 5304(f) of title 5, United States Code, authorizes the President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)) to determine locality pay areas. The boundaries of locality pay areas are based on appropriate factors, which may include local labor market patterns, commuting patterns, and the practices of other employers. The Pay Agent considers the views and recommendations of the Federal Salary Council, a body composed of experts in the fields of labor relations and pay policy and representatives of Federal employee organizations. The President appoints the members of the Council, which submits annual recommendations to the Pay Agent about the administration of the locality pay program, including the geographic boundaries of locality pay areas. (The Federal Salary Council's recommendations are posted on the OPM website at
This proposal provides notice and requests comments on proposed regulations to implement the Pay Agent's plan to establish four new locality pay areas; to establish McKinley County, NM, as an area of application to the Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM, locality pay area; and to establish San Luis Obispo County, CA, as an area of application to the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, locality pay area. (Annual Pay Agent reports on locality pay are posted on the OPM website at
Locality pay is set by comparing GS and non-Federal pay rates for the same levels of work in each locality pay area. Non-Federal salary survey data used to set locality pay rates are collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS uses a method that permits Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data to be used for locality pay. OES data are available for MSAs and CSAs throughout the Country and permit evaluation of salary levels in many more locations than could be covered under the prior National Compensation Survey alone.
The Federal Salary Council has been monitoring pay comparisons of GS and non-Federal pay in “Rest of U.S.” MSAs and CSAs with 2,500 or more GS employees. Based on its review, the Federal Salary Council has recommended new locality pay areas be established for four metropolitan areas with pay gaps averaging more than 10 percentage points above that for the “Rest of U.S.” locality pay area over an extended period. The President's Pay Agent has agreed to issue proposed regulations that would establish the four new locality pay areas by modifying 5 CFR 531.603(b) accordingly. The four new locality pay areas proposed are Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL; Burlington-South Burlington, VT; San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX; and Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC. (In its December 2016 annual report on locality pay, the Pay Agent announced its plan to establish Burlington, VT, and Virginia Beach, VA, as new locality pay areas. In its December 2017 annual report on locality pay, the Pay Agent announced its plan to establish Birmingham, AL, and San Antonio, TX, as new locality pay areas.) Locality pay rates for the four new locality pay areas would be set by the President at a later date after they would be established by regulation.
Locality pay areas consist of (1) the MSA or CSA comprising the basic locality pay area and, where criteria recommended by the Federal Salary Council and approved by the Pay Agent are met, (2) areas of application. Areas of application are locations that are adjacent to the basic locality pay area
The Pay Agent's current criteria for evaluating locations adjacent to a basic locality pay area for possible inclusion in the locality pay area as areas of application are as follows: For adjacent CSAs and adjacent multi-county MSAs the criteria are 1,500 or more GS employees and an employment interchange rate of at least 7.5 percent. For adjacent single counties, the criteria are 400 or more GS employees and an employment interchange rate of at least 7.5 percent. The employment interchange rate is defined as the sum of the percentage of employed residents of the area under consideration who work in the basic locality pay area and the percentage of the employment in the area under consideration that is accounted for by workers who reside in the basic locality pay area. (The employment interchange rate is calculated by including all workers in assessed locations, not just Federal employees.)
The Pay Agent also has criteria for evaluating Federal facilities that cross county lines into a separate locality pay area. To be included in an adjacent locality pay area, the whole facility must have at least 500 GS employees, with the majority of those employees in the higher-paying locality pay area, or that portion of a Federal facility outside of a higher-paying locality pay area must have at least 750 GS employees, the duty stations of the majority of those employees must be within 10 miles of the separate locality pay area, and a significant number of those employees must commute to work from the higher-paying locality pay area.
In its December 2016 recommendations, the Federal Salary Council recommended using recently updated commuting patterns data in the locality pay program—
Using the updated commuting patterns data and applying current criteria for evaluating “Rest of U.S.” locations as potential areas of application result in the addition of one location to an existing locality pay area—McKinley County, NM, would be included in the Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM, locality pay area. Regarding the four new locality pay areas proposed, using the updated commuting patterns data and applying current criteria for evaluating “Rest of U.S.” locations as potential areas of application result in the addition of one location to a proposed new locality pay area—Calhoun County, AL, would be included in the proposed Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL, locality pay area.
In the Federal Salary Council's December 2016 recommendations, the Council made a special recommendation for San Luis Obispo County, CA. Because practically all of San Luis Obispo County's land boundary is bordered by the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, and San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, locality pay areas, the Council recommended that the county be treated as have other “Rest of U.S.” locations entirely bordered by separate locality pay areas—
As explained in its December 2017 report, the Pay Agent views the situation regarding San Luis Obispo County as a geographic anomaly. Only a very small amount of the geographic boundary of San Luis Obispo County, CA, in a remote corner of the county, is not adjacent to the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, or San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, locality pay areas. Because practically all of San Luis Obispo County's land boundary is bordered by the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, and San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA, locality pay areas, the Pay Agent agrees with the Council that the county should be treated as “Rest of U.S.” locations entirely bordered by separate locality pay areas have been treated. Accordingly, the Pay Agent proposes adding San Luis Obispo County to the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA, locality pay area as an area of application.
The Pay Agent has used statistical areas defined by OMB as a basis for locality pay area boundaries since locality pay began in 1994. Such OMB-defined statistical areas are called “metropolitan statistical areas” (MSAs) and “combined statistical areas” (CSAs). On April 10, 2018, OMB issued a minor update to the definitions of MSAs and CSAs in OMB Bulletin 18-03. The proposed regulations would link the definitions of locality pay areas to the most current OMB definitions of MSAs and CSAs—
The Pay Agent proposes changing the names of two locality pay areas for clarification. The State abbreviation “CT” would be removed from the name of the “Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME” locality pay area to clarify that no locations in Connecticut are included in that locality pay area, and the State abbreviation “MA” would be added to the name of the “Albany-Schenectady, NY” locality pay area to clarify that Berkshire County, MA, is included in that locality pay area. These proposed name changes would not change the geographic boundaries of the two locality pay areas affected.
The proposal to establish 4 new locality pay areas would impact about 62,000 GS employees. Implementing that proposal would not automatically change locality pay rates now applicable in those areas. When locality pay percentages are adjusted, past practice has been to allocate a percent of the total GS payroll for locality pay raises and to have the overall dollar cost for such pay raises be the same, regardless of the number of locality pay areas. If a percent of the total GS payroll is allocated for locality pay increases, the addition of new areas results in a somewhat smaller amount to allocate for locality pay increases in existing areas. Implementing higher locality pay rates in the four new locality pay areas could thus result in relatively lower pay increases for employees in existing locality pay areas than they would otherwise receive.
Establishing McKinley County, NM, as an area of application to the Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM,
Using the definitions of MSAs and CSAs in OMB Bulletin 18-03 as the basis for locality pay area boundaries would have no effect on the definitions of locality pay areas or on GS employees.
The changes proposed for the names of the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT-ME and Albany-Schenectady, NY, locality pay areas would have no impact on GS employees because the geographic boundaries of the two locality pay areas affected would remain the same.
The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this rule in accordance with E.O. 13563 and E.O. 12866.
This proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is expected to be related to agency organization, management, or personnel.
Due to the narrow scope of this proposed rule, affecting approximately 63,700 GS employees, OPM does not anticipate this proposed rule would substantially impact local economies or have a large ripple effect in local labor markets. However, studies do suggest increasing wages can raise the wages of other workers when employers need to compete for personnel. Future locality pay rulemaking may impact higher volumes of employees in geographical areas and could rise to the level of impacting markets. OPM will address the implications of such impacts in E.O. 13771 designations for future rules as needed.
I certify that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they would apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
Government employees, Law enforcement officers, Wages.
Office of Personnel Management.
Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR part 531 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 5115, 5307, and 5338; sec. 4 of Public Law 103-89, 107 Stat. 981; and E.O. 12748, 56 FR 4521, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 316; Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5303(g), 5305, 5333, 5334(a) and (b), and 7701(b)(2); Subpart D also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5335 and 7701(b)(2); Subpart E also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5336; Subpart F also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5304, 5305, and 5941(a), E.O. 12883, 58 FR 63281, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 682; and E.O. 13106, 63 FR 68151, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 224.
(b) The following are locality pay areas for the purposes of this subpart:
(1) Alaska—consisting of the State of Alaska;
(2) Albany-Schenectady, NY-MA—consisting of the Albany-Schenectady, NY CSA and also including Berkshire County, MA;
(3) Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM—consisting of the Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM CSA and also including McKinley County, NM;
(4) Atlanta—Athens-Clarke County—Sandy Springs, GA-AL—consisting of the Atlanta—Athens-Clarke County—Sandy Springs, GA CSA and also including Chambers County, AL;
(5) Austin-Round Rock, TX—consisting of the Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA;
(6) Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL—consisting of the Birmingham-Hoover-Talladega, AL CSA and also including Calhoun County, AL;
(7) Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-ME—consisting of the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA, except for Windham County, CT, and also including Androscoggin County, ME, Cumberland County, ME, Sagadahoc County, ME, and York County, ME;
(8) Buffalo-Cheektowaga, NY—consisting of the Buffalo-Cheektowaga, NY CSA;
(9) Burlington-South Burlington, VT—consisting of the Burlington-South Burlington, VT MSA;
(10) Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC—consisting of the Charlotte-Concord, NC-SC CSA;
(11) Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI—consisting of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA;
(12) Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN—consisting of the Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN CSA and also including Franklin County, IN;
(13) Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH—consisting of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH CSA and also including Harrison County, OH;
(14) Colorado Springs, CO—consisting of the Colorado Springs, CO MSA and also including Fremont County, CO, and Pueblo County, CO;
(15) Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH—consisting of the Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH CSA;
(16) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK—consisting of the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA and also including Delta County, TX;
(17) Davenport-Moline, IA-IL—consisting of the Davenport-Moline, IA-IL CSA;
(18) Dayton-Springfield-Sidney, OH—consisting of the Dayton-Springfield-Sidney, OH CSA and also including Preble County, OH;
(19) Denver-Aurora, CO—consisting of the Denver-Aurora, CO CSA and also including Larimer County, CO;
(20) Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI—consisting of the Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI CSA;
(21) Harrisburg-Lebanon, PA—consisting of the Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA CSA, except for Adams County, PA, and York County, PA, and also including Lancaster County, PA;
(22) Hartford-West Hartford, CT-MA—consisting of the Hartford-West Hartford, CT CSA and also including Windham County, CT, Franklin County, MA, Hampden County, MA, and Hampshire County, MA;
(23) Hawaii—consisting of the State of Hawaii;
(24) Houston-The Woodlands, TX—consisting of the Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA and also including San Jacinto County, TX;
(25) Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, AL—consisting of the Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville, AL CSA;
(26) Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN—consisting of the Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN CSA and also including Grant County, IN;
(27) Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS—consisting of the Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS CSA and also including Jackson County, KS, Jefferson County, KS, Osage County, KS, Shawnee County, KS, and Wabaunsee County, KS;
(28) Laredo, TX—consisting of the Laredo, TX MSA;
(29) Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ—consisting of the Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ CSA;
(30) Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA—consisting of the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA and also including Kern County, CA, San Luis Obispo County, CA, and Santa Barbara County, CA;
(31) Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL—consisting of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA and also including Monroe County, FL;
(32) Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI—consisting of the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI CSA;
(33) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI—consisting of the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI CSA;
(34) New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA—consisting of the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA and also including all of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst;
(35) Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL—consisting of the Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL MSA;
(36) Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD—consisting of the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA, except for Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst;
(37) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ—consisting of the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA;
(38) Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV—consisting of the Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV CSA;
(39) Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA—consisting of the Portland-Vancouver-Salem, OR-WA CSA;
(40) Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC—consisting of the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC CSA and also including Cumberland County, NC, Hoke County, NC, Robeson County, NC, Scotland County, NC, and Wayne County, NC;
(41) Richmond, VA—consisting of the Richmond, VA MSA and also including Cumberland County, VA, King and Queen County, VA, and Louisa County, VA;
(42) Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV—consisting of the Sacramento-Roseville, CA CSA and also including Carson City, NV, and Douglas County, NV;
(43) San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX—consisting of the San Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX CSA;
(44) San Diego-Carlsbad, CA—consisting of the San Diego-Carlsbad, CA MSA;
(45) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA—consisting of the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA and also including Monterey County, CA;
(46) Seattle-Tacoma, WA—consisting of the Seattle-Tacoma, WA CSA and also including Whatcom County, WA;
(47) St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL—consisting of the St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL CSA;
(48) Tucson-Nogales, AZ—consisting of the Tucson-Nogales, AZ CSA and also including Cochise County, AZ;
(49) Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC—consisting of the Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC CSA;
(50) Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA—consisting of the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA and also including Kent County, MD, Adams County, PA, York County, PA, King George County, VA, and Morgan County, WV; and
(51) Rest of U.S.—consisting of those portions of the United States and its territories and possessions as listed in 5 CFR 591.205 not located within another locality pay area.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the Lacey Act to provide, among other things, that importers submit a declaration at the time of importation for certain plants and plant products. The declaration requirement of the Lacey Act became effective on December 15, 2008, and enforcement of that requirement is being phased in. We are proposing to establish an exception to the declaration requirement for products containing a minimal amount of plant materials. This action would relieve the burden on importers while continuing to ensure that the declaration requirement fulfills the purposes of the Lacey Act. We are also proposing that all Lacey Act declarations be submitted within 3 business days of importation.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 7, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Ms. Parul Patel, Senior Agriculturalist, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2351.
Section 3 of the Lacey Act makes it unlawful to import certain plants, including plant products, without an import declaration. The import declaration serves as a tool for combatting the illegal trade in timber and timber products by ensuring importers provide required information. Through the declaration requirement, the importer maintains accountability for exercising reasonable care regarding the content of the shipment before it arrives in the United States. Information from the declaration is also used to monitor implementation of Lacey Act requirements. The declaration must contain the scientific name of the plant, value of the importation, quantity of the plant, and name of the country from which the plant was harvested. However, the Act does not explicitly address whether the declaration
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the Lacey Act by expanding its protections to a broader range of plants and plant products than was previously provided by the Act. The requirement that importers of plants and plant products file a declaration upon importation is set forth in 16 U.S.C. 3372(f). In 16 U.S.C. 3376(a)(1), the statute further provides rulemaking authority to the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to the declaration requirement: “the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, is authorized to issue such regulations . . . as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of Section[s] 3372(f) of this title.”
This proposed rule would establish certain exceptions from the requirement that a declaration be filed when importing certain plants and plant products. Specifically, it would establish an exception to the declaration requirement for products with minimal amounts of plant material. The proposed rule would also establish a new section to specify the conditions under which a plant import declaration must be filed and what information it must include. These conditions reflect the provisions of the Act and would provide additional context for the proposed exceptions.
To the extent that the proposed rule would provide exceptions from the provisions of the Act, it would benefit U.S. importers. Establishing a de minimis exception from the declaration requirement for products with minimal amounts of plant material would relieve importers of the burden of identifying very small amounts of plant material, while continuing to ensure that the declaration requirement fulfills the purposes of the Lacey Act.
The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371
In addition, Section 3 of the Lacey Act, as amended, made it unlawful, beginning December 15, 2008, to import certain plants, including plant products, without an import declaration. The import declaration serves as a tool for combatting the illegal trade in timber and timber products by ensuring importers provide required information. Through the declaration requirement, the importer maintains accountability for exercising reasonable care regarding the content of the shipment before it arrives in the United States. Information from the declaration is also used to monitor implementation of Lacey Act requirements. The declaration must contain the scientific name of the plant, value of the importation, quantity of the plant, and name of the country from which the plant was harvested.
On June 30, 2011, we published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the
Most of the commenters on the 2011 ANPR supported establishing exceptions to the declaration requirement for products with minimal amounts of plant material and suggested a range of possible levels at which the threshold for exceptions could be set. We took those comments into consideration when developing this proposed rule. We are proposing to establish an exception to the declaration requirement for products containing a minimal amount of plant materials. We are also proposing that all Lacey Act declarations be submitted within 3 business days of importation.
As a result of the changes proposed in this document, it is necessary to amend the statement of purpose and scope in 7 CFR 357.1. At the time this section was established, part 357 contained only definitions. However, because this proposed rule would add more sections to the regulations, containing provisions that address the declaration requirement of the Act, we would amend the statement to remove the third sentence, which references the declaration requirement, and add a new final sentence that acknowledges that the regulations in part 357 address the declaration requirement of the Act.
We are proposing to define the terms
For the same reason we are proposing to amend the definition of
We are proposing to add a new § 357.3, “Declaration Requirement,” to specify the conditions under which a plant import declaration must be filed and what information it must include. These conditions reflect the provisions of the Act and would provide additional context for the proposed exceptions.
The requirement that importers of plants and plant products file a declaration upon importation is set forth in 16 U.S.C. 3372(f). The Lacey Act does not explicitly address whether the declaration requirement is intended to apply to products containing minimal amounts of plant materials, but it is questionable whether the regulatory objectives of the Lacey Act are furthered by applying this requirement to minimal amounts of non-listed (
We seek public comment on two options with respect to a de minimis exception to the declaration requirement. Under the first option, we propose to adopt an exception from the declaration requirement for products containing plant material that represents no more than 5 percent of the total weight of the individual product unit, provided that the total weight of the plant material in an entry of such products (at the entry line level) does not exceed 2.9 kilograms. Alternatively, as a second option, we propose an exception from the declaration requirement for products containing plant material that represents no more than 5 percent of the total weight of the individual product unit, provided that the total weight of the plant material in an individual product unit does not exceed some amount of plant material by weight or board feet. Under this second option, we invite comment on what would be an appropriate maximum amount allowable by weight or board feet under the de minimis exception. The figure of 2.9 kilograms in the first option was selected based on the weight of a board-foot of lignum vitae (
In the event that the weight of the plant material in an individual product unit cannot be determined, then we propose an exception from the declaration requirement for products containing plant material that represents no more than 10 percent of the declared value of the individual product unit, provided that the total quantity of the plant material in an entry of such products (at the entry line level) has a volume of less than 1 board-foot. Alternatively, as a second option in the event that the weight of the plant material in an individual product unit cannot be determined, we propose an exception from the declaration requirement for products containing plant material that represents no more than 10 percent of the declared value of the individual product unit, provided that the total quantity of the plant material in an individual product unit does not exceed some amount of plant material by weight or board feet. Under this second option, we invite comment on what would be an appropriate maximum amount allowable by value or board feet under the de minimis exception. In either case, the exception would not apply to products containing plant material from species of conservation concern that are listed in an appendix to CITES; as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973; or pursuant to any State law that provides for the conservation of species that are indigenous to the State and are threatened with extinction. All other requirements of the Lacey Act would still apply to entries or persons claiming this exception.
We invite comment on the method of determining de minimis content. Specifically, we would appreciate information on whether it is feasible to set the threshold for the maximum amount of plant material at the entry line level, and invite comment on the thresholds that are proposed, including 2.9 kilograms in total weight or volume of less than 1 board foot per entry line level of the plant product.
We also seek comment on whether the de minimis threshold should be calculated on a per product unit basis, at least for certain products, and if so what would be an appropriate amount of plant material on a per product basis, by weight or by board foot.
We also invite comment on whether the 5 percent threshold should be higher or lower, and why. For example, a number of commenters on the ANPR suggested setting the threshold at 10 percent. Additional data from commenters in support of either the 5 percent threshold or an alternative threshold would be useful for the rulemaking process. We also solicit comment on whether the 5 percent threshold or any alternative threshold proposed by commenters is appropriate as a de minimis exception and consistent with the statute.
While the majority of importers submit their Lacey Act declarations at the time of formal customs entry, there has been some confusion about the time frame in which declarations should be submitted, with some importers submitting declarations up to a year after importation. While the declarations are required pursuant to the language of the statute “upon importation,” that is, upon landing in United States jurisdiction, we are proposing to allow importers to file Lacey Act declarations within 3 business days of importation without facing any enforcement action or penalty for late filing. This would
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Assessment of the costs and cost savings may be found in the accompanying economic analysis.
We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule. The economic analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, which 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, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The economic analysis also provides an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that examines the potential economic effects of this rule on small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The economic analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the Lacey Act to provide, among other things, that importers submit a declaration at the time of importation for certain plants and plant products. The declaration requirement of the Lacey Act became effective on December 15, 2008, and enforcement of that requirement is being phased in. We are proposing to establish an exception to the declaration requirement for products containing a minimal amount of plant materials. We are also proposing that all Lacey Act declarations be submitted within 3 business days upon importation.
The proposed rule would benefit some U.S. importers, large or small. The provisions of this proposed rule would relieve importers of the burden of identifying very small amounts of plant material incorporated into a product for which obtaining declaration information may be difficult, while continuing to ensure that the declaration requirement fulfills the purposes of the Lacey Act.
The Lacey Act amendments included in the 2008 Farm Bill were effective as of May 22, 2008. As a practical matter, this means that enforcement actions may be taken for any violations committed on or after that date. The requirement to provide a declaration under the amended Act went into effect May 1, 2009. Declarations serve several purposes including but not limited to data acquisition and accountability, and they assist regulatory and enforcement authorities in monitoring implementation of the Lacey Act's prohibitions on importing illegally harvested plants. Enforcement of the declaration requirement is being phased in. The phase-in schedule is largely based on the degree of processing and complexity of composition of the affected products. The requirement that importers file a declaration upon importation for products in parts of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) Chapters 44, 66, 82, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 and 97, is currently being enforced. We are currently considering products for inclusion in the next phase of implementation.
If this proposed rule is finalized, some importers of products containing a minimal amount of plant material who are currently required to file declarations upon importation of their products would be excepted from that requirement. The cost savings from not having to file those declarations is one measure of the expected benefits of this proposed rule. From July 2015 through mid-June 2017, there were about 715 weekly shipments of commodities currently requiring declarations and containing amounts of plant material that potentially would have been eligible for de minimis status under the proposed rule. Based on information available on those shipments, we estimate that between 10 and 20 percent of those commodities would have met the proposed definitions for de minimis exception. Had those commodity shipments not needed to be accompanied by declarations, we estimate the annual cost savings for affected producers would have ranged in total from a low of about $56,700 to a high of about $407,900 annually, with annual government processing savings of between about $1,000 and $1,900. In accordance with guidance on complying with Executive Order 13771, the primary estimate of the annual private sector cost savings for this rule is $232,300. This value is the mid-point estimate of cost savings annualized in perpetuity using a 7 percent discount rate.
The total cost of compliance with the declaration requirement of the Act as currently enforced is estimated to be between $11.6 million and $50.3 million. The estimated reduction in compliance costs of about $56,700 to $407,900 would represent a cost savings of between 0.1 and 3.5 percent.
Both the declaration costs and the cost savings expected with this proposed rule are small when compared to the value of the commodities imported. In 2016, the value of U.S. imports of products currently requiring a declaration totaled about $20.4 billion, and the value of U.S. imports of such commodities as umbrellas, walking sticks, and handguns that may include small amounts of plant material was $2.7 billion.
The full schedule for enforcement of the declaration requirement has not yet been determined. Because enforcement of the declaration requirement in the Act is being phased in, some products that would meet the de minimis criteria do not currently require a declaration; their importation would not be initially affected. For example, apparel articles such as shirts with wood buttons may be considered to have minimal plant material, but the declaration requirement for products in that HTS code are not part of the current enforcement schedule. While the volume of imported commodities for which the exceptions would be applicable could be large, the cost savings for affected importers are expected to be small relative to the value of the commodities.
We are also proposing to require that Lacey Act declarations be submitted within 3 business days of importation. This change should have little impact on importers. Over 90 percent of current declarations are already submitted at the time of arrival and there is no reason to believe that the burden associated with submitting a declaration within 3 business days would be significantly greater than the burden associated with submitting a declaration more than 3 business days of importation. An importer reasonably knows the contents of a shipment before it arrives in the United States, and the information necessary for submitting a declaration should be available easily within 3 business days upon importation.
This action would result in some cost savings for importing businesses, most of which are small entities. Based on our review of available information, APHIS does not expect the proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on small entities. We have
Average annual receipts of small, potentially affected entities under the proposed thresholds range from $843,000 to $1.4 million. We estimate that the average cost savings for an affected entity from not needing to file a single declaration may range between about $15 and $55. For the cost savings to equal 5 percent of average annual receipts and thereby reasonably be considered a significant effect would require that an affected entity have from about 770 to nearly 4,600 exempted declarations in a year, a range that is highly unlikely.
APHIS has considered alternative thresholds for determining the criteria for a de minimis exception from the declaration requirement, including the specific percentage of total weight of an individual product unit that is plant material in an entry, the maximum total weight of that plant material, and the maximum total volume of that plant material. We are inviting comment on the specific threshold levels in this proposal, alternative thresholds, and their impact. To the extent that alternative thresholds result in broader or narrower de minimis criteria, the cost savings associated with such de minimis designation would be expanded or constrained. However, regardless the number of exemptions for which an entity qualifies, they would be beneficial and small entities would not be disadvantaged.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (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) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 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.
APHIS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that require Tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, APHIS 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.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Endangered and threatened species, Plants (Agriculture).
Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 357 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 3371
The Lacey Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 3371
The additions and revision read as follows:
(1) Common cultivars, except trees, and common food crops (including roots, seeds, parts, or products thereof);
(2) A scientific specimen of plant genetic material (including roots, seeds, germplasm, parts, or products thereof) that is to be used only for laboratory or field research; and
(3) Any plant that is to remain planted or to be planted or replanted.
(4) A plant is not eligible for these exclusions if it is listed:
(i) In an appendix to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249);
(ii) As an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
(iii) Pursuant to any State law that provides for the conservation of species that are indigenous to the State and are threatened with extinction.
(a) Any person importing any plant shall file upon importation a declaration that contains:
(1) The scientific name of any plant (including the genus and species of the plant) contained in the importation;
(2) A description of the value of the importation and the quantity, including the unit of measure, of the plant; and
(3) The name of the country from which the plant was taken.
(b) The declaration relating to a plant product shall also contain:
(1) If the species of plant used to produce the plant product that is the subject of the importation varies, and the species used to produce the plant product is unknown, the name of each species of plant that may have been used to produce the plant product;
(2) If the species of plant used to produce the plant product that is the subject of the importation is commonly taken from more than one country, and the country from which the plant was taken and used to produce the plant product is unknown, the name of each country from which the plant may have been taken; and
(3) If a paper or paperboard plant product includes recycled plant product, the average percent recycled content without regard for the species or country of origin of the recycled plant product, in addition to the information for the non-recycled plant content otherwise required by this section.
Plants and products containing plant materials are excepted from the declaration requirement if:
(a) The plant is used exclusively as packaging material to support, protect, or carry another item, unless the packaging material itself is the item being imported; or
(b) The plant material in a product represents no more than 5 percent of the total weight of the individual product unit, provided that the total weight of the plant material in [an entry of such products][a product unit] does not exceed [2.9 kilograms] [or other amount]; or, if the weight cannot be determined, the value of the plant material in the individual product unit represents no more than 10 percent of the declared value of the product, provided that the total quantity of plant material in [an entry of such products][a product unit] has a volume of less than [1 board foot (that is, 12 x 12 x 1 inches or 30.48 x 30.48 x 2.54 centimeters)] [or other amount].
(c) A product will not be eligible for an exception under paragraph (b) of this section if it contains plant material listed:
(1) In an appendix to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249);
(2) As an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
(3) Pursuant to any State law that provides for the conservation of species that are indigenous to the State and are threatened with extinction.
In the case of commodities for which a plant declaration is required, the declaration must be submitted within 3 business days of importation.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.
The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 amended the Lacey Act to provide, among other things, that importers submit a declaration at the time of importation for certain plants and plant products. The declaration requirements of the Lacey Act became effective on December 15, 2008, and enforcement of those requirements is being phased in. We are soliciting public comment on regulatory options that could address certain issues that have arisen with the implementation of the declaration requirement for composite plant materials.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 7, 2018.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Ms. Parul Patel, Senior Agriculturalist, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2351.
The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371
In addition, Section 3 of the Lacey Act, as amended, makes it unlawful, as of December 15, 2008, to import certain plants, including plant products, without an import declaration. The import declaration serves as a tool for combatting the illegal trade in timber and timber products by ensuring importers provide required information. Through the declaration requirement, the importer maintains accountability for exercising reasonable care regarding the content of the shipment before it arrives in the United States. Information from the declaration is also used to monitor implementation of Lacey Act requirements. The declaration must contain the scientific name of the plant, value of the importation, quantity of the plant, and name of the country from which the plant was harvested.
On June 30, 2011, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serviced (APHIS) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the
The first regulatory option we discussed in the 2011 ANPR was the possibility of establishing a limited exception to the plant declaration requirement for imported products containing minimal amounts of plant material. The Lacey Act does not explicitly address whether the declaration requirement is intended to apply to such products, but it is questionable whether the regulatory objectives of the Lacey Act are furthered by applying this requirement to minimal amounts of non-listed (
This notice addresses the second regulatory option that was discussed in the 2011 ANPR that related to a separate de minimis exception that related to composite plant products. This exception would cover composite plant materials that are not otherwise considered de minimis quantities under the first regulatory option. Many composite plant materials are currently manufactured in a manner that makes identification of the genus, species, and country of harvest of all of the plant content difficult and perhaps expensive. While provisions in the Lacey Act's declaration requirement address how to complete a declaration in situations in which the species or country of harvest of plant material used in an imported product varies (16 U.S.C. 3372(f)(2)(A) and (B)), these provisions may not relieve the difficulties and expense faced by importers of some composite plant materials. In the 2011 ANPR, we solicited comments on defining the term
Specifically, we invited comment on the possibility of defining
Of the 37 commenters on the ANPR, 16 specifically addressed the potential approaches for composite plant materials. Most of those commenters supported defining the term
We also invited comments on two possible approaches to incorporating such a definition into a de minimis exception from the declaration requirement for composite plant materials. In the first approach, if the plant product being imported is composed in whole or in part of a composite plant material, importers would be exempted from identifying the genus, species, and country of harvest of up to a given percentage of the composite plant material content, measured on the basis of either weight or volume.
In the second approach, where the plant product being imported is composed in whole or in part of a composite plant material, the declaration would have to contain the average percent composite plant content, measured on the basis of either weight or volume, without regard for the species or country of harvest of the plant, in addition to information as to genus, species, and country of harvest for any non-composite plant content.
Many of the commenters preferred the second approach to incorporating the definition into a de minimis exception to the plant declaration as the easiest to implement and least burdensome on importers. However, two commenters opposed omitting species and harvest location from the declaration for composite plant materials because they believed that omission would permanently exclude those products from the declaration requirement and would therefore be contrary to the intent of the Lacey Act. One of these commenters stated that while small amounts of diverse plant material may enter production streams unknowingly, the bulk of wood fiber used to make fiberboard, medium-density fiberboard, high-density fiberboard, and similar materials is purposefully processed into
We have decided to publish another ANPR to solicit comments addressing the following questions:
• Is the scope of the proposed definition for
• What would be an appropriate threshold for a de minimis exception from the declaration requirement for composite plant materials under the first approach identified above? We especially invite comment on the feasibility of providing importers an exemption from identifying in a declaration the genus, species, and country of harvest for up to 5 percent of the composite plant material in a product being imported so long as it does not include material from plants of conservation concern that are listed in an appendix to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species; as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973; or pursuant to any State law that provides for the conservation of species that are indigenous to the State and are threatened with extinction. We also invite comment on whether that percentage should be higher or lower, and why. Additional data on why commenters support either the 5 percent threshold or an alternative threshold would be useful for the rulemaking process. We note that where a paper or paperboard plant product includes recycled plant product the statute only requires that the importer identify an average percent of recycled content without regard for the species or country of harvest of a recycled product, in addition to the information otherwise required for the non-recycled plant content.
• Would the second approach discussed above, in which the declaration would have to contain the average percent composite plant content, measured on the basis of either weight or volume (in addition to information as to genus, species, and country of harvest for any non-composite plant content) be appropriate as a de minimis exception to the Lacey Act declaration requirement and consistent with the statute? Would such an approach affect U.S. manufacturers who export finished products to Europe and other market nations that may require their traders to authenticate the source of wood or wood products?
• Would an alternative approach to either of those described above concerning the import declaration requirement be appropriate in the case of composite products, and why?
• What specific activities would affected entities (including importers and their suppliers) need to engage in in order to identify the species and country of harvest of plants in composite plant materials and thereby comply with the declaration requirement for products containing such plant materials?
• How would those specific activities be affected by various levels of a de minimis exception to the declaration requirement products containing composite plant materials?
• In commenting on any of the approaches described above or proposing an alternative threshold, comments should take into consideration that a de minimis exception to a statutory requirement is being proposed, which means that the exception should be appropriately limited and consistent with the statute.
This action has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
16 U.S.C. 3371
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Extension of public comment period.
On June 22, 2018, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) published in the
The comment period for the RFI published on June 22, 2018 (83 FR 29048) is extended. Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before September 21, 2018.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
•
•
•
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted.
The docket web page can be found at:
Mr. Antonio Bouza, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4563. Email:
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
On June 22, 2018, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) published in the
An extension of the comment period would allow additional time for AHRI and other interested parties to consider the issues presented in the RFI, gather any additional data and information, and submit comments to DOE. The RFI can be found at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-22-10, which applies to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. AD 2012-22-10 requires repetitive inspections to determine that cotter pins are installed at affected wing-to-fuselage attachment joints and replacement if necessary. Since we issued AD 2012-22-10, we determined that additional nuts of the forward keel beam attachment joint should be inspected, and that repetitive inspections of certain wing-to-fuselage attachment joints are not necessary. This proposed AD would retain the initial inspection of the wing-to-fuselage attachment joints, and remove the repetitive inspections of all but the forward keel beam attachment joint. This proposed AD would also change the repetitive inspection interval for the forward keel beam attachment joint. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 23, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2012-22-10, Amendment 39-17246 (77 FR 67267, November 9, 2012) (“AD 2012-22-10”), for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701,
Since we issued AD 2012-22-10, we determined that additional nuts of the forward keel beam attachment joint should be inspected, and that repetitive inspections of certain wing-to-fuselage attachment joints are not necessary.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, issued Canadian AD CF-2012-10R1, dated January 22, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:
The manufacturer has determined that wing-to-fuselage attachment nuts, part number (P/N) SH670-35635-1, SH670-35440-951, SH670-35440-3, SH670-35635-1, and 95136D-2412, installed at six attachment joint locations, do not conform to the certification design requirements for dual locking features. The nuts are not of the self-locking type as required and do not provide the frictional thread interference required to prevent the nut from backing off the bolt. As a result, only a single locking device, the cotter pin, is provided at these critical joints. In the case where a nut becomes loose, in combination with a missing or broken cotter pin, the attachment bolt at the wing-to-fuselage joint could migrate and fall out. Loss of two attachment joints could potentially result in the loss of the wing.
The original version of this [Canadian] AD [which corresponds to FAA AD 2012-22-10] mandated initial and repeat detailed visual inspections (DVIs) of each affected wing-to-fuselage attachment joint to ensure that a cotter pin was installed.
Design review and analysis of the inspection findings since the original issue of this [Canadian] AD have led us to determine that additional nuts at the forward keel beam joint should also be included in the inspection and that the repetitive inspection of some wing-to-fuselage attachment joints is not required. This [Canadian] AD maintains the initial inspection requirements [for missing or failed (. . .) cotter pins] for six attachment joint locations, and removes the repetitive inspection requirements for all but the forward keel beam attachment joint. This [Canadian] AD also requires a different repetitive inspection interval, and the [Canadian] AD applicability has been changed for the initial inspection to account for changes made in production.
Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, Revision B, dated October 20, 2017. This service information describes procedures for detailed inspections of the wing-to-fuselage attachment joints, and of the attachment nuts at the forward keel beam attachment joint for missing or failed cotter pins. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 274 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by August 23, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2012-22-10, Amendment 39-17246 (77 FR 67267, November 9, 2012) (“AD 2012-22-10”).
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10002 and subsequent.
(2) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 and subsequent.
(3) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report that certain wing-to-fuselage attachment nuts do not conform to the certification design requirements for dual locking features, and a determination that additional nuts of the forward keel beam attachment joint should be inspected, and that repetitive inspections of certain wing-to-fuselage attachment joints are not necessary. We are issuing this AD to address loss of the wing-to-fuselage attachment joints, which could result in loss of the wing, and consequent reduced, or complete loss of, controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD: Within 3,000 flight hours or 18 months, whichever occurs first after December 14, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-22-10), perform a detailed inspection for missing or failed cotter pins at each affected wing-to-fuselage attachment joint, in accordance with Part A through Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, Revision B, dated October 20, 2017.
(1) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10002 through 10337 inclusive.
(2) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15299 inclusive.
(3) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 through 19037 inclusive.
Within the compliance time specified in figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD: Perform a detailed inspection of the attachment nuts at the forward keel beam attachment joint for missing or failed cotter pins, in accordance with Part D of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, Revision B, dated October 20, 2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8,800 flight hours, in accordance with Part E of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, Revision B, dated October 20, 2017.
If any cotter pin is found missing or failed during any inspection required by this AD: Before further flight, replace the cotter pin using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if the inspection was performed before the effective date of this AD, using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, dated December 21, 2011; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, Revision A, dated April 27, 2012.
(2) For Model CL-600-2C10 airplanes, S/Ns 10002 through 10337 inclusive: This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if the inspection was performed before the effective date of this AD, using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, dated December 21, 2011; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-53-042, Revision A, dated April 27, 2012.
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-22-10, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2012-10R1, dated January 22, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hillsdale Municipal Airport, Hillsdale, MI. The FAA is proposing this action as a result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Jackson and Litchfield VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aids, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Comments must be received on or before August 23, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0500; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-14, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hillsdale Municipal Airport, Hillsdale, MI, to support instrument flight rules operations at this airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0500; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-14.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius) at Hillsdale Municipal Airport, Hillsdale, MI. The geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Jackson and Litchfield VORs, which provided navigation information to the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Hillsdale Municipal Airport.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for information; close of comment period.
On May 1, 2014, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) published a final rule, “Lowering Miners' Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including Continuous Personal Dust Monitors” (Dust rule). In the preamble to the Dust rule, MSHA stated its intent to take the lead in conducting a retrospective study beginning February 1, 2017. In this Request for Information (RFI), MSHA is soliciting stakeholder comments, data, and information to assist the Agency in developing the framework for this study to assess the impact of the Dust rule on lowering coal miners' exposures to respirable coal mine dust to improve miners' health. In addition, as part of the Agency's ongoing effort to provide compliance and technical assistance to mine operators and miners, MSHA is soliciting information and data on engineering controls and best practices that lower miners' exposure to respirable coal mine dust.
Comments must be received or postmarked by midnight Eastern Standard Time (EST) on July 9, 2019.
Submit comments and informational materials, identified by RIN 1219-AB90 or Docket No. MSHA 2018-0014, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
MSHA will post all comments without change, including any personal information provided. Access comments and information electronically at
On May 1, 2014, MSHA published a final rule, “Lowering Miners' Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including Continuous Personal Dust Monitors” (79 FR 24814). The purpose of the rule is to reduce occupational lung diseases in coal miners. Chronic exposures to respirable coal mine dust cause lung diseases that can lead to permanent disability and death. The Dust rule improves health protection for coal miners by reducing their occupational exposure to respirable coal mine dust and by lowering the risk that they will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity over their working lives. Several provisions specifically lower coal miners' exposure to respirable coal mine dust by lowering exposure limits; basing noncompliance determinations on MSHA's inspectors' single-shift samples; and changing the definition of normal production shift. Other provisions reduce respirable coal mine dust levels and further protect miners by requiring full-shift sampling to account for occupational exposures greater than eight hours per shift and requiring more frequent sampling of selected occupations and locations using the Continuous Personal Dust Monitor (CPDM). All of the phased Dust rule requirements were effective as of August 1, 2016.
As MSHA noted in the preamble to the Dust rule, the health effects from occupational exposure to respirable coal
In the preamble to the Dust rule, MSHA stated its intent to take the lead in conducting a retrospective study beginning February 1, 2017 (79 FR 24867), with an unspecified completion date. Since the Dust rule went into effect, MSHA has analyzed more than 250,000 respirable dust samples taken by mine operators who use the CPDM and by MSHA inspectors who use the gravimetric sampler. MSHA's analysis shows that more than 99 percent of the samples were in compliance with the MSHA respirable coal mine dust standards.
The sample data allow MSHA to evaluate the effectiveness of dust controls in mines and whether the rule results in reduced levels of respirable coal dust. However, due to the latency between exposure and disease, MSHA likely will not be able to evaluate fully the health effects of the rule for a decade or more.
While the Agency continues to evaluate the respirable dust samples, MSHA also is seeking comments, data, and information from stakeholders to assist the Agency in developing a framework to assess the health effects of the Dust rule and its impact on the health protections provided to coal miners going forward. With respect to suggested elements for a framework, commenters should be specific and include detailed rationales and supporting documentation, if any. Throughout the comment period, MSHA will continue to consult with interested parties and the Department of Health and Human Services' National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), as it collects and evaluates all available information, comments in response to this RFI, respirable coal mine dust sampling data, and compliance rates for controlling exposure to coal mine dust.
As mentioned, since the Dust rule's publication and implementation, MSHA has continually evaluated respirable dust controls and best practices for compliance with the rule's requirements. The Agency has met with mine operators and miners to provide mine-specific compliance and technical assistance. MSHA also held a MSHA/NIOSH-sponsored meeting on engineering controls and best practices on December 6, 2016. Technical assistance materials and other materials from the meeting are available on MSHA's website at
MSHA intends to continue its consultations and will continue to offer technical assistance on best practices for controlling coal mine dust and quartz exposures. MSHA is interested in the engineering controls and best practices that mine operators find most effective to achieve and maintain the required respirable coal mine dust and quartz levels—particularly those practices that can be replicated throughout coal mines nationwide to achieve similar results.
The purpose of this RFI is to solicit comments, data, and information from industry, labor, NIOSH, and other stakeholders to assist MSHA in developing the framework for a study to assess the health effects of the Dust rule. Commenters should be specific about any recommendations they offer, including detailed rationales and supporting documentation.
MSHA notes that in the Explanatory Statement to the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 114-113), Congress directed NIOSH to charter a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study to examine and describe: Current monitoring and sampling protocols and requirements to understand miners' occupational exposure to respirable coal mine dust in the United States and other industrialized countries; coal mine dust composition and application procedures, including the impact of new rock dust mixtures and regulatory requirements; monitoring and sampling technologies, along with sampling protocols and frequency; and the efficacy of those technologies and protocols in aiding decisions regarding the control of respirable coal mine dust and mine worker exposure. Congress directed MSHA to provide assistance and necessary data to NAS for its study, which the Agency has done and continues to do when requested. MSHA will evaluate the results of the NAS study after the report is final.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Petition for Rulemaking and request for comments.
On May 9, 2016, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) received a Petition for Rulemaking petitioning VA to amend its medical regulations by removing a provision that excludes “gender alterations” from its medical benefits package. The effect of the amendment sought by the petitioners would be to authorize gender alteration surgery as part of VA care when medically necessary. VA seeks comments on the petition to assist in determining whether to amend the medical benefits package and eliminate the exclusion of gender alteration from VA's medical benefits package.
Comments must be received/submitted on or before September 7, 2018.
Written comments may be submitted through
Michael Shores, Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Office of the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington DC, 20420; (202) 461-4921.
Section 1710 of title 38 United States Code (U.S.C.) requires VA to “furnish hospital care and medical services which the Secretary determines to be needed” for eligible veterans. In 1999, VA promulgated 38 CFR 17.38, establishing the Department's medical benefits package for veterans enrolled in VA's health care system. 64 FR 54207 (Oct. 6, 1999). The regulation describes the types of medical care and services available for such veterans. Care referred to in the medical benefits package is provided to individuals only if it is determined by appropriate healthcare professionals that the care is needed to promote, preserve, or restore the health of the individual and is in accord with generally accepted standards of medical practice. 38 CFR 17.38(b). Paragraph (c) of that section provides a list of medical services the medical benefits package does not include. Paragraph (c)(4) explicitly excludes “gender alterations” from the medical benefits package.
On May 9, 2016, VA received a Petition for Rulemaking petitioning VA to amend its medical regulations by removing the exclusion of “gender alterations” from its medical benefits package. The petition asks VA to remove 38 CFR 17.38(c)(4), allowing VA to provide gender alteration surgeries.
As part of its ongoing consideration of the petition, VA now seeks public comment on the petition and on whether “gender alterations” should be included in the medical benefits package. On February 22, 2018, the Department of Defense issued a report that considered the efficacy of gender alteration surgery as treatment for gender dysphoria. That report noted considerable scientific uncertainty and overall lack of high quality scientific evidence demonstrating the extent to which transition-related treatments such as sex reassignment surgery remedy the multifaceted mental health problems associated with gender dysphoria.
Commenters are specifically invited to address the following questions:
What evidence is available about the safety and effectiveness of gender alterations for the treatment of gender dysphoria and how reliable is that evidence?
Given the challenge of the high rates of Veteran suicide, what does the evidence, including peer-reviewed evidence, suggest about the impact of gender alterations on the rates of suicide and suicide ideation among those suffering from gender dysphoria?
Given that any addition to the medical benefits package will have an associated cost and burden on existing specialists, especially urological and vascular surgeons and other highly trained specialists who are already in shorty supply nationwide, what is the potential impact of adding “gender alterations” on Veterans' access to care, particularly for Veterans facing life-threatening medical conditions waiting to see surgical specialists?
We are providing a 60-day period from the date of publication of this
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jacquelyn Hayes-Byrd, Acting Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on June 19, 2018, for publication.
Postal Service
Proposed rule.
The Postal Service is proposing to revise
Submit comments on or before August 8, 2018.
Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. If sending comments by email, include the name and address of the commenter and send to
Direct questions to Wm. Kevin Gunther at
The Postal Service and United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) have observed an increased frequency of incidents involving containers of liquids rupturing while in Postal Service networks. A typical result of these incidents is damage to surrounding mailpieces and to Postal Service equipment.
When responding to incidents involving liquid spills, Postal Service employees frequently note that mailpieces containing liquids are often not marked on the outer mailing container as required by DMM 601.3.4. Many of these leaking mailpieces contain plastic primary receptacles. Mailers often do not consider plastic primary receptacles to be breakable, and therefore do not cushion these primary receptacles with absorbent material or include secondary containers, as specified by DMM 601.3.4.
The Postal Service and USPIS have also observed that spills of non-hazardous materials in relatively small quantities can result in damage to surrounding mailpieces and cause temporary equipment shutdowns. This is especially true with viscous or oily substances, such as oils and lotions. These materials are often mailed by First-Class Package Service®. When ruptured, they will frequently leak onto other lightweight mailpieces containing photographs and documents.
This proposed revision would require mailers of all liquids in nonmetal containers, regardless of volume, to provide triple packaging, including
The Postal Service believes these new mailing standards will prevent spills in general and reduce the frequency of incidents in which ruptured containers of liquid cause significant damage to surrounding mailpieces. The Postal Service anticipates that this proposed revision will result in decreased cost and time related to spill response, mail decontamination, site cleanup, and provide for an improved customer experience.
If this proposed rule is adopted, the Postal Service will revise and align the language referencing the packaging of nonhazardous liquids located in DMM 601.3.4 and add clarifying language regarding the use of orientation arrows. The Postal Service will also publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes. Finally, if the proposed rule is adopted, the Postal Service will also make corresponding revisions to Publication 52,
Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comments on the following proposed revisions to
Administrative practice and procedure, Incorporation by reference, Postal Service.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, the Postal Service proposes that 39 CFR parts 111 and 113 be amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
Mailers must mark the outer container of a mailpiece containing liquid to indicate the nature of the contents, and include orientation arrows in accordance with Publication 52, section 226. Mailers must package and mail liquids under the following conditions:
a. Use screw-on caps with a minimum of one and one-half turns, soldering, clips, or similar means to close primary containers containing liquids. Do not use containers with friction-top closures (push-down tops) except as provided in 3.4d.
b. The use of locking rings or similar devices is encouraged when mailing containers with friction-top closures (push-down tops).
d. All nonmetal containers of liquids, including plastic containers, and metal containers with friction top closures, without regard to volume, must be triple-packaged according to the following requirements:
1. Cushion the primary container(s) with absorbent material capable of absorbing all of the liquid in the container(s) in case of breakage;
2. Place the primary container inside another sealed, leakproof container (secondary container), such as a watertight can or plastic bag; and
3. Use a strong and securely sealed outer mailing container durable enough to protect the contents and durable enough to withstand normal processing in Postal Service networks.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is acknowledging a recent filing requesting the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to an analytical method for use in periodic reporting (Proposal Six). This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On June 26, 2018, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11, requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports.
Second, the Postal Service states that Proposal Six responds to a directive in the FY 2017 Annual Compliance Determination report (ACD).
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2018-9 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's website at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2018-9 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Six), filed June 26, 2018.
2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than August 15, 2018.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by August 8, 2018. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on the proposed information collection. This is an update of a currently approved collection. The purpose of this information collection request is to continue the use of the electronic form FNS-775, titled “Background Investigation Request for Contractor Employees.” This form will continue to provide for the collection of Personal Identification Information required in the conduct of a background investigation which is a pre-requisite for the contractor employees to be granted a security clearance for employment at all FNS locations.
Written comments must be received on or before September 7, 2018.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were 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 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 Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Joseph Binns at 703-605-1181.
The respondents are contractor employees at all FNS locations across the nation, inclusive of the FNS Headquarters in Alexandria, VA and at the seven (7) FNS regional offices across the USA. The estimated annual number of respondents who will be required to complete the FNS-775 for requisite background investigation requests for contract employees is 750.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection for the Assessment of Mandatory Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment &Training (E&T) Programs. This collection is a new information collection.
This study will help identify how specific E&T processes and services affect a participant's likelihood of participating or being sanctioned, with particular attention to potential leakage points, such as initial referral, intake, and orientation. This study also will describe what data exists on how well mandatory programs help SNAP participants gain skills, certificates and credentials and gain stable, well-paying employment.
Written comments must be received on or before September 7, 2018.
Comments may be sent to: Jordan Younes, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1024, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Jordan Younes at 703-305-2576 or via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Jordan Younes at 703-305-2935.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were 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 use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has funded the Assessment of Mandatory E&T Programs to examine program features and administrative practices of mandatory State SNAP E&T programs
To address these issues, FNS is conducting a study to accomplish three objectives:
1. Understand the process for screening and notifying participants and enrolling them in mandatory E&T programs.
2. Determine the main reasons why mandatory E&T participants are sanctioned, with particular attention to program drop-off points that result in sanctions.
3. Assess how well mandatory programs help SNAP E&T participants gain skills, certificates, and credentials; gain stable, well-paying employment; and move toward economic self-sufficiency.
The study will gather data through site visits to six States operating mandatory E&T programs and from administrative caseload data. Data will be collected in each of the six study States through: (1) Interviews with the State SNAP director and E&T manager; (2) in-person interviews, process-mapping group discussions, and observations at two local SNAP offices; and (3) in-person interviews and observations at three local E&T providers. These data will provide information on overall State policies, client flow through the process, and staff perspectives on the effects of different practices on participation and sanctions. SNAP administrative caseload data will also be requested from the six study States, and if available, from E&T providers to obtain quantitative data to complement the interviews. Administrative data will be used to examine the characteristics of mandatory E&T participants in each State and to assess the E&T services, sanctions, case closures, and other outcomes associated with their E&T participation.
Respondent groups identified include:
1.
2.
3.
Note that the E&T providers are assumed to be a mix of State, Business or Other For-Profit, and Not-For-Profit organizations (
1. 101 State and Local Government staff: (out of 12 State SNAP staff contacted, 12 are estimated to be responsive; out of 6 State database administrators contacted, 6 are estimated to be responsive; out of 23 State E&T provider staff contacted, 20 are estimated to be responsive; out of 60 Local office staff contacted, 60 are estimated to be responsive.)
2. 23 Business or Other For-Profit staff: (out of 23 Business E&T provider staff contacted, 20 are estimated to be responsive.)
3. 23 Not-For-Profit staff: (out of 23 Not-For-Profit E&T provider staff contacted, 20 are estimated to be responsive.)
The breakout is as follows:
1.
• 6 State SNAP directors will respond to advance materials and scheduling; the same 6 State SNAP directors plus 6 additional State E&T managers will take part in an interview.
2.
• 6 State SNAP database administrators will respond to advance materials and scheduling; the same 6 State SNAP database administrators will submit an administrative data file.
3.
• 6 State E&T provider staff will respond to advance materials and scheduling, the same 6 E&T provider staff plus 12 additional E&T provider staff will take part in an interview (3 other State E&T provider staff will not respond).
• 2 State E&T provider database administrators will respond to advance materials and scheduling; the same 2 State SNAP database administrators will submit an administrative data file.
4.
• 12 Local SNAP office staff will respond to advance materials and scheduling, the same 12 Local SNAP office staff plus 24 additional Local SNAP office staff will take part in an interview; 36 of the Local SNAP office staff plus 24 additional Local SNAP office staff will take part in a group mapping exercise.
5.
• 6 Business E&T provider staff will respond to advance materials and scheduling, the same 6 Business E&T provider staff plus 12 additional Business E&T provider staff will take part in an interview (3 other Business E&T provider staff will not respond).
• 2 Business E&T provider database administrators will respond to advance materials and scheduling; the same 2
6.
• 6 Not-For-Profit E&T provider staff will respond to advance materials and scheduling, the same 6 Not-For-Profit E&T provider staff plus 12 additional Not-For-Profit E&T provider staff will take part in an interview (3 other Not-For-Profit E&T provider staff will not respond).
• 2 Not-For-Profit E&T provider database administrators will respond to advance materials and scheduling; the same 2 Not-For-Profit SNAP database administrators will submit an administrative data file.
Forest Service, USDA.
Withdrawal of Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The Shasta-Trinity National Forest is withdrawing its Notice of Intent issued on April 22, 2011, for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the I-5 Corridor Fuels Reduction Project. No significant issues were identified during this scoping period or any other opportunity to comment. Upon further evaluation, it also appears that there are no potential significant impacts to the human environment associated with the project. As a result, the Forest is withdrawing its intent to prepare an EIS and is now preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA). All comments previously received regarding this project will be retained and considered in the development of the EA. If it is determined that the project may have significant impacts, the EIS process will be reinitiated and a notice of intent will be published.
Questions concerning this notice and requests to be added to the project mailing list should be directed to Andrew Spain, Shasta Lake Ranger District, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, 14225 Holiday Road, Redding, CA 96003. Telephone: (530) 242-5548. Email:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Minnesota Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held from 3:00-4:00 p.m. CDT Monday August 6, 2018 to discuss civil rights concerns in the State.
The meeting will be held on Monday August 6, 2018, from 3:00-4:00 p.m. CDT.
Carolyn Allen at
This meeting is available to the public through the above toll-free call-in number. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Regional Programs Unit, 230 S. Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed Carolyn Allen at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Hawai'i Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 11:00 a.m. (HDT) on: Monday, July 9, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to approve a list of speakers, and to approve a date for the briefing.
Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. HDT.
Conference call-in number: 888-724-9513 and conference ID# 1067565.
David Barreras, at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-724-9513 and conference ID# 1067565. 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
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meetings 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 Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012, faxed to (213) 894-0508, or emailed to David Barreras at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstance of staffing limitations that require immediate action.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of briefing meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that briefing meetings of the South Dakota Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 10:00 a.m. (CDT) on Tuesday, July 24, 2018 in Pine Ridge, South Dakota and at 10:00 a.m. (CDT) on Wednesday, July 25, 2018 in Pierre, SD. The purpose of the briefings is to hear from government officials, advocates, and others on Subtle Racism in South Dakota.
Tuesday, July 24, 2018 and Wednesday, July 25, 2018.
Pine Ridge Briefing: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at the Prairie Wind Casino and Hotel, 26 Casino Drive, Oglala SD 57764.
Pierre Briefing: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at the Pierre Chamber of Commerce, 800 West Dakota Avenue, Pierre SD 57501.
Evelyn Bohor at
If other persons who plan to attend the briefings require other accommodations, please contact Evelyn Bohor at
Time will be set aside at the end of each briefing so that members of the public may address the Committee after the formal presentations have been completed. Persons interested in the issue are also invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by August 25, 2018. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the briefings will be available for public viewing as they become available at
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
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
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Foreign-Trade Zone of Southeast Texas, Inc., grantee of FTZ 116, requesting an expansion of Subzone 116A on behalf of Motiva Enterprises LLC. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on July 2, 2018.
Subzone 116A was approved on December 21, 1993 (Board Order 668, 59 FR 61, January 3, 1994), and expanded on May 9, 2018 (Board Order 2051, 83 FR 22441-22442, May 15, 2018). The subzone currently consists of eight sites located in Jefferson and Hardin Counties:
The applicant is requesting authority to expand the subzone to include an additional site:
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 20, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to September 4, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Bridgeport Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 76, requesting an expansion of Subzone 76A on behalf of ASML US, LLC, located in Wilton and Newtown, Connecticut. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on July 2, 2018.
Subzone 76A was approved on July 24, 2014 (79 FR 44389, July 31, 2014) and consists of the following sites:
The applicant is requesting authority to expand the subzone to include additional sites as follows:
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 20, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to September 4, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at
On March 5, 2018, AGRU America Charleston, LLC (AGRU America) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 21—Site 38,
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
AGRU America Charleston, LLC (AGRU America) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in North Charleston, South Carolina. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 27, 2018.
AGRU America already has authority to produce high density polyethylene pipe within Site 38 of FTZ 21. The current request would add two finished products and two foreign status materials/components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt AGRU America from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below and in the existing scope of authority, AGRU America would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to polyethylene fittings, and polyethylene floaters (duty rate 5.3%). AGRU America would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The materials/components sourced from abroad include rigid polyethylene pipes and ethylene propylene diene monomers (EPDM) (duty rate ranges from 2.5% to 3.1%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 20, 2018.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that sales of chlorinated isocyanurates (chlorinated isos) from Spain by Ercros S.A. (Ercros), were not sold at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) June 1, 2016, through May 31, 2017. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable July 9, 2018.
Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4261.
On August 1, 2017, Commerce initiated this administrative review on chlorinated isos from Spain covering one company, Ercros.
The products covered by the order are chlorinated isos, which are derivatives of cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that, for the period June 1, 2016, through May 31, 2017, the following dumping margin exists:
Commerce intends to disclose to the parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Upon issuance of the final results in this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If Ercro's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company under review will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of review (POR) February 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018.
Applicable July 9, 2018.
Trenton Duncan or Kabir Archuletta, 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) 482-3539 or (202) 482-2593, respectively.
On February 1, 2018, Commerce published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The petitioner and Domestic Processors withdrew their requests for review within the 90-day deadline. Because Commerce received no other requests for review of the above-referenced companies, and no other requests were made for a review of the AD order on shrimp from China with respect to other companies, we are rescinding the administrative review covering the period February 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018, in full, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of shrimp from China during the POR at rates equal to the cash deposit rate for estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and exporters of rubber bands from Thailand for the period of investigation of January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable July 9, 2018.
Emily Halle or Shanah Lee, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202-482-0176 or 202-482-6386, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On February 20, 2018, we initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of rubber bands from Thailand.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The products subject to this investigation are rubber bands from Thailand. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4)(i), we are aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation of rubber bands based on a request made by the petitioner.
For this preliminary determination, Commerce calculated
Consistent with section 703(d) of the Act, Commerce has not calculated an estimated weighted-average subsidy rate for all other producers/exporters because it has not made an affirmative preliminary determination.
Because Commerce preliminarily determines that no countervailable subsidies are being provided to the production or exportation of subject merchandise, Commerce will not direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of any such entries.
Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs, as well as request a hearing. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Electronically filed documents must be received successfully in their entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time,
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, Commerce will make available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. Commerce will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in the files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an APO, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Pursuant to section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if Commerce's final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination, or 45 days after Commerce's final determination.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.
The products subject to this investigation are bands made of vulcanized rubber, with a flat length, as actually measured end-to-end by the band lying flat, no less than
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of rubber bands from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of investigation of January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable July 9, 2018.
Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4793.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On February 20, 2018, we initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of rubber bands from China.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The products covered by this investigation are rubber bands from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
In making these findings, we relied solely on facts available because neither the Government of China nor any of the selected mandatory respondent companies responded to the questionnaire.
As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4)(i), we are aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation of rubber bands based on a request made by the petitioner.
Sections 703(d)(1)(A) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:
In accordance with section 703(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs, as well as request a hearing. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Electronically filed documents must be received successfully in their entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time,
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of its determination. In addition, Commerce will make available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. Commerce will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in the files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an APO, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Pursuant to section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if Commerce's final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination, or 45 days after Commerce's final determination.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products subject to this investigation are bands made of vulcanized rubber, with a flat length, as actually measured end-to-end by the band lying flat, no less than
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On March 22, 2018, the United States Court of International Trade (the Court) issued its final judgment in
Applicable April 2, 2018.
Paul Walker, AD/CVD Operations Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202.482.0413.
On March 1, 2012, Commerce issued the
On October 20, 2017, Commerce filed the AR2 Remand with the Court.
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending the
Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise exported by Jinchi, Hongli, and the Separate-Rate Applicants using the assessment rate calculated by Commerce in the AR2 Remand and listed above.
Cash deposit rates for the following companies have been superseded by cash deposit rates calculated in intervening administrative reviews of the order, and thus, will not be amended:
The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc./Stanley Fastening Systems, LP; Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry & Business Co.; Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Qingdao D & L Group Ltd. Co., Ltd.; Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Tianli Industries Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Lianda Group Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Universal Machinery Imp & Exp Corporation; and Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.
Accordingly, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to require a cash deposit for estimated duties at the rate noted above for entries of subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after April 2, 2018, for Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co., Ltd.; Koram Panagene Co., Ltd.; and Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable July 9, 2018.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) hereby publishes a list of scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations made between April 1, 2017, and June 30, 2017, inclusive. We intend to publish future lists after the close of the next calendar quarter.
Brenda E. Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-4735.
Commerce regulations provide that the Secretary will publish in the
Requestor: Sumitomo Corporation of Americas and Nippon Steel & Sumikin Pipe Mexico, S.A. de C.V.; Thirteen types of automotive and cylinder tubes are outside the scope of the order because they are mechanical tubing, which is excluded from the order; May 12, 2017.
Requestor: Midwest Fastener Corp.; Zinc and nylon anchors which are used to attach wood, metal, shelf brackets, and other items to concrete, brick and other masonry walls, ceilings, and floors are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; May 17, 2017.
Requestor: Eran Financial Services, LLC.; Eran Finished Light Poles and Light Pole Kits are not covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China because they meet the criteria for exclusion as finished merchandise or finished goods kits; April 17, 2017.
Requestor: Ferguson Enterprises Inc.; Ferguson's towel bars, towel rings and toilet paper kits are not subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China because they qualify for the scope exclusion as finished goods kits; April 20, 2017.
Requestor: Spectrum Brands, Inc.; Spectrum pocket door frame kits are not covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China because they meet the criteria for exclusion as finished goods kits; May 9, 2017.
Requestor: Ferguson Enterprises Inc.; Ferguson's Air Duct Registers are not subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China because they qualify for the scope exclusion as finished merchandise; May 10, 2017.
Requestor: VantagePoint Industries LLC; Certain barn door hardware kits are not covered by the scope of antidumping and countervailing orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China because they meet the requirements of the finished good kits exclusion; May 19, 2017.
Requestor: Innovative Outdoor Solutions, Inc.; Ten different outdoor products are not covered by the scope of antidumping and countervailing orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China because they meet the requirements of the finished good kits exclusion. Two outdoor products are included in the scope of the order because they do not qualify for the scope exclusion for finished merchandise or finished goods kits; June 9, 2017.
Requestor: Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee; Certain aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China made of series 6xxx aluminum alloy, which are cut-to-length and welded together in the form of a pallet, regardless of producer or exporter, are included in the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders because they meet the definition of merchandise covered by the scope of the orders and do not qualify to be excluded as “finished merchandise”; June 13, 2017.
Requestor: Woodard CM-LLC; Woodard dining chair kits are covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China because, as entered, they require further finishing and lack component parts, such that they do not meet the criteria for exclusion as finished merchandise; June 19, 2017.
Requestor: Grainger International, Inc.; 14 storage cabinet models and 15 quick assembly bookcase models are not covered by the scope of the antidumping duty and/or countervailing duty orders on boltless steel shelving units prepacked for sale from the People's Republic of China because neither product has a horizontal support member upon which a horizontal storage shelf sits, and the structural integrity of both products is provided by the open box design rather than vertical support members as required by the plain language of the scope; April 20, 2017.
Requestor: Leviathan Corp. (Leviathan); Leviathan requested that Commerce find that its imports of certain mining and construction vehicle tires are excluded from the scope of antidumping order (A-570-912) and countervailing duty order (C-570-913) on off-the road tires from the PRC. We determined that Leviathan's imports of three models of new pneumatic off-the-road tires, 37.5-39 Caterpillar 657E Wheel Tractor-Scraper tires, 45/65-45 Caterpillar 992K Wheel Loader tires, and 27.00-49 Caterpillar 777G Off-Highway Truck tires, are not covered by the scope of the Orders; April 24, 2017.
Requestor: Acme Manufacturing Company; Acme's short round tubes are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from the People's Republic of China because the scope language is not limited to pipes of a certain length, to pipes made to an industry specification, or to pipes with a specific end-use; April 4, 2017.
Requestor: TreeKeeper LLC (TreeKeeper); TreeKeeper's Adjustable Telescoping OrnamentKeeper is outside the scope of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks because the product is incapable of sliding under a load for the purposes of lifting and moving it; and TreeKeeper's XL Tree Dolly is covered by the scope of the order; April 19, 2017.
Requestor: Groupe Bugatti Group Inc. (Bugatti); Bugatti's luggage cart, style No. CRT39, is covered by the scope of the order on hand trucks, because it meets the operational requirement of being capable of sliding under a load, and lacks the telescoping frame necessary to meet the luggage cart exclusion; June 30, 2017.
Requestor: Acme Manufacturing Company; Black and perforated square tubes are covered by the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from the People's Republic of China because they possess all of the physical characteristics of subject merchandise that are described in the scope; April 26, 2017.
Requestor: DunHua SenTai Wood Co., Ltd.; Two-layer wood flooring products are not covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China because they lack the requisite two or more layers or plies of wood veneer in combination with a core; April 7, 2018.
Requestor: U.V. International LLC (U.V. International); U.V. International's ductile iron flanges identified by product codes DPF003 and DPF004 are within the scope of the order; May 12, 2017.
Requestor: Cameron International Corporation; Unfinished packoff support bushings, unfinished mandrel casing hangers, and unfinished casing head housings (intended for use in an above-ground multibowl wellhead systems) are not covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; June 30, 2017.
Requestor: UPM Raflatac; The imported glycol-modified polyethylene terephthalate (PETG) shrink film is outside the scope of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from the People's Republic of China because it constitutes shrink film that is not bi-axially oriented; May 12, 2017.
Requestor: Commercial Honing LLC dba Commercial Fluid Power; Ten different seamless pipe products are not covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain seamless steel tubing from the People's Republic of China because the mechanical tubing does not meet the dimensional requirements,
Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of completed scope inquiries. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, Washington, DC 20230.
This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 23, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a timely request for a semiannual new shipper review (NSR) from Jinxiang Infang Fruit & Vegetable Co., Ltd (Infang), in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Commerce has determined that the request for a NSR of the antidumping duty order on Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China (China) meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2017, through May 31, 2018.
Applicable July 9, 2018.
Alexander Cipolla, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and
Commerce published the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China in the
In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Infang submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States; (2) the date on which the fresh garlic was first entered; and (3) the volume of that shipment.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B), since Infang is the exporter, but not the producer of the subject merchandise, Infang's producer, Jinxiang Excelink Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Excelink) certified: (1) That it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation; (2) that it has never been affiliated with any producer or exporter that did export of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI; and (3) that Excelink produced the subject merchandise exported by Infang in the relevant POR.
Commerce queried the database of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in an attempt to confirm that the shipment reported by Infang had entered the United States for consumption and that liquidation had been properly suspended for antidumping duties. The information which Commerce examined was consistent with that provided by Infang in its request.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(c), an exporter or producer may request a NSR within one year of the date on which its subject merchandise was first entered. Moreover, 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1) states that if the request for the review is made during the six-month period ending with the end of the semiannual anniversary month, the Secretary will initiate an NSR in the calendar month immediately following the semiannual anniversary month. Further, 19 CFR 315.214(g)(1)(i)(B) states that if the NSR was initiated in the month immediately following the semiannual anniversary month, the POR will be the six-month period immediately preceding the semiannual anniversary month. Infang made the request for an NSR, which included all documents and information required by the statute and regulations, within one year of the date on which its fresh garlic first entered. Its request was filed in May, which is the semiannual anniversary month of the order. Infang also requested that Commerce use the discretion afforded it under 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii) to alter the POR to capture the entry. As stated by Infang, “{t}he invoice and export date of the shipment was during the six-month POR, but the shipment entered the United States . . . after this period.”
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b), and the information on the record, Commerce finds that Infang's request meets the threshold requirements for initiation of a NSR and, therefore, is initiating an NSR of Infang. Commerce intends to issue the preliminary results within 180 days after the date on which this review is initiated and the final results within 90 days after the date on which we issue the preliminary results.
It is Commerce's usual practice in cases involving non-market economies to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate (
We will conduct this new shipper review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, as amended by the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.
Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this proceeding should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.
This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), Commerce.
Soliciting applications for technical assistance.
The Minority Business Development Agency's (MBDA) of the Department of Commerce is soliciting volunteers to serve as panelists to review and provide feedback to the 2018 Broad Agency Announcement. Specifically, the panelists will review applications submitted for 14 various projects and initiatives.
MBDA will be accepting resumes and bios on a rolling basis to the
All submissions should be directed to
Nakita Chambers, Program Manager, MBDA Office of Business Development, telephone: (202) 482-0065. Information about the 2018 Broad Agency Announcement can be obtained electronically via the internet at
MBDA, a bureau of the U.S. Department of Commerce, leads Federal Government efforts to promote the growth and global competitiveness of minority business enterprises (MBEs). MBDA has established key priorities designed to overcome the unique challenges faced by minority business enterprises (MBEs). MBDA is now initiating new approaches to serve MBEs that compliment Presidential priorities and U.S. Department of Commerce goals.
The 2018 Broad Agency Announcement is a mechanism to encourage new activities, education, outreach, innovative projects or sponsorships that are not addressed through other MBDA programs. This program is not a method for awarding congressionally directed funds or existing funded awards. MBDA is authorized pursuant to Executive Order 11625 to defray all or part of the costs of pilot or demonstration projects conducted by public or private agencies or organizations which are designed to overcome the special challenges of minority business enterprises. MBDA will provide Federal assistance to support innovative projects seeking to promote and ensure the inclusion and use of minority enterprises in one or more of the following: (1) Access to capital; (2) American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian project; (3) aquaculture; (4) disaster recovery; (5) disaster readiness; (6) Global Minority Women Economic Empowerment Initiative; (7) Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Initiative; (8) an entrepreneurship education program for formerly incarcerated persons; (9) inclusive infrastructure initiative; (10) research; (11) space commerce; (12) a sustainable business model; (13) technology transfer and commercialization; and (14) a virtual business center.
MBDA announced the Federal Funding Opportunity for the 2018 Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) on June 11, 2018, and intends to award funds no later than September 1, 2018. MBDA will receive applications until July 11, 2018 for awards under the 2018 BAA. MBDA will conduct merit review panels from July 16, 2018 through July 31, 2018.
As a reviewer, you will play a critical role in the evaluation of the 2018 BAA applications. Your recommendations will be used by MBDA in determining whether to approve the applications for the initiatives listed above. In order to be a reviewer, you must be an individual with expertise and/or experience in state, local, or federal grants management, private sector business development, minority business development, or any of the 14 categories listed above as initiatives.
All potential reviewers must submit a resume or bio with the information below. Potential reviewers should submit this information to the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS Greater Atlantic Region Fisheries Office (GARFO), 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester MA 01930 [Responsible Party: Julie Crocker], has applied in due form for a permit to take Atlantic (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 8, 2018.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also 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.
Erin Markin or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS GARFO is requesting authority to collect, receive, export, transport, and archive 100 dead Atlantic and 50 dead shortnose sturgeon, or parts thereof, annually. The applicant requests authorization to receive and export 3,000 Atlantic and 1,500 shortnose sturgeon parts annually for the NMFS Sturgeon Tissue Repository. In addition, the applicant also requests the one-time transfer of 22,000 Atlantic and 8,100 shortnose sturgeon parts currently archived at the NMFS Sturgeon Tissue Repository under Permit No. 17557. Sturgeon samples would be obtained from individuals authorized to collect them in the course of scientific research, salvage activities, or taken during other authorized activities. Sturgeon parts and samples would be used to support law enforcement actions, research studies (primarily genetics), and incidental education. The permit would be valid for up to ten years from the date of issuance.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Oregon State University, Marine Mammal Institute, 2030 Southeast Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365 (Responsible Party: Bruce Mate, Ph.D.), has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on 67 species of marine mammals.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 8, 2018.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also 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.
Shasta McClenahan 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 requests a five-year research permit to: (1) Characterize the spatial and temporal distribution of cetaceans throughout their range, (2) identify migration routes, home ranges, habitats, and core areas of use, (3) characterize foraging behavior, (4) characterize ecological relationships to help explain movement patterns, and (5) opportunistically study pinnipeds encountered during cetacean studies to contribute knowledge of the species and document health concerns including human interactions. Research may occur in U.S. and international waters world-wide. Up to 67 species of marine mammals may be targeted including the following endangered or threatened species and stocks of cetaceans: Blue (
The following endangered or threatened species of pinnipeds may be harassed and opportunistically observed and photographed during surveys: Western 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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting (webinar).
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) is sponsoring a meeting via webinar to review a new method proposed to improve catch estimation methods in
The Catch Estimation Methodology Review webinar will be held Tuesday, July 31, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time or until business for the day has been completed.
The Catch Estimation Methodology Review meeting will be held by webinar. To attend the webinar, (1) join the meeting by visiting this link
Mr. John DeVore, Staff Officer, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820-2413.
The purpose of the Catch Estimation Methodology Review meeting is to review and evaluate a new methodology under development by the National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) for partitioning landings reported as aggregated categories of fish into species-level estimates of landed catch. The review will focus on short-term requests to the SWFSC team from the March Methodology Review panel.
No management actions will be decided by the Methodology Review panel. The Methodology Review panel's role will be development of recommendations and a report for consideration by the Pacific Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee and the Pacific Council at their September meeting in Seattle, WA.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agendas may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent of the Methodology Review panel to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2411 at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 58 Atlantic Cobia Stock Identification Joint Cooperator Technical Review Webinar.
The SEDAR 58 assessment(s) of the Atlantic stock(s) of cobia will consist of a series of workshops and webinars: Stock ID Workshop; Stock ID Review Workshop; Stock ID Joint Cooperator Technical Review; Data Workshop; Assessment Workshop and/or Webinars; and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 58 Stock ID Joint Cooperator Technical Review Webinar will be held on July 30, 2018, from 12 p.m. until 2 p.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julia Byrd at SEDAR (see
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is typically a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing workshop and/or webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency
The items of discussion at the Stock ID Joint Cooperator Technical Review Webinar are as follows:
1. Participants will review recommendations from the Cobia Stock ID Workshop and Cobia Stock ID Review Workshop;
2. Recommend the Cobia assessment unit stock for SEDAR 58; and
3. Draft an appropriate unit stock Term(s) of Reference.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
16 U.S.C.1891
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Ecosystem Committee will meet in Anchorage, AK, in July.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday July 24, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Hotel in the Chart Room, 500 W 3rd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501.
Steve MacLean, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The meeting agenda includes: Review of the Draft Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at:
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted either electronically to Steve MacLean, Council staff:
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the invention set forth in U.S. Patent No. 9,106,715 titled “System and Method for Rapid Dissemination of Image Products,” issued on August 11, 2015. The United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army, has rights in this invention.
Ms. Joan Gilsdorf, Patent Attorney, SDMC-JA, Bldg. 5220, Von Braun Complex, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898, email:
The invention pertains to rapid dissemination of image products. A data consumer display device sends a geospatial request for a map image of a specific area of interest to a rapid image distribution system (RIDS), which forwards the request to a sensor ground station. The sensor ground station processes data received from a sensor platform and sends the processed data to a georectification processor. The georectification processor creates georectified data and sends the georectified data to the RIDS, which further processes the data, exposing it to data consumers using network optimized data services (
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to EnZinc, Inc., a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice in the field of use of a zinc electrode for use in a nickel-zinc battery for two- or three-wheeled electric vehicles; the field of use of a zinc electrode for use in a nickel-zinc battery for micro-grid energy storage; the field of use of a zinc electrode for use in a nickel-zinc battery in a start-stop vehicles; the field of use of a zinc electrode for use in a nickel-zinc battery for hybrid-electric vehicles; and the
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than July 24, 2018.
Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20375-5320.
Amanda Horansky McKinney, Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone 202-767-1644.
Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax 202-404-7920, email:
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 7, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Take notice that on June 28, 2018, American Municipal Power, Inc. submitted a filing of proposed revenue requirement for reactive supply and voltage control from generation or other sources service under Schedule 2 of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Tariff (Willow Island, Hydroelectric Facility).
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC- 552, Annual Report of Natural Gas Transactions.
Comments on the collection of information are due September 7, 2018.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC18-14-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
FERC-552 had its genesis in the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On June 15, 2018, the City Of Englewood, Colorado (Englewood) filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Big Dry Creek Hydropower Station Project would have an installed capacity of 5 kilowatts (kW), and would be located along a diversion pipeline that would route poor-quality water around Englewood's primary municipal water intake facility. The project would be located near the City of Englewood in Arapahoe County, Colorado.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
The proposed hydroelectric project will not interfere with the primary purpose of the conduit, which is to aid the City of Englewood's municipal water supply system. Therefore, based upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies the requirements for a
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Risberg Line Project proposed by RH energytrans, LLC (RH) in the above-referenced docket. RH requests authorization to construct, modify, own, operate, and maintain natural gas facilities in Pennsylvania and Ohio to provide 55,000 dekatherms per day of firm natural gas transportation service.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Risberg Line Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the natural and human environment.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will adopt the EA to fulfill their agency's NEPA obligations and will use the EA and supporting documentation to consider the issuance of Clean Water Act Section 404 and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permits.
The Risberg Line Project would consist of the following actions in Pennsylvania:
• Minor modification at the existing County Line Compressor Station in Erie County;
• installation of compression (approximately 728 horsepower, natural gas-fired), receipt metering, and appurtenant facilities at the existing (currently vacant) Meadville Compressor Station site in Crawford County;
• re-certification and use of an existing 12-inch-diameter pipeline extending 26.6 miles from the Meadville Compressor Station north to an existing valve set in Washington Township, Erie County, including construction of a new launcher/receiver;
• next to the Meadville Compressor Station, construction of a 650-foot lateral within the existing 12-inch-diameter pipeline right-of-way to move gas from the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC system to the existing pipeline; and
• re-certification and use of a portion of an existing 8-inch-diameter pipeline extending from the 12-inch valve set west about 5.0 miles to a point in Elk Creek Township, Erie County (Line 10257), including construction of two new launchers/receivers.
In Pennsylvania and Ohio, the project would include:
• Construction of 28.3 miles of new 12-inch-diameter pipeline from the west end of the recertified 8-inch-diameter pipeline to connect with Dominion Energy Ohio facilities located in North Kingsville, Ashtabula County, Ohio (Risberg Pipeline). The pipeline would be constructed in new rights-of-way and include launcher/receiver facilities and mainline valves; and
• construction of a new meter station at the terminus of the new pipeline in North Kingsville, Ashtabula County, Ohio.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's website (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before 5:00pm Eastern Time on July 30, 2018.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP18-6-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a subsequent license for the American Tissue Hydroelectric Project, located on Cobbosseecontee Stream, in the Town of Gardiner, Kennebec County, Maine, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For further information, contact John Baummer at (202) 502-6837 or by email at
Take notice that on June 19, 2018, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street,
Columbia's project proposes to perform installations and modifications to Columbia's existing Line 5 to allow for the internal passage of ILI devices, or pigging, in order to assess the integrity of the pipeline. Columbia states that the project is required to ensure compliance with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration requirements for inspections of pipeline systems to ensure their safety and reliability.
The project will consist of various modification activities at 22 Mod Points to enable the in-line inspection, or pigging, of Line 5. Specifically, Columbia proposes to (1) install one new 24-inch x 20-inch bi-directional launcher/receiver station, valves, fitting, and pipe at Mod Point 1 in Brooke County, West Virginia; (2) install one new 24-inch x 20-inch bi-directional launcher/receiver at Mod Point 18 in Columbiana County, Ohio; (3) install, replace, or remove appurtenances, including valves, elbows, and pipe, at the remaining 20 Mod Points within Brooke County, West Virginia, and Jefferson and Columbiana Counties, Ohio; and (4) abandon in-place existing pipeline segments at Mod Point 1 in Brooke County, West Virginia, and at Mod Points 3, and 11 in Jefferson County, Ohio, 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 concerning this application may be directed to Linda Farquhar, Manager, Project Determinations & Regulatory Administration, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, by telephone at (832) 320-5685, by facsimile at (832) 320-6685, or by email at
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Enosburg Falls filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the Vermont State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Enosburg Falls as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Enosburg Falls filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission on behalf of the Village of Enosburg Falls Municipal Water and Light Department, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 2905. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10, each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by April 30, 2021.
p. Register online at
Take notice that on June 19, 2018, Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (Portland Natural Gas), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, TX 77002-2700, filed an application under section 7(c) and 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. Sections 717f(c) and 717f(b), and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's rules
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Robert Jackson, Manager, Certificates & Regulatory Administration, Portland Natural Gas Transmission System, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, or call (832) 320-5487, or email:
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Take notice that 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:
On May 1, 2018, the San Diego County Water Authority and the City of San Diego, California, jointly filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the San Vicente Energy Storage Facility, to be located at San Vicente reservoir, in Lakeside, California. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of an integration of existing facilities and the construction of new facilities:
The lower reservoir portion of the proposed project would consist of the following: (1) The existing San Vicente reservoir with a storage capacity of 246,000 acre-feet and a surface area of 1,600 acres at a normal maximum operating elevation of 766 feet above mean sea level (msl); (2) the existing 1,430-foot-long, 337-foot-high San Vicente roller compacted concrete (RCC) gravity dam; (3) a lower reservoir inlet/outlet structure equipped with trash racks and either one or two slide gates; (4) a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation containing step-up transformers, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches; (5) a new switchyard constructed at the point of interconnection at the western edge of San Vicente Reservoir; (6) an approximately 5-mile-long, 230-kV overhead or underground transmission line that would extend from the northern end of San Vicente reservoir to the 230-kV Sycamore substation and interconnect with San Diego Gas and Electric's existing 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink; and (7) appurtenant facilities.
The upper reservoir portion of the proposed project would be constructed near Foster Canyon, approximately one-half mile northwest of the San Vicente reservoir and would consist of: (1) A reservoir with a storage capacity of 7,842 acre-feet and a surface area of 100 acres at a full pond elevation of 1,490 feet msl; (2) five RCC saddle dams impounding the reservoir and measuring, respectively: (i) 1,425 feet long and 230 feet high, (ii) 838 feet long and 80 feet high, (iii) 838 feet long and 80 feet high, (iv) 1,006 feet long and 240 feet high, and (v) 3,100 feet long and 30 feet high; (3) an upper reservoir inlet/outlet structure; (4) a 2,050-foot-long, 22-foot-diameter power tunnel transitioning into two 326-foot-long, steel-lined penstocks extending between the upper reservoir inlet/outlet and the pump/turbines below; (5) a 360-foot-long, 83-foot-wide, 119-foot-tall subsurface powerhouse containing four 125-megawatt vertical Francis variable speed reversible pump/turbine/generator units; (6) a 2,244-foot-long, 25-foot-diameter concrete-lined tailrace tunnel connecting the pump-turbine draft tubes to the lower reservoir inlet/outlet structure; (7) a 2,200-foot-long, 230-kV, underground transmission line extending from the upper reservoir to the northern end of San Vicente reservoir; and (7) appurtenant facilities.
The project would generate an estimated 1,300 gigawatt hours annually.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of Commission's website at
Take notice that on June 27, 2018, Meldahl, LLC submitted a filing of proposed revenue requirement for reactive supply and voltage control from generation or other sources service under Schedule 2 of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Tariff (Meldahl, Hydroelectric Facility).
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on June 27, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Coolidge Solar I, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is July 18, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that on June 18, 2018, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in Docket No. CP18-505-000, an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, to abandon certain onshore and offshore facilities comprising the Cameron System, located onshore in the state of Louisiana and offshore in the federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico near Louisiana. Specifically, Texas Eastern proposes to abandon in place and by removal in total approximately 212.35 miles of various 30-inch diameter pipelines and abandon all related appurtenant facilities. Texas Eastern states 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
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
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a subsequent license for the Arpin Dam Project, located on the Chippewa River in Sawyer County, Wisconsin, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For further information, contact Amy Chang at (202) 502-8250.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign utility company status filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations of scientific experts from a diverse range of disciplines to be considered for appointment to the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) and four SAB committees described in this document. Appointments will be announced by the Administrator and are anticipated to be filled by the start of Fiscal Year 2019 (October 2018).
Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than August 8, 2018.
The SAB Staff Office is especially interested in scientists in the disciplines described above who have knowledge and experience in
The SAB Staff Office is also seeking nominations of experts for possible vacancies on four SAB committees: The Agricultural Science Committee, the Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee; the Drinking Water Committee; and the Radiation Advisory Committee.
(1) The SAB Agricultural Science Committee provides advice to the chartered SAB on matters that have been determined to have a significant direct impact on farming and agriculture-related industries. The SAB Staff Office invites the nomination of scientists with expertise in one or more of the following disciplines:
(2) The SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) provides advice through the chartered SAB regarding selected toxicological reviews of environmental chemicals. The SAB Staff Office invites the nomination of scientists with experience in chemical assessments and expertise in one or more of the following disciplines:
(3) The SAB Drinking Water Committee (DWC) provides advice on the scientific and technical aspects of EPA's national drinking water program. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts with experience on drinking water issues. Members should have expertise in one or more of the following disciplines:
(4) The Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) provides advice on radiation protection, radiation science, and radiation risk assessment. The SAB Staff Office invites the nomination of experts to serve on the RAC with demonstrated expertise in the following disciplines:
As these committees undertake specific advisory activities, the SAB Staff Office will consider two additional criteria for each new activity: absence of financial conflicts of interest and absence of an appearance of a loss of impartiality.
Nominators are asked to identify the specific committee for which nominees are to be considered. The following information should be provided on the nomination form: Contact information for the person making the nomination; contact information for the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the nominee's
Candidates invited to serve will be asked to submit the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows EPA to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's public responsibilities as a Special Government Employee and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded through the “Ethics Requirements for Advisors” link on the SAB home page at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of workshop.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a stakeholder workshop to be held in Washington, DC, on July 30, 2018. This workshop will engage individuals and companies involved in U.S. coastal shipping as transportation providers or users, as well as states, local communities, and interested citizens, in the development of a study of the impacts on that sector of the North American Emission Control Area (ECA) fuel sulfur limits for ships. The Agency will provide background on the study, describe the proposed analytic methodology, and solicit stakeholder input regarding the selection of transportation routes to be studied and data inputs.
The workshop will be held on July 30, 2018 at the location noted below under
The workshop will be held at the following location: Room 1153, William Jefferson Clinton East, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. Additional information related to the workshop will be posted on the EPA website at:
Julia MacAllister, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4131; email address:
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0396. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through
You may access this
The North American Emission Control Area (ECA) was designated in 2010 by amendment to Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).
In Senate Report 114-281 (June 16, 2016),
Input from coastal transportation industry stakeholders and other industries involved in alternative transportation modes will be essential to identify the transportation routes to be studied: Those routes that may be at risk of transportation mode shift as a result of increased operating costs due to the use of ECA fuel. Stakeholder input also will be important for essential data, including ship characteristics.
To facilitate stakeholder participation, EPA will conduct a workshop on July 30, 2018, at the location noted above under
EPA invites and encourages participation by all manner of coastal shipping stakeholders: Shipping companies, both those with ships that are capable of operating on heavy fuel oil and those with ships that are designed to operate solely on distillate diesel fuel; companies that provide alternative land-based transportation (rail and highway truck); companies that utilize coastal marine transportation; state and local governments; environmental and community groups; and others who are interested in or who have information that may be useful for this study.
A draft agenda for the workshop can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public meeting of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards Review Panel for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur to peer review: (1) EPA's
The public meeting of the CASAC Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards Review Panel for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur will be held on Wednesday, September 5, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) and Thursday, September 6, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (Eastern Time).
The public meeting will be held at the Hilton Durham Hotel Near Duke University, 3800 Hillsborough Road, Durham, North Carolina, 27705.
Any member of the public wishing to obtain information concerning the public meeting may contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at (202) 564-2155 or at
The CASAC was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2), to review air quality criteria and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and recommend any new NAAQS and revisions of existing criteria and NAAQS as may be appropriate. The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires that the Agency periodically review and revise, as appropriate, the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six “criteria” air pollutants, including oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and particulate matter (PM). EPA is currently reviewing the secondary (welfare-based) ambient air quality standards for oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and PM.
Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the CASAC Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards Review Panel for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur will hold a public face-to-face meeting to review EPA's
Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit relevant comments on the topic of this advisory activity, including the charge to the panel and the EPA review documents, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the CASAC to consider as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for CASAC panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should follow the instructions below to submit comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of open meeting.
The EPA's Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) will hold a public meeting on August 21-22, 2018 in Chicago, Illinois. The EFAB is an EPA advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide advice and recommendations to EPA on creative approaches to funding environmental programs, projects, and activities.
The purpose of this meeting is to hear from informed speakers on environmental finance issues and EPA priorities; to discuss activities, progress, and preliminary recommendations with regards to current EFAB work projects; and to consider requests for assistance from EPA program offices. Environmental finance discussions and presentations are expected on, but not limited to, the following topics: alternative project delivery pre-development practices; pre-disaster resiliency investment and finance; water system regionalization financing strategies; water quality restoration in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed; Rural Alaska Waste Backhaul Service Program; and Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center activities. The meeting is open to the public; however, seating is limited and attendees must be processed through security. All members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must register, in advance, no later than Friday, August 3, 2018.
The full board meeting will be held Tuesday, August 21, 2018 from 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. and Wednesday, August 22, 2018 from 9:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 5 Office, Lake Huron Conference Room, 12th Floor, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodations for a disability, please contact Alecia Crichlow at (202) 564-5188 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is announcing its receipt of information submitted pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by TSCA, this document identifies each chemical substance and/or mixture for which information has been received; the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance and/or mixture; and describes the nature of the information received. Each chemical substance and/or mixture related to this announcement is identified in Unit I. under
Information received about the following chemical substance(s) and/or mixture(s) is provided in Unit IV.:
Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a notice in the
A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this
EPA's dockets are available electronically at
As specified by TSCA section 4(d), this unit identifies the information received by EPA:
1.
2.
3.
Letter of Intent to Conduct Testing.
The docket ID number assigned to this information is EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112.
15 U.S.C. 2601
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for each of the following insured depository institutions, was charged with the duty of winding up the affairs of the former institutions and liquidating all related assets. The Receiver has fulfilled its obligations and made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary, including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments, and deeds. Effective on the termination dates listed above, the Receiverships have been terminated, the Receiver has been discharged, and the Receiverships have ceased to exist as legal entities.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of the existing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). On April 13, 2018, the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to renew the information collection described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request to approve the renewal of this collection, and again invites comment on this renewal.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 2018.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Jennifer Jones, Counsel, 202-898-6768,
On April 13, 2018, the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to renew the information collection described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request to approve the renewal of this collection, and again invites comment on this renewal.
Proposal to renew the following currently approved collection of information:
1.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is the result of economic fluctuation. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response and frequency of responses have remained the same.
The liquidation of the assets for the receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
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 July 30, 2018.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice
1.
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 “Indications and Usage Section of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products—Content and Format.” This guidance is intended to assist applicants in writing the Indications and Usage section of labeling. The recommendations in this draft guidance are intended to help ensure that the labeling is clear, concise, useful, and informative and, to the extent possible, consistent in content and format within and across drug and therapeutic classes.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 7, 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.”
•
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, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. See the
Iris Masucci, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2500; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled
The Indications and Usage section must state that the drug is indicated for the treatment, prevention, mitigation, cure, or diagnosis of a recognized disease or condition, or of a manifestation of a recognized disease or condition, or for the relief of symptoms associated with a recognized disease or condition.
The draft guidance describes circumstances in which an indication may be broader than the specific parameters of the clinical studies supporting approval, as well as those where a narrower indication may be appropriate, and explains that the Indications and Usage section needs to make clear the scope of the indication. The draft guidance also describes circumstances in which an indication in an age group broader than the population that was studied may be considered for an adult population. However, this approach is generally not appropriate across pediatric populations or between adult and pediatric populations because of the statutory requirements related to pediatric assessments and the unique clinical considerations for pediatric patients. For example, pediatric patients may metabolize drugs differently from adults (in an age-related manner), are susceptible to different safety risks, and often require different dosing regimens, even after correction for weight. For these reasons, FDA recommends that age groups should be included in indications. An indication should state that a drug is approved, for example, “in adults,” “in pediatric patients X years of age and older,” or “in adults and pediatric patients X years of age and older.” FDA is interested in obtaining information and public comment on this recommendation and the implications of routinely including age groups in indications.
This guidance is one in a series of guidances FDA is developing or has developed to assist applicants with the content and format of labeling for human prescription drug and biological products. In the
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 the content and format of the Indications and Usage section of labeling for human prescription drug and biological products. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572; the collections of information in 21 CFR 312.41 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; the collections of information in 21 CFR 314.126(c) and 314.70 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; and the collections of information in 21 CFR 601.12 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Revised Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Zika Virus Transmission by Blood and Blood Components; Guidance for Industry.” The guidance document provides blood establishments that collect Whole Blood and blood components with revised recommendations to reduce the risk of transmission of Zika virus (ZIKV) by blood and blood components. The guidance does not apply to the collection of Source Plasma. The guidance announced in this notice supersedes the document of the same title dated August 2016 (August 2016 Guidance).
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
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 guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
Tami Belouin, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Revised Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Zika Virus Transmission by Blood and Blood Components; Guidance for Industry.” The guidance provides blood establishments that collect Whole Blood and blood components with revised recommendations to reduce the risk of transmission of ZIKV by blood and blood components. The guidance does not apply to the collection of Source Plasma. This guidance supersedes the August 2016 Guidance.
In the August 2016 Guidance, FDA recognized ZIKV as a relevant transfusion-transmitted infection under 21 CFR 630.3(h) and recommended universal individual donation nucleic acid testing (ID NAT) for ZIKV or the use of an FDA-approved pathogen reduction device. Since 2016, the number of ZIKV disease cases in the U.S. States and territories has decreased considerably. In addition, FDA has licensed a nucleic acid screening test(s) for the detection of ZIKV in individual or pooled samples. Considering the changing epidemiology of ZIKV in the United States and the availability of licensed screening tests, FDA is revising the recommendations contained in the August 2016 Guidance. In this guidance FDA explains that, in order to comply with the testing requirements in 21 CFR 610.40(a)(3), blood establishments must test all donations collected in the United States and its territories with a licensed nucleic acid test for ZIKV, using either ID NAT or minipool (MP) NAT. The guidance explains the basis for FDA's determination that universal MP NAT screening, with certain conditions identified to trigger ID NAT when local mosquito-borne ZIKV transmission is presumed in a collection area, provides an adequate and appropriate safeguard against the current and future risk of ZIKV transmission through blood transfusion. Alternatively, blood establishments can use an FDA-approved pathogen reduction device. The revised recommendations are less burdensome for blood establishments because fewer tests will be performed when donations are tested by MP NAT compared to ID NAT. However, the recommendations are consistent with public health considering the changing course of the ZIKV epidemic in the United States and the sensitivity of the licensed test(s) to detect ZIKV in blood donation.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). FDA is issuing this guidance for immediate implementation in accordance with 21 CFR 10.115(g)(2) without initially seeking prior comment because the Agency has determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate. Specifically, we are not seeking comments because the guidance presents a less burdensome policy for reducing the risk of transfusion-transmitted ZIKV that is consistent with public health. The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on recommendations for reducing the risk of Zika virus transmission by blood and blood components. It does not establish
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 601 and 640, and Form FDA 356h have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 606 and 630 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0116.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of inquiry; request for comments.
We are requesting your comments on a Letter of Intent and Preliminary Waterway Suitability Assessment we received from Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (SPLNG) regarding SPLNG's plans to construct a new berth at its Cameron Parish, LA facility and to increase the number of liquefied natural gas vessels calling at the facility from approximately 400 to 580 annually. The Coast Guard is notifying the public of this proposed increase in LNG marine traffic on the Sabine-Neches Waterway and is soliciting comments relevant to the Coast Guard's preparation of a Letter of Recommendation for issuance to the federal, state, or local agency with jurisdiction over the proposed facility.
Comments and related material must be received on or before August 8, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0915 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this notice of inquiry, call or email Mr. Scott K. Whalen, Vessel Traffic Service Director, Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 409-719-5086, email
Under 33 CFR 127.007(a), an owner or operator planning to build a new facility handling liquefied natural gas (LNG), or an owner or operator planning new construction to expand or modify marine terminal operations in an existing facility handling LNG, where the construction, expansion, or modification would result in an increase in the size and/or frequency of LNG marine traffic on the waterway associated with the proposed facility or modification to an existing facility, must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the Captain of the Port of the zone in which the facility is or will be located. Under 33 CFR 127.007(e), an owner or operator planning such new construction or expansion of an existing facility must also file or update a Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) that addresses the proposed increase in LNG marine traffic in the associated waterway.
Under 33 CFR 127.009, after receiving an LOI, the Captain of the Port issues a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic to the appropriate jurisdictional authorities. The LOR is based on a series of factors listed in 33 CFR 127.009 that relate to the physical nature of the affected waterway and issues of safety and security associated with LNG marine traffic on the affected waterway.
On January 29, 2018, Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (SPLNG), located in Cameron Parish, LA, submitted an LOI and Preliminary WSA regarding the company's proposed plans to develop a new marine berth and expand the number of vessels calling on the facility each year from approximately 400 to 580. The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comments on the proposed increase in LNG marine traffic on the Sabine-Neches Waterway. The Coast Guard believes that public input may be useful to the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur (COTP) with respect to validating the information provided in SPLNG's Preliminary WSA and development of the LOR. A brief summary of SPLNG's proposal is available in the docket where indicated under
On January 24, 2011, the Coast Guard published Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 01-2011, titled “Guidance Related to Waterfront Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities”. NVIC 01-2011 provides guidance for owners and operators seeking approval to build and operate LNG facilities. The
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this notice of inquiry as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552 (a).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of final determination.
This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of Malarone tablets. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded that the country of origin of the Malarone tablets is Canada for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
This final determination was issued on July 2, 2018. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest may seek judicial review of this final determination within August 8, 2018.
Ross M. Cunningham, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, (202) 325-0034.
Notice is hereby given that on July 2, 2018, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued one final determination concerning the country of origin of Malarone tablets, which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination (HQ H290684) was issued under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determination, CBP concluded that the processing in Canada will result in a substantial transformation. Therefore, the country of origin for purposes of U.S. Government procurement of the Malarone tablets is Canada.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of final determination shall be published in the
This is in response to your letter, dated September 13, 2017, requesting a final determination on behalf of GlaxoSmithKline LLP (“GSK”) pursuant to subpart B of Part 177 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 C.F.R. Part 177). A teleconference was held with counsel for GSK on June 8, 2018.
This final determination concerns the country of origin of Malarone tablets. As a U.S. importer, GSK is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 C.F.R. § 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.
GSK is a global healthcare company that researches, develops, and manufactures pharmaceutical medicines, vaccines, and consumer healthcare products. At issue in this case are tablets sold under the brand name Malarone, which are indicated for the prevention and treatment of acute, uncomplicated
According to the FDA prescribing information, Malarone is a fixed-dose combination of atovaquone and proguanil hydrochloride.
The FDA prescribing information also describes the microbiology or “mechanism of action” of atovaquone and proguanil hydrochloride. It states that atovaquone and proguanil hydrochloride “interfere with 2 different pathways involved in the biosynthesis of pyrimidines required for nucleic acid replication. Atovaquone is a selective inhibitor of parasite mitochondrial electron transport. Proguanil hydrochloride primarily exerts its effect by means of the metabolite cycloguanil, a dihydrofolate reductase inhibitor. Inhibition of dihydrofolate reductase in the malaria
GSK notes that atovaquone by itself is not indicated for the prevention or treatment of malaria. By itself, atovaquone is used for other purposes, such as the treatment of acute pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and cerebral toxoplasmosis. In contrast, proguanil hydrochloride can be used to treat malaria. However, GSK cites to several academic studies that conclude that the combination of atovaquone and proguanil hydrochloride provides a more effective treatment compared to taking proguanil hydrochloride alone. GSK therefore states that atovaquone and proguanil are “synergistic in their mechanisms of action,” resulting in the increased effectiveness of Malarone tablets compared to taking atovaquone or proguanil hydrochloride alone.
The manufacturing process for GSK's Malarone tablets begins in India, where the Malarone tablets' two active pharmaceutical ingredients (“APIs”), atovaquone and proguanil hydrochloride, are manufactured. After the two APIs are manufactured in India, they are imported into Canada for further processing at GSK's Mississauga, Ontario facility (“GSK Canada”). At GSK Canada, the two APIs are combined in a process that begins by producing a dry mix of the APIs, low-substituted hydroxpropyl cellulose NF, microcrystalline cellulose NF, and sodium starch glycolate NF. The dry mix is then combined with the following inactive ingredients, which are each sourced from the United States or a TAA-eligible country, to produce granules:
Next, the granules are dried, milled into a dry powder, blended with magnesium stearate NF, and compressed into tablets. Finally, a film coat mix is added and the tablets are polished.
Once the manufacturing process is complete, the finished Malarone tablets are exported to a GSK facility in Zebulon, North Carolina. There, the tablets are packaged and labeled for sale to Prasco Laboratories, which markets and distributes the tablets under their own labeling as an authorized generic product under an agreement with GSK.
What is the country of origin of the Malarone tablets for purposes of U.S. Government procurement?
CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 C.F.R. § 177.21
Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. § 2518(4)(B):
An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.
A substantial transformation occurs when an article emerges from a process with a new name, character, and use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. A substantial transformation will not result from a minor manufacturing or combining process that leaves the identity of the article intact.
In determining whether a substantial transformation occurs in the manufacture of chemical products such as pharmaceuticals, CBP has consistently examined the complexity of the processing and whether the final article retains the essential identity and character of the raw material. To that end, CBP has generally held that the processing of pharmaceutical products from bulk form into measured doses does not result in a substantial transformation of the product.
For example, in HQ 563207, CBP held that the combination of two APIs to form Actoplus Met, an alternative treatment for type 2 diabetes, constituted a substantial transformation. The first API, Pioglitazone HCI sourced from Japan or other countries, functioned as an insulin sensitizer that targets insulin resistance in the body. The second API, biguanide sourced from Japan, Spain, and other countries, functioned to decrease the amount of glucose produced by the liver and make muscle tissue more sensitive to insulin so glucose can be absorbed. In Japan, the two APIs were mixed together to form a fixed-combination drug called Actoplus Met. In holding that a substantial transformation occurred when the APIs were combined in Japan to produce Actoplus Met, CBP emphasized that “[w]hile we note that pioglitazone and metformin may be prescribed separately, the final product, Actoplus Met, increases the individual effectiveness of piofliazone and metformin in treating type 2 diabetes patients.”
Similarly, in HQ H253443, dated March 13, 2015, CBP held that the combination of two APIs in China to produce Prepopik, “a dual-acting osmotic and stimulant laxative bowel preparation for a colonoscopy in adults,” constituted a substantial transformation. Although the importer claimed that Country A-origin sodium picosulfate was the only API in Prepopik, CBP found that the Country B-origin magnesium oxide ingredient also qualified as an API. CBP further found that taking Prepopik had “a more stimulative laxative effect” than taking each of the APIs individually and therefore held that a substantial transformation occurred when the APIs were combined in China.
Here, as in HQ 563207 and HQ H253443, two separate APIs are mixed to create a fixed combination drug that offers additional medicinal benefits compared to taking each API alone. The first API, atovaquone, is not indicated for the prevention or treatment of malaria. The second API, proguanil hydrochloride, is used to treat malaria, but is less effective than Malarone. This is because of the “synergies in [the APIs'] method of action,” which result in a product that “interfere[s] with 2 different pathways” to prevent and treat malaria. Under these circumstances, the combination of atovaquone, proguanil
The country of origin of the Malarone tablets for purposes of U.S. Government procurement is Canada.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability and request for public comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the draft recovery plan for the endangered coquí llanero, a frog endemic to Puerto Rico. The draft recovery plan includes specific recovery objectives and criteria that must be met in order for us to remove this species from listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We request review and comment on this draft recovery plan from local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public.
In order to be considered, comments on the draft recovery plan must be received on or before September 7, 2018.
1. Submit written comments and materials by mail or hand-delivery to Jan Zegarra, at the above address.
2. Fax them to (787) 851-7440.
3. Send comments by email to
For additional information about submitting comments, see Request for Public Comments.
Jan Zegarra at (787) 851-7297, or see
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the draft recovery plan for the endangered coquí llanero (
The coquí llanero is a small frog species endemic to Puerto Rico. In 2007, it was described as a new species of the genus Eleutherodactylus, family Leptodactylidae. Males measure approximately 0.58 in (14.7 mm), and females 0.62 in (15.8 mm). It has the smallest clutch size of all Eleutherodactylus species on Puerto Rico, and a high-frequency call. The only population estimate available for the coquí llanero indicates a mean population size of 473.3 ± 186 individuals per ha (or 192 per ac; Ríos-López pers. comm. 2011).
The coquí llanero is currently known to be restricted to one freshwater herbaceous wetland in the municipality of Toa Baja, Puerto Rico. The herbaceous vegetation in the wetland consists of
Under the ESA, the Service added the coquí llanero as an endangered species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations on October 4, 2012 (77 FR 60778). The 2012 final rule also designated critical habitat, covering an area of 615 ac (249 ha), for the species.
The recovery strategy for the coquí llanero includes protection and management of occupied habitat and suitable unoccupied habitat for potential future introductions, and addresses immediate threats that led to its listing. Because of stressors like reduced geographic distribution, limited dispersal capabilities, and the species' specialized breeding requirements, the species is likely to have reduced adaptive capacity. Therefore, in order to meet the recovery goal of delisting, we must increase the number of coquí llanero populations. This strategy seeks to safeguard the only existing coquí llanero population in case the species does not withstand or recover from a stochastic or catastrophic event.
Section 4(f) of the ESA requires the development of recovery plans for listed species, unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting, and estimate time and cost for implementing recovery measures. Section 4(f) of the ESA also requires us to provide public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment during recovery plan development. We will consider all information presented during a public comment period prior to approval of each new or revised recovery plan. We and other Federal agencies will take these comments into account in the course of implementing approved recovery plans.
The ultimate recovery goal is to remove the coquí llanero from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (delist) at 50 CFR 17.11(h) by ensuring the long-term viability of the species in the wild. In the recovery plan, we define the following reasonable delisting criteria based on the best available information on the species. These criteria will be reevaluated as new information becomes available:
1. Three viable * coquí llanero populations demonstrate stable or increasing population trends (addresses Listing Factors A and E).
2. Habitat for three viable coquí llanero populations is protected in perpetuity through a conservation mechanism (
3. Threats and causes of decline have been reduced or eliminated to a degree that the coquí llanero does not need protection under the Act (
* The term “viable” is defined in the draft recovery plan.
We request written comments on the draft recovery plan. We will consider all comments we receive by the date specified 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.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
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 September 7, 2018.
Send your comments on the information collection request (ICR) by mail to the USGS, Information Collections Officer, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 159, Reston, VA 20192; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Elizabeth Sangine 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 proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary for USGS to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how to 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.
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 and current expiration date.
The authorities for this action are the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of realty action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to offer 20 parcels of public land totaling 87.5 acres in the Las Vegas Valley (Valley) by competitive sale, at not less than the appraised Fair Market Values (FMV) pursuant to the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (SNPLMA), as amended. The sale will be subject to the applicable provisions of Section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and BLM land sale regulations. The BLM is also terminating portions of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Classification and Segregation of three parcels of land in Clark County.
Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the sale until August 23, 2018. The sale, by sealed bid and oral public auction, will occur on September 27, 2018, at City of North Las Vegas, Council Chambers, 2250 Las Vegas Boulevard North, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030 at 10:00 a.m., Pacific Time. The FMV for the parcels will be available 30 days prior to the sale. The BLM will start accepting sealed bids beginning September 17, 2018. Sealed bids must be received at the BLM, Las Vegas Field Office (LVFO) no later than 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time on September 24, 2018. The BLM will open sealed bids on the day of the sale just prior to the oral bidding.
Mail written comments and submit sealed bids to the BLM LVFO, Assistant Field Manager, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130.
Joe Fields by email:
Nineteen parcels are within Clark County jurisdiction and one parcel is within City of Las Vegas jurisdiction. Some of the parcels are located in the northwest part of the Valley near U.S. Highway 95 and I-215 Beltway and some are located in the southwest part of the Valley.
The subject public lands are legally described as:
The areas described contain 87.50 acres.
The BLM will also publish this Notice once a week for three consecutive weeks in the
The sale is in conformance with the BLM Las Vegas Resource Management Plan decision LD-1, approved on October 5, 1998. The Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision issued on December 23, 2004 analyzed the sale parcels. A parcel-specific Determination of National Environmental Policy Act Adequacy (DNA), document number DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2018-0023-DNA, was prepared in connection with this Notice of Realty Action.
Submit comments on this sale notice to the address in the
Sale procedures: Registration for oral bidding will begin at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time and will end at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time at the City of North Las Vegas, Council Chambers, 2250 Las Vegas Boulevard North, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030, on the day of the sale, September 27, 2018. There will be no prior registration before the sale date. To participate in the competitive sale, all registered bidders must submit a bid guarantee deposit in the amount of $10,000 by certified check, postal money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable to the Department
Sealed-bid envelopes must be clearly marked on the lower front left corner with the parcel number and name of the sale, for example: “N-XXXXX, 20-parcel SNPLMA 2018 Fall Sale.” If multiple sealed bids are submitted, only the envelope that contains the bid guarantee needs to be noted with “bid guarantee.” Sealed bids must include an amount not less than 20 percent of the total bid amount and the $10,000 bid guarantee noted above by certified check, postal money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable to the “Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management.” The bid guarantee and bid deposit may be combined into one form of deposit; the bidder must specify the amounts of the bid deposit and the bid guarantee. If multiple sealed bids are submitted, the first sealed bid of the group must include the $10,000 bid guarantee with the same bidder name. The BLM will not accept personal or company checks. The sealed-bid envelope
All bid guarantee deposits submitted with unsuccessful bids will be returned to the bidders or their authorized representative upon presentation of acceptable photo identification at the sale location, the BLM-LVFO, or by certified mail. The apparent high bidder may choose to apply the bid guarantee towards the required deposit. Failure to submit the 20 percent deposit following the close of the sale under 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d) will result in forfeiture of the bid guarantee. If the successful bidder offers to purchase more than one parcel and fails to submit the 20 percent bid deposit resulting in default on any single parcel following the sale, the BLM will retain the $10,000.00 bid guarantee, and may cancel the sale of all the parcels to that bidder. If a high bidder is unable to consummate the transaction for any reason, the second highest bid may be considered to purchase the parcel. If there are no acceptable bids, a parcel may remain available for sale at a future date in accordance with competitive sale procedures without further legal notice.
Federal law requires that bidders must be: (1) A citizen of the United States 18 years of age or older; (2) a corporation subject to the laws of any state or of the United States; (3) a state, instrumentality, or political subdivision authorized to hold property; or (4) an entity legally capable of conveying and holding lands or interests therein under the laws of the State of Nevada.
Evidence of United States citizenship is a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers. The high bidder must submit proof of citizenship within 25 days from receipt of the high-bidder letter. Citizenship documents and Articles of Incorporation (as applicable) must be provided to the BLM-LVFO for each sale. The successful bidder is allowed 180 days from the date of the sale to submit the remainder of the full purchase price.
According to SNPLMA as amended, Public Law 105-263 section 4(c), lands identified within the Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary are withdrawn from location and entry under the mining laws and from operation under the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws until such time as the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) terminates the withdrawal or the lands are patented.
In response to requests to clarify this mineral reservation as it relates to mineral materials, such as sand and gravel, we refer interested parties to the regulations at 43 CFR 3601.71(b), which provides that the owner of the surface estate of lands with reserved federal minerals may “use a minimal amount of mineral materials for . . . personal use” within the boundaries of the surface estate without a sales contract or permit. The regulation provides that all other use, absent statutory or other express authority, requires a sales contract or permit. We refer interested parties to the explanation of this regulatory language in the preamble to the final rule published in the
The parcels are subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulation, and certain encumbrances in favor of third parties. Prior to patent issuance, a holder of any Right-of-Way (ROW) within the sale parcels will have the opportunity to amend the ROW for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable, or conversion to an easement. The BLM will notify valid existing ROW holders of record of their ability to convert their compliant ROWs to perpetual ROWs or easements. In accordance with federal regulations at 43 CFR 2807.15, once notified, each valid holder may apply for the conversion of their current authorization.
The following numbered terms and conditions will appear on the conveyance documents for the sale parcels:
1. All minerals deposits in the lands so patented, and to it, or persons authorized by it, the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and regulations to be established by the Secretary are reserved to the United
2. A ROW is reserved for ditches and canals constructed by authority of the United States under the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945);
3. The parcels are subject to valid existing rights;
4. The parcels are subject to reservations for road, public utilities, and flood control purposes, both existing and proposed, in accordance with the local governing entities' transportation plans; and
5. An appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the lessee's/patentee's use, occupancy, or occupations on the leased/patented lands.
Pursuant to the requirements established by Section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9620(h) (CERCLA), as amended, notice is hereby given that the lands have been examined and no evidence was found to indicate that any hazardous substances have been stored for one year or more, nor had any hazardous substances been disposed of or released on the subject property.
No warranty of any kind, express or implied, is given by the United States as to the title, whether or to what extent the land may be developed, its physical condition, future uses, or any other circumstance or condition. The conveyance of a parcel will not be on a contingency basis. However, to the extent required by law, the parcel is subject to the requirements of Section 120(h) of the CERCLA.
BLM-LVFO must receive the request for escrow instructions prior to 30 days before the prospective patentee's scheduled closing date. There are no exceptions.
All name changes and supporting documentation must be received at the BLM-LVFO 30 days from the date on the high-bidder letter by 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time. There are no exceptions. To submit a name change, the apparent high bidder must submit the name change in writing on the Certificate of Eligibility form to the BLM-LVFO.
The remainder of the full bid price for the parcel must be received no later than 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time, within 180 days following the day of the sale. Payment must be submitted in the form of a certified check, postal money order, bank draft, cashier's check, or made available by electronic fund transfer made payable in U.S. dollars to the “Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management” to the BLM-LVFO. The BLM will not accept personal or company checks.
Arrangements for electronic fund transfer to the BLM for payment of the balance due must be made a minimum of two weeks prior to the payment date. Failure to pay the full bid price within 180 days of the sale date will disqualify the high bidder and cause the entire 20 percent bid deposit to be forfeited to the BLM. Forfeiture of the 20 percent bid deposit is in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d). There are no exceptions. The BLM can only accept the remainder of the full bid price up to 180 days after the sale date.
The BLM will not sign any documents related to 1031 Exchange transactions. The timing for completion of such an exchange is the bidder's responsibility. The BLM cannot be a party to any 1031 Exchange.
In accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(f), the BLM may accept or reject any or all offers to purchase, or withdraw any parcel of land or interest therein from sale within 30 days, if the BLM authorized officer determines consummation of the sale would be inconsistent with any law, or for other reasons as may be provided by applicable law or regulations. No contractual or other rights against the United States may accrue until the BLM officially accepts the offer to purchase and the full bid price is paid.
Upon publication of this Notice and until completion of this sale, the BLM will no longer accept land use applications affecting the parcel identified for sale. However, land use applications may be considered after the sale if the parcel is not sold. The parcel may be subject to land use applications received prior to publication of this Notice if processing the application would have no adverse effect on the marketability of title, or the FMV of the parcel. Information concerning the sale, encumbrances of record, appraisals, reservations, procedures and conditions, CERCLA, and other environmental documents that may appear in the BLM public files for the proposed sale parcels are available for review during business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, at the BLM-LVFO, except during federal holidays.
In order to determine the FMV through appraisal, certain extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions may have been made concerning the attributes and limitations of the lands and potential effects of local regulations and policies on potential future land uses. Through publication of this Notice, the BLM advises that these assumptions may not be endorsed or approved by units of local government.
It is the buyer's responsibility to be aware of all applicable federal, state, and local government laws, regulations and policies that may affect the subject lands, including any required dedication of lands for public uses. It is also the buyer's responsibility to be aware of existing or prospective uses of nearby properties. When conveyed out of federal ownership, the lands will be subject to any applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the applicable local government for proposed future uses. It is the responsibility of the purchaser to be aware through due diligence of those laws, regulations, and policies, and to seek any required local approvals for future uses. Buyers should make themselves aware of any federal or state law or regulation that may impact the future use of the property. Any land lacking access from a public road or highway will be conveyed as such, and future access acquisition will be the responsibility of the buyer.
Termination of R&PP Classification and Segregation: Additionally, portions of the following leases granted under the R&PP Act, (43 U.S.C 869
Any comments regarding the proposed sale will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director or other authorized official of the Department of the Interior, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action in response to such comments. In the absence of any comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
43 CFR 2711.1-2.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before June 16, 2018, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by July 24, 2018.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before June 16, 2018. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
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.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
Nomination submitted by Federal Preservation Officer:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before June 23, 2018, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by July 24, 2018.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before June 23, 2018. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
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.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
A request for removal has been made for the following resources:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resources:
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before June 9, 2018, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by July 24, 2018.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before June 9, 2018. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
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
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
An owner objection received for the following resource:
A request for removal has been made for the following resource:
A request to move has been received for the following resource:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
United States International Trade Commission.
July 13, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on June 7, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PSPD-II intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 15, 2017, PSPD-II filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on February 6, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 14, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Circuit Check, Inc., Maple Grove, MN; Virginia Panel, Waynesboro, VA; Beijing Pansino Solutions Technology Co., Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; and Digalog Systems Inc., New Berlin, WI, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
In addition, the following members have changed their names: VI Service Network to JX Instrumentation, Shanghai, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; and Pentair Technical Solutions GmbH to nVent, Straubenhardt, GERMANY.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 26, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 29, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Tessella, Oxfordshire, UNITED KINGDOM; and AMRA (Advanced MR Analytics AB), Linkoping, SWEDEN, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 6, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 31, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PERF intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On February 10, 1986, PERF filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on September 22, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 14, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IVI Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 29, 2001, IVI Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 19, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 11, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open and RIC-Americas intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership or planned activities.
On April 30, 2014, RIC-Americas filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 25, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 7, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned
On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 8, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that on May 21, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification with the Department was filed on February 21, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 30, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Permian Basin intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 18, 2017, Permian Basin filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 9, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 11, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and HEDGE IV intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On February 14, 2017, HEDGE IV filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 30, 2018. A notice was published in the
Office of Private Sector, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Private Sector, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Private Sector, is submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until August 8, 2018.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Johnny Starrunner, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Private Sector, 935 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 7, 2018.
All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to Mrs. Amy C. Blasher, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Information Services Division, Module E-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306; facsimile (304) 625-3566.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4. A
5.
6.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 7, 2018.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Elizabeth Ann Carson, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
• County of sentencing
• State and federal inmate identification numbers
• Dates of: Birth, prison admission, prison release, projected prison release, mandatory prison release, eligibility hearing for post-custody community corrections supervision, post-custody community corrections supervision entry, post-custody community corrections supervision exit
• First, middle, and last names
• Demographic information: Sex, race, Hispanic origin, education level, prior military service, date and type of last discharge from military
• Offense type and number of counts per inmate for a maximum of three convicted offenses per inmate
• Total sentence length imposed
• Type of facility where inmate is serving sentence (for year-end custody census records only, the name of the facility is also requested)
• Type of prison admission
• Type of prison release
• Location of post-custody community supervision exit or post-custody community supervision office (post-custody community supervision records only)
• Social security number
• Address of last residence prior to incarceration
• Prison security level at which the inmate is held
For consideration, BJS is proposing to add the following items to the NCRP collection, all of which are likely available from the same databases as existing data elements and should likely pose minimal additional burden to the respondents, while enhancing BJS's ability to characterize the corrections systems and populations it serves:
• Status of current U.S. citizenship
• Country of current citizenship
• Country of birth
Finally, BJS is proposing to remove the following items from the NCRP collection, based on a combination of low response rates (less than 50% of states) and/or high levels of missing data (30% or higher missing) among states that do respond:
• Prior prison time served by the offender
• Additional offenses since admission date
• Additional sentence time since admission date
• Whether the offender was on AWOL or escape while serving sentences
• Whether the offender was serving time concurrently on community release prior to prison release
• The number of days on community release prior to prison release served by the offender
• Agencies assuming custody at the time of prison release
• Offender's supervision status prior to release from post-custody community supervision
• Whether the offender's maximum sentence includes a mandatory minimum sentence
• Whether the offender's maximum sentence includes a Truth in Sentencing Law restriction
• The length of court-imposed sentence to community service for the offender
BJS uses the information gathered in NCRP in published reports and statistics. The reports will be made available to the U.S. Congress, Executive Office of the President, practitioners, researchers, students, the media, others interested in criminal justice statistics, and the general public via the BJS website.
(5)
All 50 DOCs have recently submitted NCRP prison data, so the average time needed to continue providing prison data is expected to be 8 hours per respondent for both prisoner admissions and releases (NCRP-1A and NCRP-1B) and 8 hours for data on persons in prison at year-end (NCRP-1D). For 2019, the total burden estimate of 16 hours per DOC for these three record types is increased by 45 minutes from the previous NCRP OMB submission, to account for the addition and removal of variables from states' extract programs (a 30 minute increase to add citizenship questions to NCRP-1A and NCRP-1D, and a 15 minute increase to remove the 11 variables). The total amount of time estimated for 50 DOCs to submit NCRP-A, -B, and -D records in 2019 is 837.5 hours (16.75 hours*50 = 837.5 hours).
In 2020 and 2021, BJS expects to have all 50 DOCs providing NCRP prison data. The burden for provision of the NCRP prison data will decrease to 14 hours per respondent due to the removal of the 11 items (7 hours for the prison admission and release records combined, and 7 hours for the year-end custody records), for a total of 700 hours annually for the 50 DOCs in 2020 and 2021 (14 hours*50 = 70 hours).
There are currently 37 jurisdictions submitting PCCS data (32 DOCs and 5 parole boards), and BJS estimates that extraction and submission of both the PCCS entries and exits takes an average of 8 hours per jurisdiction. In 2019, BJS anticipates that 8 additional DOCs and one parole board (likely the District of Columbia) will submit data, with the burden for each new jurisdiction being 24 hours to set up extraction programs and make the submission. Thus, the burden for PCCS records is 296 hours for those already submitting (8 hours*37 = 296 hours), and 216 hours for new submissions (24 hours*9 = 216). The total amount of time for all PCCS submissions in 2019 is 512 hours.
In 2020, BJS hope to recruit an additional 2 DOCs and the remaining parole board to submit NCRP PCCS data. The total estimate for submission of PCCS for new jurisdictions in 2020 is 72 hours (24 hours*3 = 72 hours). For those 40 DOCs and 6 parole boards currently responding, provision of the PCCS data in 2020 will total 368 hours (8 hours*46 = 368 hours). The total amount of time for all PCCS submissions in 2020 is 440 hours.
Similarly, BJS hopes that the remaining 2 DOCs will submit PCCS data for the first time in 2021. The remaining non-reporting DOCs would need a total of 48 hours to create data extraction programs and begin data submission (24 hours*2 = 48 hours). Those jurisdictions (42 DOCs and 7 parole boards) who provided NCRP PCCS data in 2020 will require 392 hours total to do the same in 2021 (8 hours*49 = 392 hours). The total amount of time for all PCCS submissions in 2021 is 440 hours.
Follow-up consultations with respondents are usually necessary while processing the data to obtain further information regarding the definition, completeness and accuracy of their report. The duration of these follow-up consultations will vary based on the number of record types submitted, so BJS has estimated an average of 3 hours per jurisdiction to cover all of the records (prison and/or PCCS) submitted. In 2019, BJS anticipates that one of the two parole boards not currently submitting PCCS data will begin to submit, so the number of jurisdictions requiring follow-up consultations is 51
This total estimate of 153 hours for data review/follow-up consultations remains the same for 2020 and 2021.
BJS anticipates that the total burden for provision and data follow-up of all NCRP data across the participating jurisdictions in 2019 is 1,502.5 hours (837.5 hours for prison records, 512 hours for PCCS records, and 153 hours for follow-up consultation). This is equivalent to roughly 29 hours per respondent. The total annual burden for provision and follow-up of NCRP data in 2020 and 2021 is anticipated to be 1,293 hours (700 hours for prison records, 440 hours for PCCS records, and 153 hours for follow-up consultation).
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N street NE, 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 7, 2018.
Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Advisory Board. The meeting will be open to the public.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), Department of Labor (DOL).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the ACVETEO. The ACVETEO will discuss the DOL core programs and services that assist veterans seeking employment and raise employer awareness as to the advantages of hiring veterans. There will be an opportunity for individuals or organizations to address the committee. Any individual or organization that wishes to do so should contact Mr. Gregory Green at 202-693-4734.
Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 beginning at 9:00 a.m. and ending at approximately 4:00 p.m. (EST).
The meeting will take place at the U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, Conference Room N-3437 A & B. Members of the public are encouraged to arrive early to allow for security clearance into the Frances Perkins Building.
Mr. Gregory Green, Assistant Designated Federal Official for the ACVETEO, (202) 693-4734.
The ACVETEO is a Congressionally mandated advisory committee authorized under Title 38, U.S. Code, Section 4110 and subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, as amended. The ACVETEO is responsible for: assessing employment and training needs of veterans; determining the extent to which the programs and activities of the U.S. Department of Labor meet these needs; assisting to conduct outreach to employers seeking to hire veterans; making recommendations to the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for VETS, with respect to outreach activities and employment and training needs of Veterans; and carrying out such other activities necessary to make required reports and recommendations. The ACVETEO meets at least quarterly.
Security Instructions: Meeting participants should use the visitor's entrance to access the Frances Perkins Building, one block north of Constitution Avenue at 3rd and C Streets, NW. For security purposes meeting participants must:
1. Present a valid photo ID to receive a visitor badge.
2. Know the name of the event being attended: the meeting event is the Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO).
3. Visitor badges are issued by the security officer at the Visitor Entrance located at 3rd and C Streets NW. When receiving a visitor badge, the security officer will retain the visitor's photo ID until the visitor badge is returned to the security desk.
4. Laptops and other electronic devices may be inspected and logged for identification purposes.
5. Due to limited parking options, Metro's Judiciary Square station is the easiest way to access the Frances Perkins Building.
Notice of Intent to Attend the Meeting: All meeting participants are being asked to submit a notice of intent to attend by Friday, July 20, 2018, via email to Mr. Gregory Green at
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Contribution Operations,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 8, 2018.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Contribution Operations information collection. In support of Unemployment Insurance statutory and regulatory requirements, Form ETA-581 (Contribution Operations) provides quarterly data on State agencies' volume and performance in wage processing, promptness of liable employer registration, timeliness of filing contribution and wage reports, extent of tax delinquency, and results of the field audit program. Social Security Act section 303(a)(6) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Closed teleconference of the Committee on Strategy of the National Science Board, to be held Friday, July 13, 2018 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Closed
Chair's opening remarks; discussion of FY 2020 NSF budget request.
Point of contact for this meeting is: Kathy Jacquart, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. Telephone: (703) 292-7000. You may find meeting information and updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) at
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules related to Complex Orders.
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 first adopted Rule 722 for complex orders in October 2001 and has amended and expanded Rule 722 and other Exchange rules to provide for the handling of complex orders over the years. Although the Exchange has always handled complex orders on an automated basis, the Exchange's rules related to complex orders have largely remained principle based. As a result, the Exchange's rules do not fully describe how complex orders are processed in the level of detail that is now the standard for automated exchanges. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is necessary and appropriate to revise its rules related to complex orders to provide greater clarity regarding how complex orders are processed on the Exchange. In this respect, the proposed rule change consolidates within Rule 722 provisions that have been added to various other Exchange rules over the years and adds cross references within Rule 722 to other applicable rules to provide a single point of reference for how complex orders are handled on the Exchange. The proposal also expands upon and clarifies various existing provisions, and provides greater detail regarding complex order types, the application of Exchange rules regarding internalization, and complex order crossing transactions. Furthermore, the proposal also adds provisions related to the exposure of complex orders for price improvement and the process for opening complex strategies. The Exchange notes that it is simply including additional detail in its rules on the existing process. No changes to the process are being contemplated by this rule change filing.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 722(a) to adopt the terms “Complex Options Strategy” for complex strategies that have only options components, “Stock-Option Strategy” for complex strategies that have a stock component and a single options component, and “Stock-Complex Strategy” for complex strategies that have a stock component and multiple options components. The proposed definitions would also include language that explains that only those Complex Options Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies with no more than the applicable number of legs are eligible for processing.
The Exchange also proposes to delete from Rule 722 the definition of SSF-option order, which is a complex order that has a single stock future component, and to delete Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 722 regarding entry and execution of SSF-option orders. Certain aspects of Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 722 also relate to Stock-Option Orders and Stock-Complex Orders. These parts of the rule contain outdated language that is not relevant to the trading of automated Stock-Option Orders and Stock-Complex Orders where all components are traded through the Exchange at a single net price. The Exchange therefore proposes to delete these parts of the rule as well. The Exchange provided for the potential to handle SSF-option orders in anticipation of the launch of exchange-traded single stock futures in 2002. However, the single stock future product has not gained sufficient popularity among investors to support a SSF-option product, and the Exchange has never received a SSF-option order. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to remove the order type from its rules. The Exchange will file a proposal with the Commission should it determine to offer SSF-option orders in the future.
The Exchange proposes to delete current paragraph 722(b)(4) and add new paragraph 722(b), which specifies which of the order types contained in Rule 715 apply to complex orders and identifies any unique aspects with
Specifically, the proposed rule provides that, unless otherwise specified, the definitions used in paragraph 722(b) have the same meaning contained in Rule 715 and that complex orders may be entered using the orders and designations provided in paragraph 722(b). The orders and designations identified in the proposed rule are:
(1) Market Complex Order. A Market Complex Order is a Complex Order to buy or sell a complex strategy that is to be executed at the best price obtainable. If not executable upon entry, such orders will rest on the complex order book unless designated as fill-or-kill or immediate-or-cancel.
(2) Limit Complex Order. A Limit Complex Order is a Complex Order to buy or sell a complex strategy that is entered with a limit price expressed as a net purchase or sale price for the components of the order.
(3) All-Or-None Complex Order. A Complex Order may be designated as an All-or-None Order that is to be executed in its entirety or not at all. An All-Or-None Order may only be entered as an Immediate-or-Cancel Order.
(4) Reserve Complex Order. A Limit Complex Order may be designated as a Reserve Order that contains both a displayed portion and a non-displayed portion.
(i) Both the displayed and non-displayed portions of a Reserve Complex Order are available for potential execution against incoming marketable orders or quotes. A non-marketable Reserve Complex Order will rest on the complex order book.
(ii) The displayed portion of a Reserve Complex Order shall be ranked at the specified limit price and the time of order entry.
(iii) The displayed portion of a Reserve Complex Order will trade in accordance with Rule 722(d).
(iv) When the displayed portion of a Reserve Complex Order is decremented, either in full or in part, it shall be refreshed from the non-displayed portion of the resting Reserve Complex Order. If the displayed portion is refreshed in part, the new displayed portion shall include the previously displayed portion. Upon any refresh, the entire displayed portion shall be ranked at the specified limit price and obtain a new time stamp,
(v) The initial non-displayed portion of a Reserve Complex Order rests on the complex order book and is ranked based on the specified limit price and time of order entry. Thereafter, non-displayed portions, if any, always obtain the same time stamp as that of the new displayed portion in subparagraph (iv) above. The non-displayed portion of any Reserve Complex Order is available for execution only after all displayed interest on the complex order book has been executed.
(vi) Only the displayed portion of a Reserve Complex Order is eligible to be exposed for price improvement pursuant to Rule 722(d)(1) and Supplementary Material .01 to this Rule 722.
(5) Attributable Complex Order. A Market or Limit Complex Order may be designated as an Attributable Order as provided in Rule 715(h).
(6) Customer Cross Complex Order. A Customer Cross Complex Order is comprised of a Priority Customer Complex Order to buy and a Priority Customer Complex Order to sell at the same price and for the same quantity. Such orders will trade in accordance with Supplementary Material .08(d) to this Rule 722.
(7) Qualified Contingent Cross Complex Order. A Complex Options Order may be entered as a Qualified Contingent Cross Order, as defined in Rule 715(j). Qualified Contingent Cross Complex Orders will trade in accordance with Supplementary Material .08(e) to this Rule 722.
(8) Day Complex Order. A Complex Order may be designated as a Day Order that if not executed, expires at the end of the day on which it was entered.
(9) Fill-or-Kill Complex Orders. A Complex Order may be designated as a Fill-or-Kill Order that is to be executed in its entirety as soon as it is received and, if not so executed, cancelled.
(10) Immediate-or-Cancel Complex Orders. A Complex Order may be designated as an Immediate-or-Cancel Order that is to be executed in whole or in part upon receipt. Any portion not so executed is cancelled.
(11) Opening Only Complex Order. An Opening Only Complex Order is a Limit Complex Order that may be entered for execution during the Complex Opening Process described in Supplementary Material .10 to Rule 722. Any portion of the order that is not executed during the Complex Opening Process is cancelled.
(12) Good-Till-Date Complex Order. A Good-Till-Date Complex Order is an order to buy or sell which, if not executed, will be cancelled at the sooner of the end of the expiration date assigned to the Complex Order, or the expiration of any individual series comprising the order.
(13) Good-Till-Cancel Complex Order. A Good-Till-Cancel Complex Order is an order to buy or sell that remains in force until the order is filled, canceled or any series of the order expires; provided, however, that a Good-Till-Cancel Complex Order will be cancelled in the event of a corporate action that results in an adjustment to the terms of any series underlying the Complex Order.
(14) Exposure Complex Order. An Exposure Complex Order is an order
(15) Exposure Only Complex Order. An Exposure Only Complex Order is an order that will be exposed upon entry as provided in Supplementary Material .01 to this Rule 722 if eligible, or cancelled if not eligible. Any unexecuted balance of an Exposure Only Complex Order remaining upon the completion of the exposure process will be cancelled.
(16) Complex QCC with Stock Orders. A Complex QCC with Stock Order is a Qualified Contingent Cross Complex Order, as defined in Rule 722(b)(7), entered with a stock component to be communicated to a designated broker-dealer for execution pursuant to Supplementary Material .08(f) to Rule 722.
Separately, Rule 715(k) contains a definition of legging orders, which are orders that represent a Complex Options Order on the regular order book. A “legging order” is defined as a limit order on the regular limit order book that represents one side of a complex order that is to buy or sell an equal quantity of two options series resting on the Exchange's complex order book.
Currently, Rule 722 specifies that complex orders may be expressed in any decimal price, and that the legs of a complex order may be executed in one cent increments, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise applicable to the individual options legs of the order. The current language in the current Rule 722(b)(1) (renumbered Rule 722(c)(1) under the proposal), which mirrors the rules of other options exchanges,
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .07 to Rule 722 to reflect the different increments applicable to the options and stock legs of complex strategies traded on the Exchange. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend this rule to state that the system will reject complex strategies where are [sic] legs are to buy if entered at a price that is less than the minimum net price, which is calculated as the sum of the ratio on each leg of the complex strategy multiplied by the minimum increment applicable to that leg pursuant to Rule 722(c)(1). Currently, this rule states that the minimum price is calculated by multiplying the sum of the ratio on each leg by $0.01 per leg (
The Exchange proposes to make minor non-substantive changes to the existing text of current Rule 722(b)(2) (renumbered Rule 722(c)(2) under the proposal) for clarity. Rule 722(b)(2) provides that the legs of a complex strategy with multiple options legs (
For clarity, the Exchanges proposes to specify that complex strategies are not executable unless all of the terms of the strategy can be satisfied and the options legs can be executed at prices that comply with the provisions of current Rule 722(b)(2) (renumbered Rule 722(c)(2) under the proposal).
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 722 with respect to the exposure of complex orders upon entry. Rule 722 currently provides that members can choose to have complex orders that are marketable upon entry exposed for up to one second before being automatically executed. Similar to rules adopted by other options exchanges that trade
Proposed Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 722
In addition, the proposed rule change specifies that the exposure period is automatically terminated due to the receipt of certain unrelated complex orders for the same complex order strategy,
An Exposure Only Order, on the other hand, is a complex order that will be exposed upon entry as provided in Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 722 if eligible, but is cancelled if not eligible. Any unexecuted balance of an eligible Exposure Only Order upon the completion of the exposure process is also cancelled. Similar to Immediate-or-Cancel Orders, the Exposure Only order type is designed to assist members in achieving a speedy execution by exposing eligible Complex Orders to potential price improvement before cancelling any unexecuted balance.
Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 722, which is currently subject to delayed implementation in conjunction with the Exchange's recent transition to the Nasdaq INET platform as described in the rule, provides that Market makers may enter quotes on the complex order book in their appointed options classes. Prior to the INET transition, quoting in the complex order book was available in a subset of the options classes. The Exchange therefore proposes to amend Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 722 to clarify that complex quoting will only be available in options classes selected by the Exchange and announced to members via Options Trader Alert.
The Exchange proposes to add text to Rule 722 to provide clarity regarding the application of Rule 717(d) and (e) (regarding facilitation and solicitation), Rule 716 (regarding the Facilitation and Solicited Order Mechanisms), Rule 721 (regarding crossing orders), and Rule 723 (regarding the Price Improvement Mechanism) to complex orders.
Rule 717(d) requires members to expose orders they represent as agent to other market participants before they execute them as principal, and Rule
For clarity, the Exchange proposes to specify in Rule 722 that the requirements of Rule 717(d) and (e) apply to the execution of Complex Orders. In particular, the Exchange proposes to specify that Complex Orders represented as agent may be executed (i) as principal as provided in Rule 717(d), or against orders solicited from members and non-member broker-dealers as provided in Rule 717(e). The exposure requirements of Rule 717(d) or (e) must be met on the complex order book unless the order is executed in one of the mechanisms described in Supplementary Material .08 to this Rule 722. For example, an Electronic Access Member would meet its exposure requirement under Rule 717(d)(i) by exposing the agency order on the complex order book for at least one (1) second, or could enter the order into one of the Exchange's Complex Order crossing mechanisms described below.
The Exchange also proposes to move into Supplementary Material .08 to Rule 722 the rule text regarding the execution of complex orders using the Facilitation and Solicited Order Mechanisms from Rule 716, and the rule text regarding the execution of complex orders using the Price Improvement Mechanism from Rule 723. The Exchange also proposes to make non-substantive changes to the text to: (i) Re-enforce that complex orders cannot be executed unless they satisfy the requirements of current Rule 722(b)(2) (renumbered Rule 722(c)(2) under the proposal), (ii) clarify that Stock-Options Orders and Stock-Complex Orders cannot leg-into the market when they are executed using one of the mechanisms, (iii) specify that each options leg of a complex order must meet the minimum contract size requirement contained in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Rule 716, and (iv) add additional detail regarding how the Exchange processes complex orders entered into these mechanisms.
The Exchange also proposes to consolidate certain other provisions related to the auction mechanisms for Complex Orders and include relevant information in Rule 722 and the Supplementary Material thereto. For example, Proposed Supplementary Material .08(g) to Rule 722 contains a reference to the minimum contract threshold for Mini Options, which merely restates requirements contained in Supplementary Material .13 to Rule 504. In addition, Proposed Rule 722(c)(3) reaffirms that the requirements of existing Rules 717(d) (Principal Transactions) and (e) (Solicitation Orders) apply to Complex Orders represented as agent, and that the exposure requirements of those rules must be met on the complex order book unless the order is executed in one of the mechanisms described in Supplementary Material .08 to this Rule 722. Although these requirements are located in other parts of the rulebook, the Exchange believes that including them in Complex Order rule will reinforce their applicability and aid members in navigating the Exchange's rulebook.
The following examples illustrate how complex orders are transacted in the Exchange's crossing mechanisms and their interaction with individual bids and offers (while the examples below are for complex orders entered into the Facilitation Mechanism, these orders would interact similarly with individual bids and offers when entered into the Solicited Order Mechanism and the Price Improvement Mechanism):
The Exchange also proposes to adopt text in Supplementary Material .08 to Rule 722 addressing how Customer Cross Orders apply to Complex Orders. As discussed above, Rule 717(d) and (e) apply when a member seeks to execute an order it represents as agent against a proprietary order (
Pursuant to Rule 721, Customer Cross Orders are automatically executed upon entry provided that the execution: (i) Is at or between the best bid and offer on the Exchange, (ii) is not at the same price as a Priority Customer Order on the book, and (iii) will not trade through the NBBO.
Just as the Exchange has applied the exposure requirements of Rule 717(d) and (e) for facilitation and solicitation transactions involving Complex Orders, it has also provided for Complex Customer Cross Orders for the execution of off-setting complex Priority Customer Orders, which are not required to be exposed under Rule 717(d) and (e). The Exchange processes Complex Customer Cross Orders consistent with all of the applicable rules. Specifically, Rule 722(b) provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this Rule, Complex Orders shall be subject to all other Exchange Rules that pertain to orders generally.” As discussed above, current Rule 722(b)(1) provides that Complex Orders may be traded in any decimal increment “regardless of the minimum increments otherwise applicable to the individual legs of the orders,” Rule 722(b)(2) (renumbered Rule 722(c)(2) under the proposal) provides that a Complex Order may not trade at prices that are worse than the best bids and offers on the Exchange in the individual series (nor in most circumstances at the same price as a Priority Customer Order), and current Rule 722(b)(3) provides that “[c]omplex orders will be executed without consideration of any prices that might be available on other exchanges trading the same options contract.”
The Exchange believes that its application of the Customer Cross Order for Complex Orders is consistent with all applicable existing Exchange rules and with the purpose underlying Customer Cross Orders. Specifically, the Complex Customer Cross Order protects Priority Customer Orders on the complex order book just as Priority Customer Orders are protected in the regular market pursuant to Rule 721(a). Furthermore, by applying the priority rules for Complex Orders contained in Rule 722(b)(2) (renumbered Rule 722(c)(2) under the proposal), Priority Customer Orders on the Exchange for the individual series are protected to the same extent as when any other Complex Orders are executed on the complex order book, and in particular when two off-setting Priority Customer Orders are entered on the complex order book nearly simultaneously rather than as a single Customer Cross Order.
The Exchange also proposes to adopt text in Supplementary Material .08 to Rule 722 addressing how Qualified Contingent Cross Orders (“QCCs”), including QCC with Stock Orders, apply to Complex Options Orders. Pursuant to Rule 715(j), QCCs are orders to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts that are identified as being part of a qualified contingent trade, as that term is defined in Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 715.
Qualified Contingent Transactions may have multiple options components, in which case members may enter QCCs with multiple options legs (
The Exchange further believes that the proposed text is consistent with the requirements of Rule 721(b) and Rule 722, and that adding the proposed text to Rule 722 will provide clarity with respect to the execution of complex QCCs. In particular, the Exchange notes that in executing complex QCCs, Priority Customer Orders on the complex order book and Priority Customer Orders on the Exchange for the individual options series are protected. The purpose of allowing QCCs to be executed without exposure is to facilitate the execution of the options component of a QCT in the Exchange's electronic market. As such, the Exchange's initial QCC proposal did not provide for Priority Customer protection. However, the Exchange amended the proposal to provide for Priority Customer protection to alleviate concerns that adoption of the QCC, which is not limited to Priority Customers, would deprive Priority Customers of executions of their resting orders, which might also create a disincentive to placing Priority Customer limit orders on the Exchange.
The proposed rules also explain how QCC with Stock Complex Orders are handled on the Exchange.
In addition to other language describing the Exchange's processes for auctioning eligible Complex Orders as described above, the Exchange proposes to add language to Proposed Supplementary Material .01(b)(iii) and Proposed Supplementary Material .08(c)(4)(vi) regarding the processing of simultaneous auctions. The Complex Order Exposure and Price Improvement Mechanisms are eligible for termination before the end of the exposure period pursuant to Supplementary Material .01(b)(ii) and .08(c)(4)(v) to Rule 722. Specifically, these auctions are subject to early termination on the receipt of a Complex Order or quote for the same complex strategy on either side of the market that is marketable against the complex order book or bids and offers for the individual legs (including when the system receives a marketable Complex Order though the Complex Uncrossing Process described in Supplementary Material .12 to Rule 722); or the receipt of a non-marketable Complex Order or quote for the same complex strategy on the same side of the market that would cause the price of the Complex Order being auctioned to be outside of the best bid or offer for the same complex strategy on the complex order book.
In the event auctions are early terminated, the auctions will be processed in the sequence in which they were started. Furthermore, if an early termination condition occurs on a component leg of a complex strategy, the component leg auctions are early terminated first. If the event also affects a complex strategy, then auctions in the complex strategy will be evaluated for early termination and processing after auctions for the component legs have been processed. Eligible interest remaining on the Exchange's order books after an auction trades may trade with subsequent auctions as those are processed. The Exchange notes that except as provided in Supplementary Material .08(a)(2), (b)(2) to Rule 722 with respect to trading halts, the Complex Facilitation Mechanism and Complex Solicitation Mechanism do not terminate prior to the end of the period given for the entry of Responses.
Current Rule 722(b)(3) (renumbered Rule 722(d) under the proposal) provides that complex strategies may be executed without consideration of any prices that might be available on other exchanges trading the same options contracts: (i) By trading on the complex order book, (ii) by legging to access liquidity on the regular order book, or (iii) through a process whereby Complex Orders are marked for price improvement (
In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend this rule to state that, unless the applicable rule states otherwise, when calculating the best net price achievable from the best ISE bids and offers for the individual legs, the price of the stock leg is the national best bid or offer price calculated pursuant to this Supplementary Material .07(a) to Rule 722. In connection with this change, the Exchange also proposes to amend its rules for the Limit Order Price Protection pursuant to Supplementary Material .07(d) to Rule 722 to clarify that the national best bid or offer price
Furthermore, Supplementary Material .07(d) to Rule 722 provides that the Exchange will reject Limit Complex Orders to buy (sell) if the net price of the Limit Complex Order exceeds (is below) the net price available from the individual options series on the Exchange by a specified amount. Currently, the Exchange's rule states that this limit is established for Complex Orders to buy (sell) as
The Exchange proposes to adopt text in proposed Supplementary Material .09 to Rule 722 that clarifies how the Exchange handles Stock-Option Strategies and Stock Complex Strategies when different minimum trading increments are allowed for the stock and options legs of such trades. Members enter Stock-Option Strategies and Stock Complex Strategies on the complex order book with a single net price that includes all stock and option legs of the order. As the stock leg is eligible for execution at finer increments permitted by the equity market responsible for executing the stock portion of such orders,
Trade Value Allowance is helpful as this feature allows members to receive an expeditious execution, and trade the stock and options components of a Stock-Option Strategy or Stock-Complex Strategy in a moving market without introducing legging risk. Without this functionality members would be forced to resubmit their orders and potentially receive a much worse price or miss an execution.
Options series traded on the Exchange are opened pursuant to Rule 701 at the opening of the Exchange each business day, or during the reopening of the market after a trading halt.
Complex Options Strategies are opened pursuant to an opening process that attempts to execute Complex Orders and quotes on the complex order book at a single price that is within Boundary Prices that are constrained by the NBBO for the individual legs, thereby serving an important price discovery function.
Proposed Supplementary Material .11(b) to Rule 722 provides that eligible interest during the Complex Opening Price Determination includes Complex Orders and quotes on the complex order
Proposed Supplementary Material .11(c) to Rule 722 describes the Exchange's process for opening when the best bid for a complex strategy does not lock or cross the best offer. In particular, if the best bid for a complex strategy does not lock or cross the best offer, there will be no trade in the Complex Opening Price Determination and the complex strategy will open pursuant to the Complex Uncrossing Process described in Supplementary Material .12(b) to Rule 722. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to open with a Complex Order Uncrossing when the complex order book is not executable in the Complex Opening Price Determination as the uncrossing process supports the trading of additional interest and will thereby provide another opportunity for Complex Orders and quotes to be executed in the Complex Opening Process.
Proposed Supplementary Material .11(d) to Rule 722 describes the Exchange's process for opening a Complex Strategy when a trade may be possible—
First, the system calculates Boundary Prices
Next, the Exchange will calculate the Potential Opening Price
The Potential Opening Price is first calculated pursuant to Proposed Supplementary Material .11(d)(ii) to Rule 722 by identifying the price(s) at which the maximum number of contracts can trade (“maximum quantity criterion”) taking into consideration all eligible interest pursuant to Supplementary Material .11(b) to Rule 722. Proposed Supplementary Material .11(d)(iii) to Rule 722 also outlines additional considerations for calculating the Potential Opening Price when multiple prices would satisfy the maximum quantity criterion. Generally, when two or more Potential Opening Prices would satisfy the maximum quantity criterion: (A) Without leaving unexecuted contracts on the bid or offer side of the market at those prices, the system takes the highest and lowest of those prices and takes the mid-point; provided that (1) if the highest and/or lowest price described above is through the price of a bid or offer that is priced to not allocate in the Complex Opening Price Determination, the highest and/or lowest price will be rounded to the price of such bid or offer that is priced to not allocate before taking the mid-point, and (2) if the mid-point is not expressed as a permitted minimum trading increment, it will be rounded down to the nearest permissible minimum trading increment; or (B) leaving unexecuted contracts on the bid (offer) side of the market at those prices, the Potential Opening Price is the highest (lowest) executable bid (offer) price. Notwithstanding the foregoing: (C) if there are Market Complex Orders on the bid (offer) side of the market that would equal the full quantity of Complex Orders and quotes on offer (bid) side of the market, the limit price of the highest (lowest) priced Limit Complex Order or quote is the Potential Opening Price; and (D) if there are only Market Complex Orders on both sides of the market, or if there are Market Complex Orders on the bid (offer) side of the market for greater than the total size of Complex Orders and quotes on the offer (bid) side of the market, there will be no trade in the Complex Opening Price Determination and the complex strategy will open pursuant to the Complex Uncrossing Process described in Supplementary Material .12(b) to Rule 722. The examples below illustrate the scenarios discussed above, opening a complex strategy to buy 1 contract of Series A and 1 contract of Series B.
Pursuant to Proposed Supplementary Material .11(d)(iv) to Rule 722, if the Potential Opening Price is at or within the Boundary Prices, the Potential Opening Price becomes the Opening Price. If the Potential Opening Price is not at or within the Boundary Prices, the Opening Price will be the price closest to the Potential Opening Price that satisfies the maximum quantity criteria without leaving unexecuted contracts on the bid or offer side of the market at that price and is at or within the Boundary Prices. If the bid Boundary Price is higher than the offer Boundary Price, or if no valid Opening Price can be found at or within the Boundary Prices, there will be no trade in the Complex Opening Price Determination and the complex strategy will open pursuant to the Complex Uncrossing Process described in Supplementary Material .12(b) to Rule 722.
Finally, the Exchange will allocate contracts to trade during the Complex Opening Process. In particular, where there is an execution possible, the system will give priority to Market Complex Orders first, then to resting Limit Complex Orders and quotes on the complex order book. The allocation provisions of Rule 722(d)(2) apply with respect to Complex Orders and quotes with the same price with priority given first to better priced interest.
Proposed Supplementary Material .11(vi) to Rule 722 provides that the system will refresh Reserve Complex Orders pursuant to Rule 722(b)(4)(iv) following the execution of the displayed portion of Reserve Complex Orders in the process described above.
Proposed Supplementary Material .11(vii) to Rule 722 describes the Exchange's process for uncrossing the complex order book following the Complex Opening Price Determination described above. In particular, if the complex order book remains locked or crossed following the steps described above, the system will process any remaining Complex Orders and quotes, including Opening Only Complex Orders and the non-displayed portion of Reserve Complex Orders, in accordance with the Complex Uncrossing Process described in Supplementary Material .12(b) to Rule 722. Bids and offers for the individual legs of the complex strategy will be eligible to participate in the Complex Uncrossing Process.
Proposed Supplementary Material .12(b) to Rule 722 describes the Exchange's process for uncrossing the complex order book when a resting Complex Order or quote that is locked or crossed with other interest becomes executable during regular trading or as part of the Complex Opening Process. The Complex Uncrossing Process applies to Complex Options Strategies, Stock-Option Strategies, and Stock-Complex Strategies. Complex strategies are uncrossed using the following procedure: First, the system identifies the oldest Complex Order or quote among the best priced bids and offers on the complex order book—
The Complex Uncrossing Process serves an important function when used in the Complex Opening Process and during regular trading. The Complex Opening Price Determination described in the section above is designed to permit interest residing on the complex order book to trade at a single price pursuant to a price discovery process within Boundary Prices that are constrained by the NBBO for the individual legs. There may be additional interest on the complex order book that could trade, for example, by legging to access liquidity on the regular order book. In addition, trades during the Complex Uncrossing Process are not constrained by the NBBO for the individual legs and can instead trade at prices permitted under Supplementary Material .07 to Rule 722, which allows the legs of a complex strategy to trade through the NBBO for the individual legs by a configurable amount. The Exchange therefore continues the Complex Opening Process by performing an uncrossing if the Complex Opening Price determination fails to discover an appropriate execution price (for example, if no valid Opening Price can be found at or within the Boundary Prices) or where there continues to be interest that is locked or crossed after Complex Orders and quotes are executed in the Complex Opening Price Determination. Furthermore, the Complex Uncrossing Process provides an efficient and fair way of determining how to execute Complex orders and quotes when interest that is locked or crossed becomes executable during regular trading. During the trading day there may be Complex Orders and quotes on the complex order book that are locked or crossed with other interest but that are not executable, for example, because the legs cannot be printed at permissible prices. When market conditions change and these Complex Orders or quotes become executable, the Exchange uses the Complex Uncrossing Process to execute Complex Orders or quotes against resting contra-side interest.
The first two paragraphs of Rule 722 currently provide for the delay of re-introduction for certain complex functionality until specified dates, namely the legging functionality for Stock-Option Orders and functionality which permits concurrent complex order auctions, as further described in this Rule. The Exchange now proposes to update the rule references presently contained in these provisions to reflect the proposed renumbering and expansion of rules described above.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
Specifically, with respect to the proposed changes to the definitions contained in Rule 722, the Exchange believes it is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act to more clearly identify Complex Options Strategies, Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies (collectively complex strategies), including by indicating that the Exchange may limit the applicable number of legs accepted for each of these types of complex strategies, and to adopt separate definitions for orders in those strategies (as opposed to quotes) so that differences in processing are reflected more clearly in the Exchange's Rules. Similarly, the Exchange believes specifying which order types and designations contained in Rule 715 for regular orders on the Exchange apply to Complex Orders and specifying any differences with respect to the processing of Complex Orders within proposed Rule 722(b) will bring clarity to the available Complex Order types. The added clarity will also assist
The Exchange also believes that specifying that bids and offers for Complex Options Strategies may be expressed in $0.01 increments,
The Exchange further believes that is it consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act to provide greater clarity to the priority of complex strategies with respect to bids and offers for the individual component series on the Exchange by re-formatting Rule 722(b)(2) (renumbered Rule 722(c)(2) under the proposal) and replacing certain references with defined terms. The Exchange also believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to add language in Proposed Rule 722(c)(2)(iv) that explains that complex strategies may be executed on the complex order book without giving priority to the non-displayed portion of Reserve Orders on the bids or offers for the individual legs of the complex strategy. As explained in the purpose section of this proposed rule change, complex strategies may be executed without giving priority to the non-displayed portion of a Reserve Order in the regular market as this non-displayed interest has no priority on the book, and is only available for execution after all displayed interest has been executed. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 722(b)(3) (renumbered Rule 722(d) under the proposal) regarding the execution of complex strategies will also bring clarity to how complex strategies are executed. In particular, the proposal specifies that complex strategies are not executable unless the requirements of Rule 722(b)(2) (renumbered Rule 722(c)(2) under the proposal), regarding the protection of Priority Customer orders in the regular market, are satisfied, and more clearly identifies the sequence of complex strategy processing.
The Exchange also believes that providing for an auction process whereby Complex Orders that improve upon the best price for the same options strategy on the complex order book benefits such Complex Orders by giving them an opportunity for price improvement, and that the exposure process specified in the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that specifying in Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 722 that market makers can enter quotes in classes selected by the Exchange will enhance clarity for members and investors as the Exchange has traditionally offered complex quoting functionality in only a limited number of symbols. Although complex quoting functionality has not yet been implemented on INET,
The Exchange believes that specifying in Rule 722(c)(3) that the requirements of Rule 717(d) and (e) apply to the execution of Complex Orders will provide clarity to members. The Exchange further believes that moving the text related to the execution of Complex Orders in the various crossing mechanisms into Supplementary Material .08 to Rule 722 will better enable members to understand how Complex Orders may be executed in compliance with the requirements of Rule 717(d) and (e), and that the proposed non-substantive changes to the existing text will provided greater detail and clarity regarding how Complex Orders are processed by the mechanisms. The Exchange also proposes to add additional detail to the Supplementary Material .08 to Rule 722 to more fully describe the operation of the Exchange's crossing mechanisms, including but not limited to the prices at which Complex Orders can be entered into the Complex Facilitation, Solicited Order, and Price Improvement Mechanisms. These proposed changes reflect the current operation of the Exchange's crossing mechanisms for Complex Orders, and are intended to provide additional details as are customary for rules today.
As discussed in detail above, the Exchange also believes that the proposed rule changes related to complex Customer Cross Orders
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to update its rules to clarify in Supplementary Material .07(a) to Rule 722 how the stock leg is considered when determining the best net price achievable from the ISE bids and offers for the individual legs. Although it is clear what this language means with respect to Complex Options Orders when the bids and offers for the individual legs refer to interest on the Exchange's regular order book, it is not currently clear with respect to the stock leg of Stock-Option Orders and Stock-Complex Orders. The stock leg of Stock-Option Orders and Stock-Complex Orders are permitted to trade through the national best bid or offer pursuant to the QCT exemption under Regulation NMS. To reinforce that these complex strategies benefit from the QCT Exemption, the Exchange proposes in Supplementary Material .13 to Rule 722 to provide that Members may only submit Complex Orders and quotes in Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies if such Complex Orders and quotes comply with the QCT exemption. Members submitting Complex Orders and quotes in Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies represent that they comply with the QCT exemption. The Exchange believes that explaining this in its rules will increase transparency around the operation of the Exchange to the benefit of members and other market participants that trade on the Exchange.
With respect to Supplementary Material .07(d) to Rule 722, the Limit Order Price Protection is designed to ensure that orders are entered at prices that are reasonably related to the market. The Exchange therefore believes that it is appropriate to use the national best bid or offer price for this purpose, and is making it clear that the national best bid or offer price of the stock leg is used for this system protection.
In addition, with respect to the other change to the Limit Order Price Protection rules, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will clarify how this system protection applies to Limit Complex Orders to sell. As explained above, the proposed rule text more accurately describes how the Exchange calculates the boundary prices used to determine when Limit Complex Orders to sell will be rejected.
The Exchange also believes that codifying the Trade Value Allowance process in Supplementary Material .09 to Rule 722 will more accurately describe how complex strategies are executed. The Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) also has similar rules for trading complex orders in open outcry.
The Exchange also believes that the codifying the Complex Opening Process, Complex Opening Price Determination, and Complex Uncrossing Process is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade because it will increase transparency with respect to the Exchange's processes for opening and uncrossing complex strategies. The proposed rules describe the Exchange's current process for opening complex strategies, including provisions that describe eligible interest, the calculation of an appropriate Opening Price at which such interest will be executed, and allocation of contracts between market participants. The Complex Opening Price Determination is designed to provide an opportunity for members to trade complex strategies in a transparent opening rotation at a price that is within the NBBO prices of the individual legs prior to uncrossing the complex strategy in the Complex Uncrossing Process to allow additional interest to participate. The Exchange believes that codifying this process in the Exchange's rulebook will be helpful to members and other market participants that participate in the Complex Opening Price Determination. The proposed rules also detail the Exchange's process for uncrossing the complex order book when resting Complex Orders and quotes become executable during regular trading or as part of the Complex Opening Process. The Exchange believes that describing this process in its rules is helpful to members and other market participants as it adds additional information about how Complex Orders and quotes are executed when the complex order book becomes executable, for example, due to updated prices in market for the individual legs of the complex strategy. The Exchange believes that the Complex Opening Process, Complex Opening Price Determination, and Complex Uncrossing Process are each designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest.
In addition, the Exchange further believes that the proposal removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by ensuring that members, regulators and the public can more easily navigate the Exchange's rulebook and better understand the types of complex strategies available for trading on the Exchange and the manner in which such strategies are traded. The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the rules will benefit investors as they improve the readability of and further simplify the Exchange's rules regarding complex strategies. Similarly, the Exchange believes that the updates to the rule references in Rule 722 to reflect the proposed renumbering and expansion of rules will add further clarification to the Exchange's rulebook, and will also alleviate potential confusion as to the applicability of its rules, which will protect investors and the public interest.
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 proposed rule change provides greater clarity regarding how complex strategies are processed on the Exchange and expands upon various existing provisions within the Exchange's rules. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues who offer similar functionality. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition among the various markets for Complex Order execution, potentially resulting in more active Complex Order trading on all exchanges. The Exchange notes that as to intramarket competition, the proposed rule change treats all Exchange participants equally, as fully described above.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
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.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 19(b) of the Act and rule 19b-1 under the Act to permit a registered closed-end investment company to make periodic distributions of long-term capital gains more frequently than permitted by section 19(b) or rule 19b-1.
The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Joshua B. Derringer, Esq., Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, One Logan Square, Suite 2000, Philadelphia, PA 19103, and Michelle M. Comella, Chief Compliance Officer & General Counsel, Vivaldi Asset Management, LLC, 225 W Wacker Drive, Suite 2100, Chicago, IL 60606.
Stephan N. Packs, Senior Counsel at (202) 551-6853, 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. Section 19(b) of the Act generally makes it unlawful for any registered investment company to make long-term capital gains distributions more than once every twelve months. Rule 19b-1 under the Act limits to one the number of capital gain dividends, as defined in section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (“Code,” and such dividends, “distributions”), that a registered investment company may make with respect to any one taxable year, plus a supplemental distribution made pursuant to section 855 of the Code not exceeding 10% of the total amount distributed for the year, plus one additional capital gain dividend made in whole or in part to avoid the excise tax under section 4982 of the Code.
2. Applicants believe that investors in certain closed-end funds may prefer an investment vehicle that provides regular current income through a fixed distribution policy (“Distribution Policy”). Applicants propose that the Fund be permitted to adopt a Distribution Policy, pursuant to which the Fund would distribute periodically to its stockholders a fixed monthly percentage of the market price of the Fund's common stock at a particular point in time or a fixed monthly percentage of net asset value (“NAV”) at a particular time or a fixed monthly amount per share of common stock, any of which may be adjusted from time to time.
3. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act granting an exemption from section 19(b) of the Act and rule 19b-1 to permit a Fund to distribute periodic capital gain dividends (as defined in section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Code) as frequently as twelve times in any one taxable year in respect of its common stock and as often as specified by, or determined in accordance with the terms of, any preferred stock issued by the Fund. Section 6(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that the Commission may exempt any person or transaction from any provision of the Act to the extent that 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.
4. Applicants state that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application, which generally are designed to address the concerns underlying section 19(b) and rule 19b-1, including concerns about proper disclosures and shareholders' understanding of the source(s) of a Fund's distributions and concerns about improper sales practices. Among other things, such terms and conditions require that (1) the board of directors or trustees of the Fund (the “Board”) review such information as is reasonably necessary to make an informed determination of whether to adopt the proposed Distribution Policy and that the Board periodically review the amount of the distributions in light of the investment experience of the Fund, and (2) that the Fund's shareholders receive appropriate disclosures concerning the distributions.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation FD (17 CFR 243.100
Written 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 has 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. 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 unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 11-K (17 CFR 249.311) is the annual report designed for use by employee stock purchase, savings and similar plans to comply with the reporting requirements under Section 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)). Section 15(d) establishes a periodic reporting obligation for every issuer of a class of securities registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”)(15 U.S.C. 77a
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this 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 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. 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 unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 239 (17 CFR 230.239) provides exemptions under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
Written 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 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. 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 unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form TH (17 CFR 239.65, 249.447, 269.10 and 274.404) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
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 control number.
Written 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 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 24.6.
(a)-(b) (No change).
. . . Interpretations and Policies:
.01-.04 (No change).
.05 On their last trading day, [transactions in expiring MSCI EAFE Index options may be effected on the Exchange between the hours of 8:30 a.m. (Chicago time) and 3:00 p.m. (Chicago time), and] transactions in expiring FTSE Developed Europe Index options may be effected on the Exchange between the hours of 8:30 a.m. (Chicago time) and the close of the London Stock Exchange (usually 10:30 a.m. Chicago time).
.06 (No change).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change modifies the last trading day for options that overlie the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI Emerging Markets Index (“EAFE options” and “EM options,” respectively). Pursuant to Rule 24.6(a), the trading hours for EM options are from 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Chicago time, including on their expiration date. Pursuant to Rule 24.6(a) and Interpretation and Policy .05, the trading hours for EAFE options are from 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Chicago time, except trading in expiring EAFE options will end at 3:00 p.m. on their expiration date. The proposed rule change states the last trading day for expiring EAFE options series and EM options series will be the business day prior to the expiration date of the specific series.
EAFE and EM options are p.m.-settled, which means the exercise settlement value of an expiring option is derived from the closing prices of the underlying components on the series expiration date. The MSCI EAFE Index consists of components from 21 countries, and the MSCI Emerging Markets Index consists of components from 24 countries. Because the components of each of these indexes encompass multiple markets around the world, the components are subject to varying trading hours. For the MSCI EAFE Index, the first components open trading at approximately 5:00 p.m. Chicago time on the prior trading day, and the last components end trading at approximately 11:30 a.m. Chicago time. Similarly, for the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, the first components open trading at approximately 6:00 p.m. Chicago time (on the prior trading day), and the last components end trading at approximately 3:30 p.m. Chicago time.
Expiring EAFE options and EM options currently trade on their expiration dates through 3:00 p.m. and 3:15 p.m. Chicago time, respectively. However, trading in various components ends prior to the beginning of EAFE options and EM options regular trading hours (
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange has observed reduced liquidity on expiration dates of expiring EAFE and EM series due to the pricing risk associated with providing liquidity after the components whose closing prices will be used to determine the exercise settlement value of expiring options have stopped trading. Market-Makers and other liquidity providers generally price EAFE and EM options using the disseminated index values and data from the markets on which the components trade. As noted above, when these markets are not trading during U.S. trading hours, these liquidity providers price the options using prices of futures trading on the MSCI EAFE and EM indexes. While those futures prices can serve as a proxy for the index value, they cannot serve as a proxy for the settlement value on the expiration date for the options. This is because the futures pricing is intended
Other options stop trading on the business day preceding expiration. For example, the last day of trading for non-volatility a.m.-settled index options is the business day preceding the expiration date.
Cboe Options 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 proposed rule change will apply to all market participants that trade EAFE and EM options. As discussed above, the proposed rule change may eliminate a pricing risk for Market-Makers and other liquidity providers, which may provide more competitive pricing and additional trading opportunities for expiring series and ultimately benefit investors. The proposed rule change applies to EAFE and EM options, which only trade on Cboe Options. Other options stop trading on the business day preceding expiration.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. 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 change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),
On June 7, 2018, NFA also filed this proposed rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and requested that the CFTC make a determination that review of the proposed rule change of NFA is not necessary. By letter dated June 18, 2018, the CFTC notified NFA of its determination not to review the proposed rule change.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the self-regulatory organization's office, on the NFA's website at
NFA's Interpretive Notice 9050 entitled “NFA Compliance Rule 2-30(b): Risk Disclosure Statement for Security Futures Contracts” (“Interpretive Notice 9050”) requires NFA Members and Associates (“Member”) who are registered as brokers or dealers under Section 15(b)(11) of the Exchange Act
NFA is also amending Section 6.1 of Interpretive Notice 9050 to reflect the current address for the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”). Further, NFA is amending Interpretive Notice 9050 to incorporate other non-substantive changes. The text of the proposed rule changes to Interpretive Notice 9050 is found in Exhibit 4.
In its filing with the Commission, NFA 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. NFA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act
The risk disclosure statement for SFPs is a uniform statement that was jointly developed in 2002 by NFA, FINRA, and a number of securities and futures exchanges. The statement discusses the characteristics and risk of standardized security futures contracts traded on regulated U.S. exchanges and indicates that the settlement by physical delivery is three business days.
On September 5, 2017, the securities industry moved from a T+3 settlement cycle to a T+2 settlement cycle for in-scope securities trades, including U.S. equity trades. Accordingly, NFA's amendment to Section 5.2 of Interpretive Notice 9050 is nothing more than a technical amendment to update the disclosure statement for SFPs to reflect the shortened settlement cycle from three business days to two business days.
NFA is also amending Section 6.1 of Interpretive Notice 9050 to provide the current contact information for SIPC and to change the spelling of “broker/dealer” to “broker-dealer”. To incorporate other non-substantive changes, NFA is amending Interpretive Notice 9050 in Section 2.4 to correct a cross-reference and in Section 8.2 to remove an extraneous word. FINRA has amended and submitted the proposed changes to the SEC for approval.
Amendments to NFA Interpretive Notice 9050 were previously filed with the SEC in SR-NFA-2002-05, Exchange Act Release No. 34-46613 (Oct. 7, 2002), 67 FR 64176 (Oct. 17, 2002); SR-NFA-2002-06, Exchange Act Release No. 34-47150 (Jan. 9, 2003), 68 FR 2381 (Jan. 16, 2003); SR-NFA-2007-07, Exchange Act Release No. 34-57142 (Jan. 14, 2008), 73 FR 3502 (Jan. 18, 2008); SR-NFA-2010-02, Exchange Act Release No. 34-62624 (Aug. 2, 2010), 75 FR 47666 (Aug. 6, 2010); SR-NFA-2010-03, Exchange Act Release No. 34-62651 (Aug. 4, 2010), 75 FR 48393 (Aug. 10, 2010); and SR-NFA-2014-02, Exchange Act Release No. 34-71980 (Apr. 21, 2014), 79 FR 23027 (Apr. 25, 2014) .
The proposed rule change is authorized by, and consistent with, Section 15A(k)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act.
NFA 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 change would not impose any additional reporting requirements or costs on Members.
NFA did not publish the rule change to the membership for comment. NFA
On June 18, 2018, the CFTC notified NFA of its determination not to review the proposed rule change.
At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange 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 Exchange 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)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 these statement [sic] 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 is proposing to make three changes to Rule 11.420 related to OATS reporting requirements to (1) amend Rule 11.420(a)(13) to permit members to route orders to two Reporting Members for a defined period of time provided certain conditions are met without losing the exception from the definition of “Reporting Member” in conformance to comparable provisions of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Rule 7410; (2) amend rule citations in Rule 11.420(c) to correct [sic] citation to FINRA Rule 7430 to FINRA Rule 4590; and (3) amend the rule reference in Rule 11.420(g) to correct the reference to FINRA Rule 7470A to FINRA Rule 7470. Each proposed change is described below.
IEX Rule 11.420 imposes an obligation on Exchange Members to record in electronic form and report to FINRA on a daily basis certain
In general, IEX Rule 11.420 applies to any IEX Member that is a “Reporting Member,” which is defined in IEX Rule 11.420(a)(13) as a Member that receives or originates an order and has an obligation to record and report information under IEX Rule 11.420(d) and 11.420(e). However, under Rule 11.420(a)(13)(A) a Member is not considered a Reporting Member in connection with an order if the following four criteria are met:
• The Member engages in non-discretionary order routing process, pursuant to which it immediately routes, by electronic or other means, all of its orders to a single receiving Reporting Member;
• the Member does not direct and does not maintain control over subsequent routing or execution by the receiving Reporting Member;
• the receiving Reporting Member records and reports all information required under IEX Rules 11.420(d) and 11.420(e) with respect to the order; and
• the Member has a written agreement with the receiving Reporting Member specifying the respective functions and responsibilities of each party to effect full compliance with the requirements of IEX Rules 11.420(d) and 11.420(e).
On May 12, 2014, FINRA amended FINRA Rule 7410(o)(1)(A) to allow a member to route its orders to two receiving Reporting Members, if two conditions were met.
The Exchange is proposing to correct a rule citation in Rule 11.420(c), which specifies the requirements for synchronization of Member business clocks, and states that IEX Members shall comply with FINRA Rule 7430 as if such Rule were part of IEX's Rules. There is no FINRA Rule 7430, but rather the appropriate FINRA rule to cite to is FINRA Rule 4590 “Synchronization of Member Business Clocks.” The Exchange also notes that Nasdaq recently made a comparable change to Nasdaq Rule 7430A.
The Exchange is proposing to correct a rule citation in Rule 11.420(g), which provides that IEX may grant an exemption to the OATS order recording and data transmission requirements to a Member under specified circumstances. The title to the rule subsection incorrectly references FINRA Rule 7470A. There is no FINRA Rule 7470A, but rather the appropriate FINRA rule to reference is FINRA Rule 7470 “Exemption to the Order Recording and Data Transmission Requirement.” Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to correct the erroneous reference in Rule 11.420(g).
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
With respect to the technical corrections to Rules 11.420(c) and 11.420(g), the Exchange believes that these changes are consistent with the Act because they will prevent investor confusion that may be caused by incorrect rule citations in the Rules.
IEX 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 changes align the Exchange's rules with those of FINRA, which will assist it in its oversight work done pursuant to a regulatory services agreement, and makes [sic] technical corrections to the rules. Consequently, the Exchange does not believe that the
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
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; 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, 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under section 17(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act.
Applicant seeks an order that would permit in-kind repurchases of shares of the Fund held by certain affiliated stockholders of the Fund.
Altaba Inc. (the “Fund”).
The application was filed on June 14, 2018, and amended on June 28, 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 applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on July 30, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicant, 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. Applicant, 140 East 45th Street, 15th Floor, New York, New York 10017.
Elizabeth G. Miller, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-8707 or Aaron T. Gilbride, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Chief
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 an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Fund is a Delaware corporation registered as a closed-end, non-diversified management investment company under the Act. The Fund's investment objective is to seek to increase the price per share at which its common stock trades relative to the then-current values of its principal underlying assets, the Alibaba shares (defined below) and Yahoo Japan Corporation (“Yahoo Japan”) shares. It seeks to do this by reducing the discount at which it trades relative to the underlying value of its net assets (before giving effect to deferred taxes on unrealized appreciation). As of March 31, 2018, the Fund's assets consist of the following: Alibaba Group Holding Limited (“Alibaba”) ordinary shares and American Depositary Shares (“Alibaba ADSs” and together with the Alibaba ordinary shares, “Alibaba shares”); Yahoo Japan shares of common stock; miscellaneous investments in equity securities and warrants issued by public and private operating companies; cash, cash equivalents, and short-term marketable debt securities (the “Marketable Debt Securities Portfolio”); and a portfolio of intellectual property assets held in a wholly-owned subsidiary, Excalibur IP, LLC. Shares of the Fund are listed and trade on the Nasdaq Global Select Market. The Fund is internally managed by its executive officers under the supervision of the Board of Directors and does not currently intend to depend on a third-party investment adviser, except that the Fund has hired BlackRock Advisors, LLC (“BlackRock”) and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (together with BlackRock, the “External Advisers”) as external investment advisers to manage its Marketable Debt Securities Portfolio. Each External Adviser is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and manages approximately half of the Marketable Debt Securities Portfolio.
2. The Fund proposes to conduct a tender offer for up to 195,000,000 shares of the Fund's outstanding common stock, representing approximately 24% of the Fund's outstanding shares (the “In-Kind Repurchase Offer”). Payment for any shares repurchased during the In-Kind Repurchase Offer would be made in-kind through a pro rata distribution of the Fund's Alibaba ADSs and cash. Applicant states that if a greater number of shares is tendered for repurchase than the total amount offered to be repurchased in the In-Kind Repurchase Offer, each participating stockholder will receive a pro rata share of the distribution in proportion to the total shares accepted for repurchase by Applicant. The In-Kind Repurchase Offer will be made pursuant to section 23(c)(2) of the Act and conducted in accordance with rule 13e-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
3. Applicant states that the In-Kind Repurchase Offer is designed to minimize disruption to the market price of Alibaba ADSs relative to a sale of Alibaba ADSs to raise cash to finance a cash tender offer and therefore minimizing the impact on the investments of stockholders who remain invested in the Fund after the In-Kind Repurchase Offer or who own Alibaba ADSs outside the Fund. Applicant further states that, under the In-Kind Repurchase Offer, the Fund will minimize transaction costs associated with selling shares to conduct a cash tender offer.
4. Applicant requests relief to permit (a) any common stockholders of the Fund who are “affiliated persons” of the Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(3)(A) of the Act or (b) second-tier affiliates of the Fund because the External Advisers are affiliates of the Fund within the meaning of Section 2(a)(3)(E) of the Act (each, an “Affiliated Stockholder”) to participate in the proposed In-Kind Repurchase Offer.
1. Section 17(a) of the Act prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of the person, acting as principal, from knowingly purchasing or selling any security or other property from or to the company. Section 2(a)(3)(A) and (E) of the Act define an “affiliated person” of another person to include any person who directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person and any investment adviser of an investment company, respectively. Applicant states that to the extent that the In-Kind Repurchase Offer could be deemed the purchase or sale of securities by an Affiliated Stockholder, the transactions would be prohibited by section 17(a). Accordingly, Applicant requests an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act to the extent necessary to permit the participation of Affiliated Stockholders in the In-Kind Repurchase Offer.
2. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt any transaction from the provisions of section 17(a) if the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the transaction is consistent with the policy of each registered investment company and with the general purposes of the Act.
3. Applicant asserts that the terms of the In-Kind Repurchase Offer meet the requirements of sections 17(b) of the Act. Applicant asserts that neither the Fund nor an Affiliated Stockholder has any choice as to the amount or form of consideration to be received as proceeds from the In-Kind Repurchase Offer. Instead, each tendering stockholder will receive, for each Fund share tendered, the same amount of Alibaba ADSs and the same amount of cash. If a greater number of shares is tendered for repurchase than the total amount offered to be repurchased in the In-Kind Repurchase Offer, each participating stockholder will receive a pro rata share of the distribution in proportion to the total shares accepted for repurchase by Applicant. Moreover, Applicant states that the portfolio securities to be offered and exchanged in the In-Kind Repurchase Offer will be valued in accordance with section 2(a)(41) of the Act, which will be an objective, verifiable standard that removes any discretion of an Affiliated Stockholder to conduct the In-Kind Repurchase Offer at a price that would be beneficial or detrimental to the interests of any particular stockholder. Applicant further states that the In-Kind Repurchase Offer is consistent with the Fund's investment policies. Applicant represents that the In-Kind Repurchase Offer is consistent with the general purposes of the Act because the interests of all stockholders are equally protected and no Affiliated Stockholder would receive an advantage or special benefit not available to any other stockholder participating in the In-Kind Repurchase Offer.
Applicant agrees that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant will distribute to stockholders participating in the In-Kind Repurchase Offer cash and an in-kind pro rata distribution of Alibaba ADSs which represent approximately
2. The Alibaba ADSs offered and exchanged to stockholders pursuant to the In-Kind Repurchase Offer are securities that are listed on a public securities market for which quoted bid and asked prices are available.
3. The Alibaba ADSs offered and exchanged to stockholders pursuant to the In-Kind Repurchase Offer will be valued in the same manner as they would be valued for purposes of computing Applicant's net asset value, consistent with the requirements of section 2(a)(41) of the Act.
4. Applicant will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which the In-Kind Repurchase Offer occurs, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of the In-Kind Repurchase Offer, that includes the identity of each stockholder of record that participated in the In-Kind Repurchase Offer, whether that stockholder was an Affiliated Stockholder, a description of each security distributed, the terms of the distribution, and the information or materials upon which the valuation was made.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule relating to various fee waivers and the Flex Trader Incentive Program that are set to expire June 30, 2018.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule relating to various fee waivers and the Flex Trader Incentive Program that are set to expire June 30, 2018.
The Exchange first proposes to extend the current waiver of the VIX and Select Sector Index License Surcharge of $0.10 per contract for Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary (“Firm”) (origin codes “F” or “L”) VIX and Select Sector orders that have a premium of $0.10 or lower and have series with an expiration of seven (7) calendar days or less. The Exchange adopted the current waiver to reduce transaction costs on expiring, low-priced VIX and Select Sector options, which the Exchange believed would encourage Firms to seek to close and/or roll over such positions close to expiration at low premium levels, including facilitating customers to do so, in order to free up capital and encourage additional trading. The Exchange had proposed to waive the surcharge through June 30, 2018, at which time the Exchange had stated that it would evaluate whether the waiver has in fact prompted Firms to close and roll over these positions close to expiration as intended. The Exchange believes the waiver encourages Firms to do so and as such, proposes to extend the waiver of the surcharge through December 31, 2018, at which time the Exchange will again reevaluate whether the waiver has continued to prompt Firms to close and roll over positions close to expiration at low premium levels. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete the reference to the current waiver period of June 30, 2018 from the Fees Schedule and replace it with December 31, 2018.
In order to promote and encourage trading during the Extended Trading Hours (“ETH”) session, the Exchange currently waives ETH Trading Permit and Bandwidth Packet fees for one (1) of each initial Trading Permits and one (1) of each initial Bandwidth Packet, per affiliated TPH. The Exchange notes that waiver is set to expire June 30, 2018. The Exchange also waives fees through June 30, 2018 for a CMI and FIX login
In order to promote and encourage trading of seven new FTSE Russell Index products (
By way of background, a FLEX Trader is entitled to a pro-rata share of the monthly compensation pool based on the customer order fees collected from customer orders traded against that FLEX Trader's orders with origin codes other than “C” in FLEX Broad-Based Index Options with Asian or Cliquet style settlement (“Exotics”) each month (“Flex Trader Incentive Program”). The Fees Schedule provides that the Flex Trader Incentive Program is set to expire either by June 30, 2018 or until total average daily volume in Exotics exceeds 15,000 contracts for three consecutive months, whichever comes first. The Exchange notes that total average daily volume in Exotics has not yet exceeded 15,000 contracts for three consecutive months. The Exchange also has determined that it no longer wishes to maintain this program and as such does not intend to extend the program past June 30, 2018. As such, the Exchange proposes to remove the program (currently set forth in Footnote 42) from the Fees Schedule.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes it's appropriate to continue to waive the VIX and Select Sector Index License Surcharge for Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary VIX and Select Sector orders that have a premium of $0.10 or lower and have series with an expiration of 7 calendar days or less because the Exchange wants to continue encouraging Firms to roll and close over positions close to expiration at low premium levels. Particularly, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to waive the entire $0.10 per contract surcharge because without the waiver of the surcharge, firms are less likely to engage in these transactions, as opposed to other VIX and Select Sector transactions, due to the associated transaction costs. The Exchange believes it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to limit the waiver to Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary orders because they contribute capital to facilitate the execution of VIX and Select Sector customer orders with a premium of $0.10 or lower and series with an expiration of 7 calendar days or less. Finally, the Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide that the surcharge will be waived through December 2018, as it gives the Exchange additional time to evaluate if the waiver is continuing to have the desired effect of encouraging these transactions.
The Exchange believes extending the waiver of ETH Trading Permit and Bandwidth Packet fees for one of each type of Trading Permit and Bandwidth Packet, per affiliated TPH through December 31, 2018 is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, because those respective fees are being waived in their entirety, which promotes and encourages trading during the ETH session and applies to all ETH TPHs. The Exchange believes it's also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to waive fees for Login IDs related to waived Trading Permits and/or Bandwidth Packets in order to promote and encourage ongoing participation in ETH and also applies to all ETH TPHs.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to extend the waiver of all transaction fees for RLG, RLV, RUI, AWDE, FTEM, FXTM and UKXM transactions, including the Floor Brokerage fee, the License Index Surcharge and CFLEX Surcharge Fee, because the respective fees are being waived in their entirety, which promotes and encourages trading of these products which are still relatively new and applies to all TPHs.
The Exchange believes eliminating the FLEX Asian and Cliquet Flex Trading Incentive Program is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the program is not providing the desired result of incentivizing FLEX Traders to trade FLEX Asian and Cliquet options. The Exchange believes the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all Flex Traders.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes are intended to either extend existing fee waivers or eliminate from the Fees Schedule a program that is expiring on June 30, 2018 and apply to all TPHs uniformly. The proposed changes only affect trading on Cboe Options. The Exchange believes the proposed change therefore does not raise any competitive issues.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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 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, 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 is filing a proposal to amend Rule 602, Appointment of Market Makers, to specify the new method by which Lead Market Makers
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 amend MIAX Options Rule 602, Appointment of Market Makers, to specify the new method by which LMMs and RMMs would request appointments to (and relinquishment of appointments from) one or more classes of option contracts traded on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 602(a). The Exchange believes this proposal would improve the efficiency of the appointment process for both the Exchange and for these types of Market Makers.
Once a Member
According to the Exchange's current practice, with respect to LMMs and RMMs, after the LMM or RMM contacts Exchange staff either by phone or via email, the Exchange staff then delivers that request to the Board or a committee designated by the Board for its approval. Upon the decision of the Board or committee designated by the Board regarding that appointment, Exchange staff then notifies the Market Maker of the determination, with such notification being made the next business day. The Exchange notes that it is not proposing to make any changes to timing of the notification, which will continue to be made the next business day.
Specifically, Rule 602(a) provides that “[t]he Board or a committee designated by the Board shall appoint Market Makers to one or more classes of option contracts traded on the Exchange.”
In making appointments of Market Makers to one or more classes of option contracts traded on the Exchange, the Board or designated committee shall consider the financial resources available to the Market Maker; the Market Maker's experience and expertise in market making or options trading; the preferences of the Market Maker to receive appointment(s) in specific option class(es); and the maintenance and enhancement of competition among Market Makers in each class of option contracts to which they are appointed.
Under the current Rule, “[t]he Board or designated committee may suspend or terminate any appointment of a Market Maker under this Rule [602] and may make additional appointments or change the option classes included in a Market Maker's appointed classes whenever, in the Board's or designated committee's judgment, the interests of a fair and orderly market are best served by such action.”
The Exchange proposes to amend MIAX Options Rule 602 solely to specify the new method by which LMMs and RMMs would request appointments to (or relinquishment of appointments from) one or more classes of option contracts traded on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 602(a). In particular, the Exchange proposes to adopt Interpretations & Policies .02 to Rule 602 to provide that, “Lead Market Makers and Registered Market Makers shall request appointments to (and relinquishment of appointments from) one or more classes of option contracts traded on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 602(a) via an Exchange approved electronic interface, which request must be submitted prior to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time of the business day immediately preceding the next trading day. The Exchange approved electronic interface will also ensure that, before any appointment request (or relinquishment of an appointment) is approved, the CQL established by Rule 602 has not been exceeded. Appointments (and relinquishments of appointments) shall become effective on the day after the request is submitted, provided that it has been approved. Approvals and denials of appointments (and relinquishment of appointments) shall be communicated by the Exchange via the same Exchange approved electronic interface through which the request was made.”
The Exchange believes that requiring LMMs and RMMs to use an Exchange approved electronic interface to request appointments to one or more classes of option contracts would enable LMMs and RMMs to streamline the process by which they request appointments (and relinquishment of appointments) and get notified of approvals or denials related to such requests, which, in turn, would reduce the time and resources expended by such Market Makers and the Exchange on the appointment process.
The Exchange also believes this proposal would provide LMMs and RMMs with more efficient access to the securities in which they want to make markets and disseminate competitive quotations, which would provide additional liquidity and enhance competition in those securities. The Exchange would retain the ability to suspend or terminate any appointment of a Market Maker if necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market.
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change removes impediments to a free and open market because it would streamline the process by which LMMs and RMMs request appointments to (and relinquishment of appointments from) one or more classes of option contracts traded on the Exchange and offer LMMs and RMMs the ability to manage their appointments in a more efficient manner, through use of an automated tool. The Exchange believes the proposed change would reduce the burden on both LMMs and RMMs, and Exchange staff, which would result in a fair and reasonable use of resources to the benefit of all market participants. In particular, the proposal to require LMMs and RMMs to use an Exchange approved electronic interface to request to be appointed to a class, and to make changes thereto, is consistent with Act because it would provide LMMs and RMMs with more efficient access to the securities in which they want to make markets. The Exchange also believes that allowing LMMs and RMMs to request relinquishment from appointments using the same process used by LMMs and RMMs to request appointments, would serve to promote just and equitable principles of trade and benefit investors and the public interest by establishing a more systematic way for LMMs and RMMs to manage their appointments and provide more clarity with respect to the process.
In addition, the Exchange believes that improving the efficiency of the process by which LMMs and RMMs request appointments and relinquishment of appointments on an automated basis without having to manually contact Exchange staff is likewise consistent with the Act. First, the Board or a designated committee will continue to have responsibility for approving the appointments requested by LMMs and RMMs in one or more classes of options contracts traded on the Exchange. The Board or a designated committee would continue to consider the relevant factors and conduct an evaluation of Market Makers prior to their appointment.
The proposed rule change would not result in unfair discrimination, as it applies to all LMMs and RMMs equally. As noted above, the Exchange intentionally excluded PLMMs from this proposal. The Exchange believes it isn't unfairly discriminatory to exclude PLMMs from this new appointment method because the Board or designated committee appoints only one PLMM to each options class traded on the Exchange, as opposed to the multiple number of LMMs and RMMs, and because of the heightened obligations associated with performing the responsibilities of a PLMM.
Further, the proposed rule change would reduce the burden on LMMs and RMMs to manage their appointments, and thus provide greater liquidity to the Exchange while reducing the time and resources expended by such Market Makers and the Exchange on the appointment process. Nevertheless, Market Makers would still be required to comply with certain obligations to maintain their status as a Market Maker, including that they provide continuous, two-sided quotations in their appointed securities.
Finally, as noted above, specifying the method of the appointment process would also align the rules of the Exchange with the rules of other options exchanges, where Market Makers presently have the ability to select and make changes to their appointments and registrations via an exchange-approved electronic interface.
MIAX Options 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 because it provides the same enhancement to a group of similarly situated market participants—LMMs and RMMs. The proposed rule change would reduce the burden on these Market Makers to manage their appointments and thus provide greater liquidity to the Exchange while reducing the time and resources expended by such Market Makers and the Exchange on the appointment process.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would help these Market Makers to the detriment of market participants on other exchanges, particularly because the proposed appointment process for LMMs and RMMs is meant to simply create a more efficient process by which such Market Makers can request an appointment, and it is similar to the appointment and registration processes for market makers already in place on other exchanges.
Written comments were neither solicited nor 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 after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 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
The purpose of Form 12b-25 (17 CFR 240.12b-25) is to provide notice to the Commission and the marketplace that a registrant will be unable to timely file a required periodic report or transition report pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78a
Written 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 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. 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 unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
(a) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 these statement may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
On August 4, 2017, the Commission approved a proposed rule change filed by the Exchange to adopt rules governing auctions in IEX-listed securities (“IEX Auctions”), including provisions governing the initial public offering (“IPO”) of IEX-listed securities.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to modify the IPO Auction rules and certain IPO Auction market data that is disseminated in IEX Auction Information to offer issuers, underwriters, and market participants a more transparent IPO Auction process. The proposed changes, discussed below in detail, are designed to enhance the price discovery process by augmenting certain of the Exchange's automated and manual processes governing IPO Auctions with certain manual IPO Auction processes utilized by the NYSE.
For trading in an IEX-listed security that is the subject of an IPO, or the initial pricing of any other security pursuant to Rule 11.280(h)(9),
The Exchange will generally attempt to conduct an IPO Auction beginning at 10:15 a.m. Pursuant to Rule 11.280(g)(7), IEX will declare a regulatory halt before the start of the Pre-Market Session for a security that is the subject of an IPO on IEX, and therefore there will be no Continuous Book for such security. The Order Acceptance Period for an IPO Auction may be extended at the time of the auction match pursuant to Rules 11.350(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iv):
• Automatically for five (5) minutes when there are unmatched shares from market orders on the IPO Auction Book;
• Automatically for five (5) minutes when the Indicative Clearing Price
• Automatically during the Pre-Launch Period
• Manually upon request from the underwriter at any time prior to the auction match.
Furthermore, Rule 11.280(h)(8) governs the process for resuming from a trading halt initiated under Rule 11.280(g)(7) for a security that is the subject of an IPO. Thus, in addition to the systemic processes described above that govern the IPO Auction match, there is a series of procedural steps to complete an IPO Auction, which include input from and coordination
• Notification from the underwriter that the security is ready to trade and subsequent approval of the Indicative Clearing Price at the time of such notification;
• Selection of a price band, comprised of an upper (lower) price between $0.00 and $0.50 above (below) the approved Indicative Clearing Price, which explicitly constrains the IPO Auction match price; and
• Validation that each of the conditions for the extension of the Order Acceptance Period set forth in Rules 11.350(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iv) are not satisfied.
Rule 11.350(a)(9) defines the various data fields that are disseminated in IEX Auction Information for IEX Auctions, including the data that is disseminated during the Display Only Period for an IPO Auction. IEX Auction Information contains the current status of price, size, imbalance information, auction collar information, and other relevant information related to the IPO Auction. Specifically, IEX Auction Information for an IPO Auction contains the following data elements:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• The Exchange notes that IEX Auction Information includes data fields for a Collar Reference Price, Lower Auction Collar, and Upper Auction Collar, all of which will be set zero (0) for an IPO Auction, because collars do not apply to the IPO Auction.
Each field disseminated in IEX Auction Information is strategically tailored to the IEX Auction model. Specifically, IEX Auction Information is designed to provide transparent and reliable information regarding the price and size of the pending auction match that allows participants to enter new auction-specific interest or adjust continuous trading behavior as they iterate towards the clearing price.
At the time of the IPO Auction, as a result of the book building process, IEX understands that the syndicate typically has explicit interest from clients and indications of excess demand from investors that were seeking more shares than they were allocated, as well as supply from investors that received an allocation and intend to sell in the IPO Auction. The underwriter is typically responsible for coordinating with participating syndicate members to account for the aggregate share supply and investor demand leading up to and during the IPO Auction process. As a result, the IPO Auction Book, and therefore IEX Auction Information, conveys only a partial representation of the supply and demand for an IPO security until a material portion of the interest represented by the underwriter enters the Auction Book. Accordingly, between the start of the Display Only Period and the start of the Pre-Launch Period, the Exchange is proposing to increase transparency to market participants regarding the supply and demand for an IPO security by requiring the underwriter to provide the Exchange with an IPO Price Band for publication, which would reflect the price range within which the underwriter anticipates the IPO Auction match to occur. When published, the IPO Price Band would be disseminated via the SIP and IEX Auction Information.
As proposed, in determining the IPO Price Band, the underwriter would take into account all Auction Eligible Orders for the IPO Auction, including all orders on the Exchange's Order Book, as well as the underwriter's own interest, and
The Exchange proposes to integrate the IPO Price Band into IEX Auction Information in several ways that are designed to enhance transparency and guide the price discovery process within the IPO Price Band as market participants iterate towards a clearing price. First, the Exchange proposes to publish the Upper IPO Price Band and Lower IPO Price Band as the Upper Auction Collar and Lower Auction Collar, respectively, unless the underwriter has not provided an IPO Price Band to the Exchange for publication, in which case the Upper and Lower Auction Collar will be equal to the Volume Based Tie Breaker, which is equal to the issue price in the case of an IPO Auction.
Furthermore, in the case of an IPO Auction, the Exchange proposes to change the definition of Reference Price Range to be equal to the prices between and including the most current IPO Price Band published by the Exchange, unless the underwriter has not provided the Exchange with an IPO Price Band for publication, in which case the Reference Price Range will be equal to the Volume Based Tie Breaker. The Reference Price Range is used to constrain the Reference Price at which the Exchange disseminates Paired Shares and Imbalance Shares. Accordingly, if but for the constraint, the Reference Price would be above (below) the Upper (Lower) IPO Price Band, the Reference Price would be equal to the Upper (Lower) IPO Price Band, and thus the Exchange would disseminate Paired Shares and Imbalance Shares at the Upper (Lower) IPO Price Band, which would solicit interest willing to offset the imbalance at prices at or within the IPO Price Band.
Assuming the same facts above but excluding the proposed changes regarding the IPO Price Band illustrates the benefits of the proposed change. For example, at the start of the Display Only Period, the Auction Book Clearing Price and therefore the Reference Price and Indicative Clearing Price are all $10.00. However, when accounting for the underwriter's own interest and interest represented by the underwriter, shares are maximized between $12.00 and $13.00 (
Pursuant to proposed Rule 11.280(h)(8)(C), at least fifteen (15) minutes after the start of the Display Only Period,
• All market orders will be executed in the IPO Auction;
• The underwriter has selected a final IPO Price Band that is at or within the last published IPO Price Band;
• The IPO Auction clearing price is at or within the IPO Price Band selected by the underwriter under the immediately preceding bullet point; and
• IEX receives notice from the underwriter of the IPO that the security is ready to trade.
Under proposed Rule 11.280(h)(8)(D), the failure to satisfy the conditions of proposed Rule 11.280(h)(8)(C) would result in a delay of the release for trading of the IPO, and a continuation of the Pre-Launch Period, during which the underwriter may provide one or more updated IPO Price Bands to the Exchange for publication pursuant to proposed Rule 11.280(h)(8)(B), until all of the conditions of proposed Rule 11.280(h)(8)(C) have been satisfied.
As described above, the Exchange is proposing to move away from a predominantly automated IPO Auction mechanism towards a more manual process that is designed to account for the underwriter's unique and fundamental role in the IPO process. Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate the automated five (5) minutes extensions of the Order Acceptance Period for IPO Auctions that are set forth in Rule 11.350(e)(2)(B), described above.
Further, constraining the IPO Auction by the IPO Price Band provides a mechanism to protect the IPO Auction match from occurring at a price that is outside of the expected auction price range provided by the underwriter as communicated to participants via IEX Auction Information and the SIP. Moreover, proposed Rule 11.280(h)(8)(D) is also designed to provide enhanced transparency to market participants regarding unexpected imbalances and sharp price movements leading into an IPO Auction match by allowing the underwriter to provide one or more updated IPO Price Bands to the Exchange for publication, pursuant to proposed Rule 11.280(h)(8)(B), reflecting the new price range within which the IPO Auction match is anticipated to occur after accounting for all Auction Eligible Orders for the IPO Auction, including all orders on the Exchange's Order Book, as well as the underwriter's own interest and interest represented by the underwriter.
In addition, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate the existing underwriter price band selection process set forth in Rule 11.280(h)(8)(A)(iii) (described above), in light of the enhanced IPO Price Band selection process set forth in proposed Rule 11.280(h)(8)(C)(ii), which serves a substantially similar function. Specifically, during the Pre-Launch Period, proposed Rule 11.280(h)(8)(C)(ii) requires the underwriter to select an IPO Price Band at or within the last published IPO Price Band (that the underwriter must make best efforts to narrow to a spread of $1.00 or less before the IPO Auction match)
Similarly, as described above, during the Pre-Launch Period, existing Rule 11.280(h)(8)(A)(iii) requires, as a condition to execution of the IPO Auction, notification from the underwriter that the security is ready to trade and subsequent approval of the Indicative Clearing Price at the time of such notification. Further, the underwriter must select a price band, comprised of an upper (lower) price between $0.00 and $0.50 above (below) the approved Indicative Clearing Price, which explicitly constrains the IPO Auction match price. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed elimination of the existing underwriter price band selection process does not substantively alter the IPO Auction functionality in that the enhanced IPO Price Band selection process set forth in proposed Rule 11.280(h)(8)(C)(ii), which requires the underwriter to select an IPO Price Band at or within the last published IPO Price Band (that the underwriter must make best efforts to narrow to a spread of $1.00 or less before the IPO Auction match), serves a substantially similar function, while facilitating a more robust price discovery process that more fully reflects supply and demand to determine the price and timing of the IPO Auction match.
Consistent with current Rule 11.280(h)(8)(B), pursuant to proposed Rule 11.280(h)(8)(D), the underwriter, with concurrence of IEX, may determine at any point during the IPO Auction process up through the conclusion of the Pre-Launch Period to postpone and reschedule the IPO. Market participants may continue to enter orders and order cancellations for participation in the IPO Auction during the Pre-Launch Period until the auction match.
Lastly, the Exchange is proposing Supplemental Material .01 to Rule 11.280(h)(8) that addresses the jurisdictional issue posed by an underwriter for a security that is the subject of an IPO on IEX that is not an approved Member of the Exchange. Specifically, proposed Supplemental Material .01 states that the underwriter for a security that is the subject of an IPO on IEX must be a Member of the
IEX believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest in that they are designed to increase transparency to market participants regarding the supply and demand for an IPO security by requiring the underwriter to provide the Exchange with IPO Price Bands for broad dissemination. Furthermore, the Exchange believes the proposed changes remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system by enhancing the price discovery process in the IPO Auction by providing IEX Auction Information that is more reflective of the aggregate supply and demand for a security, as described in the Purpose section. Specifically, by constraining the Reference Price for the IPO Auction by the latest published IPO Price Band, the Exchange will provide information regarding Imbalance Shares and Paired Shares at a price that reflects all orders on the Order Book, as well as the underwriter's own interest and interest represented by the underwriter.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule changes governing the publication of underwriter's selection of an IPO Price Band are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes that requiring the underwriter to consider all interest on the Order Book, as well as the underwriter's own interest and interest represented by the underwriter, is designed to ensure that the IPO Price Band provides a more accurate representation of the aggregate supply and demand for the IPO security. Moreover, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to require that the underwriter make best efforts to provide an IPO Price Band for publication with a spread of $1.00 or less before the IPO Auction match, as well as mandating that a minimum of one minute to elapse between the time of the last IPO Price Band publication and the IPO Auction match. Specifically, the Exchange believes the narrower spread and one-minute window will allow market participants a reasonable opportunity to adjust their Auction Eligible Orders in response to the last IPO Price Band, which more accurately reflects the aggregate supply and demand for the IPO security in final moments before the IPO Auction match.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change to shorten the minimum Display Only Period from thirty (30) minutes to fifteen (15) minutes is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest in that it is designed to facilitate the commencement of orderly trading in securities that are the subject of an IPO by providing greater flexibility to begin trading earlier in certain cases, such as smaller IPOs, where an extended Display Only Period is not necessary to allow for order entry and the development of price stability, while at the same time avoiding unnecessary temporal constraints on the price discovery process in cases where extensive order entry is still occurring or where price stability has not yet developed.
The Exchange believes it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to eliminate the automated five (5) minute extension of the Order Acceptance Period and provide for a manual extension process that requires the underwriter to provide one or more updated IPO Price Bands to the Exchange for publication. The Exchange believes the proposed changes acknowledge the unique and central role of the underwriter in the IPO Process, and allow for the underwriter to transparently respond to unexpected changes in the composition of the IPO Auction Book that would impact the price of the IPO Auction match after the start of the Pre-Launch Period. Moreover, the Exchange believes the increased transparency would facilitate a more informed price discovery process as market participants iterate towards a new equilibrium price after an unexpected change in the composition of the IPO Auction Book that impacts the clearing price. Similarly, the Exchange further believes that constraining the IPO Auction by the IPO Price Band is consistent with the protection investors and the public interest in that it provides a mechanism to protect the IPO Auction match from occurring at a price that is outside of the expected auction price range that has been communicated to participants via IEX Auction Information and the SIP, which fosters price transparency and continuity.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that eliminating the existing underwriter price band selection process set forth in Rule 11.280(h)(8)(A)(iii), in light of the proposed IPO Price Band selection and publication process, is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest in that the proposed rules governing the selection and publication of an IPO Price Band serves a substantially similar function, while facilitating a more robust price discovery process that more fully reflects supply and demand to determine the price and timing of the IPO Auction match.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that proposed Supplemental Material .01 to Rule 11.280(h)(8) is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, in that the proposed supplemental material is designed to ensure the enforceability of the Exchange's rules governing the underwriter's responsibilities during the IPO Auction process as proposed, which as described above, are designed to promote transparency and price discovery for securities that are the subject of an IPO on the Exchange.
IEX does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule
In addition, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will have any impact on intra-market competition. Specifically, as discussed above, the proposed changes are designed to increase transparency to market participants regarding the supply and demand for an IPO security by requiring the underwriter to provide the Exchange with the proposed IPO Price Band for broad publication. Broad publication of the IPO Price Band and the proposed integration with IEX Auction Information is designed to enhance price discovery in the IPO Auction process, to the benefit of all market participants, by providing information about Imbalance Shares and Paired Shares at a price that better reflects where the underwriter believes the IPO Auction match is anticipated to occur, and thus inviting offsetting interest within such range. Moreover, the Exchange notes that the proposed IPO Price Band will be disseminated via IEX Auction Information, which is available free of charge through the Exchange's existing proprietary data feeds.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that proposed Supplemental Material .01 to Rule 11.280(h)(8) does not result in any undue burden on competition, as any qualified market participant may become a Member of the Exchange free of charge,
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
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
Form 40-F (17 CFR 249.240f) is used by certain Canadian issuers to register a class of securities under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) (15 U.S.C. 78
Written 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 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. 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 unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective July 2, 2018. Particularly, the Exchange is proposing to adopt a customer transaction fee for MSCI EAFE Index (MXEA) options and MSCI Emerging Markets Index (MXEF) options (“MSCI Options”). Currently, the Exchange does not assess any customer transaction fees for MSCI options. The Exchange is proposing to adopt a $0.25 per contract fee for customer transaction fees for transactions in MSCI Options. The Exchange notes that the proposed fee amount is in line with customer transaction fees assessed on other index products.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed change is reasonable because the proposed fee amount is within the range of amounts assessed on other index products (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to customer MSCI options transaction fees will cause any unnecessary burden on intramarket competition because, while customers are assessed different, and often lower, fee rates than other market participants, Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Moreover, the options industry has a long history of providing preferential pricing to Customers, and the Exchange's current Fees Schedule currently does so in many places. Additionally, the proposed Customer fee amount will be applied equally to all Customers (meaning that all Customers will be assessed the same amount for MSCI Options). The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes to the customer MSCI Options transaction fees will cause any unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because the change only affects trading on Cboe Options. To the extent that the proposed changes make Cboe Options a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become Cboe Options market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 10-Q (17 CFR 249.308a) is filed by issuers of securities to satisfy their quarterly reporting obligations pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act (“Exchange Act”) (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)). The information provided by Form 10-Q is intended to ensure the adequacy of information available to investors about an issuer. Form 10-Q takes approximately 187.43 hours per response to prepare and is filed by approximately 22,907 respondents. We estimated that 75% of the approximately 187.43 hours per response (140.57 hours) is prepared by the company for an annual reporting burden of 3,220,037 hours (140.57 hours per response x 22,907 responses).
Written 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 burden of 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
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 control number.
Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to adopt a financial incentive program for Lead Market-Makers appointed in MSCI EAFE Index (MXEA) options and MSCI Emerging Markets Index (MXEF) options (collectively, MSCI options), effective July 2, 2018.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to adopt a financial incentive program for Lead Market-Makers appointed in MSCI EAFE Index (MXEA) options and MSCI Emerging Markets Index (MXEF) options (collectively, MSCI options), effective July 2, 2018. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide a financial incentive to any Market-Maker that is appointed as a Lead Market-Maker (“LMM”) in MXEA and/or MXEF (“MSCI LMM”) and meet a heightened quoting standard, to be set forth in the Fees Schedule.
By way of background, pursuant to Rule 8.15(a), the Exchange may approve one or more Market-Makers to act as LMMs in a class for which a Designated Primary Market-Maker (“DPM”) has not been appointed, for a term of no less than the time until the end of the then-current expiration cycle. In addition to a LMM's requirement to fulfill all obligations of a Market-Maker under the Exchange Rules, a LMM must also satisfy heightened quoting obligations set forth in Rule 8.15(b).
The Exchange proposes to provide in the Fees Schedule that through December 31, 2018, if a MSIC LMM meets the heightened standard described below, the LMM in each class will receive $20,000 per month, per their respective appointed class. Specifically, the LMM will receive $20,000 per month/per class if it provides continuous electronic quotes that meet or exceed the following heightened quoting standards in at least 90% of the MXEA and/or MXEF series it must quote pursuant to Rule 8.15(b) 90% of the time in a given month:
The Exchange may consider other exceptions to this quoting standard based on demonstrated legal or regulatory requirements or other mitigating circumstances. For purposes of the financial benefit, MSCI LMM(s) will not be obligated to satisfy the heightened quoting standard shown above. Rather, the MSCI LMM(s) will only receive the financial benefit if they satisfy the abovementioned heightened quoting standard. If a MSCI LMM does not meet the heightened quoting standard, then it simply will not receive the financial benefit for that month. The
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to offer MSCI LMM(s) that meet a certain heightened quoting standard (described above) $20,000 per month, per product, given the potential added costs that MSCI LMM(s) may need to undertake in order to satisfy that heightened quoting standard (
The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to only offer the financial incentive to MSCI LMM(s) because it benefits all market participants trading in MSCI options to encourage MSCI LMMs to satisfy the heightened quoting standards, which may increase liquidity and provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Indeed, the Exchange notes that the LMM provides a crucial role in providing quotes and the opportunity for market participants to trade MSCI products, which can lead to increased volume, thereby providing a robust market.
The Exchange notes that without the proposed financial incentive, there would not be sufficient incentive for Trading Permit Holders to undertake an obligation to quote an heightened levels, which could result in lower levels of liquidity. The MSCI LMM incentive program is also reasonable, as it designed to encourage increased quoting to add liquidity in MSCI products, thereby protecting investors and the public interest.
The Exchange lastly notes that a similar financial incentive program was adopted for appointed LMMs in ETH and SPX Select Market-Makers.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while the financial incentive is offered only to certain market participants (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because MSCI options are proprietary products that will only be traded on Cboe Options. To the extent that the proposed changes make Cboe Options a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become Cboe Options market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form SE (17 CFR 239.64) is used by registrants to file paper copies of exhibits, reports or other documents that would be difficult or impossible to submit electronically, as provided in Rule 311 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.311). The information contained in Form SE is used by the Commission to identify paper copies of exhibits. Form SE is filed by individuals, companies or other entities that are required to file documents electronically. Approximately 19 registrants file Form SE and it takes an estimated 0.10 hours per response for a total annual burden of 2 hours (0.10 hours per response × 19 responses).
Written 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 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. 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 unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
On December 20, 2017, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On February 21, 2018, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 these statement 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 modify the structure of its Fee Schedule and make minor conforming changes, pursuant to IEX Rule 15.110(a) and (c), in order to provide more clarity to market participants regarding the fees assessed for executions on the Exchange. The Exchange's existing Fee Schedule requires market participants to determine which of the Exchange's Fee Codes are applicable to any given transaction, and then calculate the applicable fee that will be assessed depending on the applicable Fee Code combination. After informal discussions with various market participants, the Exchange is proposing to provide more clarity to market participants regarding the fees assessed for executions on the Exchange by amending the structure of its Fee Schedule to explicitly provide each possible Fee Code combination, along with the associated fee applicable to such transaction. The Exchange is also proposing to make several minor substantive changes to the Fee Schedule and related rules to enhance the consistency and clarity of the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
In an effort to incentivize Members
Moreover, in order to reduce the variability in fees to access liquidity on the Exchange and thereby incentivize Members to route more orders to the Exchange that are executable at the far side of the NBBO,
Furthermore, to incentivize additional resting liquidity on IEX, including displayed liquidity, the Exchange charges the maximum fee allowable pursuant to Regulation NMS for certain executions that appear to be part of a deliberate trading strategy that targets resting liquidity during periods of quote instability. Specifically, the Exchange charges a Crumbling Quote Remove Fee (“CQRF”) of $0.0030 (or 0.3% of the total dollar value of the transaction for securities priced below $1.00) to orders that remove resting liquidity during periods of quote instability, as defined in Rule 11.190(g), if such orders constitute at least 5% of the Member's volume executed on IEX and at least 1 million shares, on a monthly basis, measured on a per market participant identifier (“MPID”) basis.
In addition to the fees assessed for trading on the continuous market, the Exchange also assesses fees for orders that execute in an IEX Auction for securities listed on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 11.350, as well as for orders that execute in the Opening Process for non-IEX-listed securities pursuant to Rule 11.231.
• Executions in the Opening Auction
• Executions in the Closing Auction
• Executions in a Halt Auction
• Executions in an IPO Auction
For orders that execute in the Opening Process for non-IEX-listed securities pursuant to Rule 11.231:
• Orders resting on the Cross Book
• Non-displayed orders resting on the Continuous Book that execute in the Opening Process receive Fee Code “X”, and are assessed a fee of $0.0009 per share; and
• Displayed orders resting on the Continuous Book that execute in the Opening Process receive Fee Codes “X” and “L”, and are assessed a fee of $0.0003 per share.
In addition to the fees described above, the Exchange also offers a Market Quality Incentive Program that offers certain fee-based incentives for Members that provide meaningful and consistent support to market quality and price discovery by extensive quoting at and/or near the NBBO in IEX-listed securities for a significant portion of the day.
• Inside Tier IEMM: One or more of its MPIDs has a displayed order entered in a principal capacity of at least one round lot resting on the Exchange at the NBB and/or the NBO for an average of at least 20% of Regular Market Hours (the “NBBO Quoting Percentage”); and/or
• Depth Tier IEMM: One or more of its MPIDs has a displayed order entered in a principal capacity of at least one round lot resting on the Exchange at the greater of 1 minimum price variation (“MPV”) or 0.03% (
Members that are designated as an IEMM qualify for the Displayed Match Fee Discount as well as the Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount. Specifically, for Inside Tier IEMMs, the Displayed Match Fee Discount and the Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount results in a $0.0001 discount for each execution subject to the Displayed Match Fee and the Non-Displayed Match Fee, respectively, with no cap on aggregate monthly savings. Furthermore, Depth Tier IEMMs will receive a $0.0001 discount for each execution subject to the Displayed Match Fee and the Non-Displayed Match Fee, up to $20,000.00 in aggregate savings per month.
After informal discussions with various market participants, the Exchange is proposing to provide more clarity to market participants regarding the fees assessed for executions on the Exchange by amending the structure of its Fee Schedule to provide an overarching framework for interpreting the Exchange's Fee Codes, as well as explicitly enumerating each possible Fee Code combination, along with the associated fee applicable to such transaction. The Exchange is also proposing to make several conforming changes to the Fee Schedule and related rules to account for the updated structure.
The Exchange proposes to continue utilizing standard FIX tag 9730 (Trade Liquidity Indicator) to populate the applicable Fee Codes for executions on
As in the existing Fee Schedule, all proposed fees identify cost per share executed unless otherwise specified, and footnotes provide further explanatory text or indicate variable rate changes, provided the conditions in the footnote are met. The rates listed in the proposed Base Rates table apply unless a Member's transaction is assigned an Additional Fee Code. If a Member's transaction is assigned an Additional Fee Code, the rates listed in the Fee Code Combinations and Associated Fees table will apply. Executions below $1.00 are assessed a fee of 0.30% of TDV unless the Fee Code Combination results in a FREE execution. For executions on routable orders, the Exchange passes-through in full any fees charged by/rebates received from away venues (“Cost”) to the Member and adds the IEX fee (
The Exchange also proposes to adopt the following definitions that are substantially like the Exchange's existing definitions governing transaction fees:
• “Fee Code” is identified on each execution report message from the Exchange in the Trade Liquidity Indicator (FIX tag 9730) field.
• “MPID” means a market participant identifier.
• “TDV” means the total dollar value of the execution calculated as the execution price multiplied by the number of shares executed in the transaction.
• “Quote instability” is defined in IEX Rule 11.190(g).
• “CQRF Threshold” means the Crumbling Quote Remove Fee Threshold. The threshold is equal to 5% of the sum of a Member's total monthly executions on IEX if at least 1,000,000 shares during the calendar month, measured on an MPID basis.
• “Spread-crossing eligible order” means a buy order that is executable at the NBO or a sell order that is executable at the NBB after accounting for the order's limit (if any), peg instruction (if any), market conditions, and all applicable rules and regulations.
Fee Codes “I” and “X” are currently identified as the Non-Displayed Match Fee and the Opening Match Fee, respectively, and would both be referred to as the Standard Match Fee, as proposed. Furthermore, Fee Code “L” is currently identified as the Displayed Match Fee, and would be referred to as the Reduced Match Fee, as proposed. The Exchanges notes these amendments reflect only changes in nomenclature, and do not represent substantive changes to the fees assessed for execution on the Exchange. Moreover, similar to the existing Fee Schedule, the Exchange proposes to append footnote 1 to each Fee Code combination that includes Fee Code “Q”. Footnote 1 states that executions with Fee Code Q that exceed the CQRF Threshold are subject to the Crumbling Quote Remove Fee identified in the Fee Code Modifiers table. Executions with Fee Code Q that do not exceed the CQRF Threshold are subject to the fees identified in the Fee Code Combinations and Associated Fees table.
The Exchange is proposing to make one minor conforming change to the fees assessed for displayed order's resting on the Continuous Book that are executed in the Opening Process for non-IEX-listed securities pursuant to Rule 11.231 in order to enhance the consistency and clarity of the Exchange's Fee Schedule. Specifically, as described above, a displayed order resting on the Continuous Book that is executed in the Opening Process for non-IEX-listed securities is currently charged the Displayed Match Fee (or the Reduced Match Fee, as proposed). In contrast, a displayed order resting on the Continuous Book that is executed in an Opening or Closing Auction for IEX-listed securities is not charged a fee. However, as proposed, the Opening Process utilizes the Base Fee Code of “X”, which would conflict with the Base Fee Code of “L” for displayed executions. Thus, the Exchange is
The Exchange believes that offering such displayed orders resting on the Continuous Book free execution in the Opening Process is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest in that it may have the effect of incentivizing Members that seek execution in the Opening Process to enter displayed interest, thereby contributing to the public price discovery process to the benefit of all market participants. Furthermore, the proposed change creates consistency in the Exchange's fee for similarly situated orders in that displayed orders resting on the Continuous Book that are executed as part of a single-priced cross will receive the same free execution.
In addition to the Base Fee Code and Additional Fee Code framework described above, the Exchange is also proposing to provide a table of all possible Fee Code combinations and their associated fees, which explicitly sets forth each of the fees associated with each Fee Code combination. This table is designed to provide market participants an authoritative source on how to interpret the Fee Code's assigned by the Exchange on each execution report. Consistent with the foregoing, the proposed Fee Code combinations and associated fees are as follows:
Lastly, in order to enhance the consistency and clarity of the Exchange's Fee Schedule, IEX proposes to make conforming changes to the description of the IEMM Program in both the Fee Schedule and Rule 11.170(a)(3) to account for the changes described above, as well as to clarify the application of the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee. Specifically, the Exchange is changing the name of the Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount and the Displayed Match Fee Discount to the Standard Match Fee Discount and Reduced Match Fee Discount, respectively, which conforms to the nomenclature of the proposed Base Rate's. Furthermore, the Exchange is clarifying that Members that qualify as IEMMs will receive a $0.0001 discount on executions that receive the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee, subject to any applicable Depth Tier aggregate monthly savings cap. The Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee Code of “N” is an additional Fee Code applied to execution that remove resting liquidity (either displayed, or non-displayed), and thus, such executions would also receive the applicable Base Fee Code, but would be subject to the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee as set forth in the proposed table of Fee Code combinations and associated fees.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes do not substantively change the IEMM Program, as executions qualifying for the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee are a logical subset of executions that satisfy the conditions of the Standard Match Fee (when removing non-displayed liquidity) or the Reduced Match Fee (when removing displayed liquidity). Thus, to provide clarity regarding the application of the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to explicitly enumerate the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee Discount for Members that qualify as an IEMM. Accordingly, as proposed, unless an IEMM otherwise qualifies for a lower rate, IEMMs will receive the following rates for executions during continuous trading in securities priced at or above $1.00.
The Exchange also proposes to clarify in the Fee Schedule that IEMMs qualifying for the Depth Tier can receive up to $20,000.00 in aggregate savings, per month, before the discounted rates above no longer apply, and the IEMM is subject to the Base Rates. Furthermore, the Exchange proposed to clarify in both the Fee Schedule and Rule 11.170(a)(3) that if a Member qualifies under both the Inside Tier and the Depth Tier, any earned Standard Match Fee Discount, Reduced Match Fee Discount, and Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee Discount will be aggregated and applied to such Members' executions that are subject to the Standard Match Fee, Reduced Match Fee, or Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee in securities priced at or above $1.00, subject to the applicable Depth Tier aggregate monthly savings cap of $20,000.00.
Finally, the Exchange is proposing to make conforming changes to Rule 11.170(a)(3) in order to explicitly state that for Members that qualify as an IEMM, executions that take liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 with a buy order that is executable at the NBO or a sell order that is executable at the NBB after accounting for the order's limit (if any), peg instruction (if any), market conditions, and all applicable rules and regulations (
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The proposed changes are designed to provide more clarity to market participants regarding the fees assessed for executions on the Exchange by amending the structure of its Fee Schedule to explicitly provide each possible Fee Code combination, along with the associated fee applicable to such transaction, therefore making the Exchange's Fee Schedule more clear and deterministic to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes the proposed changes enhance the consistency and clarity of the Exchange's Fee Schedule, and do not represent a significant departure from pricing currently offered by the Exchange. As described in the Purpose section, the Exchange is proposing to primarily make formatting changes, and certain conforming edits designed to make the Exchange's rules clearer and more precise.
As described above, as part of the proposed restructuring of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange is proposing to not charge any fee for displayed order's resting on the Continuous Book that are executed in the Opening Process for non-IEX-listed securities pursuant to Rule 11.231. The Exchange believes that offering displayed orders resting on the Continuous Book free execution in the Opening Process is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest in that it may have the effect of incentivizing Members that seek execution in the Opening Process to enter displayed interest, thereby contributing to the public price discovery process to the benefit of all market participants. Furthermore, the proposed change creates consistency in the Exchange's fees for similarly situated orders in that displayed orders resting on the Continuous Book that are executed as part of a single-priced cross (
In addition, as described above, the Exchange is also proposing to make conforming changes to the description of the IEMM Program in both the Fee Schedule and Rule 11.170(a)(3) to account for the modified Fee Schedule, as well as to clarify the application of the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee. The Exchange believes these proposed changes are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory because they do not substantively change the IEMM Program, as executions qualifying for the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee are a logical subset of executions that satisfy the conditions of the Standard Match Fee (when removing non-displayed liquidity) or the Reduced Match Fee (when removing displayed liquidity). Thus, the proposed changes are primarily designed to provide clarity regarding the application of the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee in the context of the IEMM program by explicitly enumerating the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee Discount for Members that qualify as an IEMM.
Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the proposed structure of the Fee Schedule is substantially like the Fee Schedule of other market centers, and therefore does not present any new or novel issues not already considered by the Commission.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are nondiscriminatory because they will continue to apply uniformly to all Members.
IEX 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 Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because, as discussed above, the Exchange is not materially altering the fees assessed for executions on the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if fee
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the Exchange is not materially altering the fees assessed for executions on the Exchange. Furthermore, as noted above, the Exchange notes that the proposed structure of the Fee Schedule is substantially similar to the Fee Schedule of other market centers, and therefore does not present any new intermarket competitive burdens that do not already exist.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2018-11 and should be submitted on or before July 30, 2018. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the cancellation of the July 17, 2018 meeting of the Federal Advisory Committee for the Small Business Development Centers Program. Future meetings of the Committee will be publicized as details become available.
Anne Reim, Office of Small Business Development Centers, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416;
If anyone wishes to learn more about the Committee, please contact Anne Reim at the information above.
Pursuant to section l0(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), the SBA announces the meetings of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator for Small Business Development Centers.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the projects approved by rule by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
May 1-31, 2018.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, 717-238-0423, ext. 1312,
This notice lists the projects, described below, receiving approval for the
1. Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC, Pad ID: REPINE (07 022) T, ABR-201305009.R1, Apolacon Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 3, 2018.
2. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: BIM, ABR-201311006.R1, Wilmot Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: May 14, 2018.
3. Chief Oil & Gas, LLC, Pad ID: Kupscznk B Drilling Pad, ABR-201311007.R1, Springville Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 17, 2018.
4. Pennsylvania General Energy Company, LLC, Pad ID: COP Tract 322 Pad E, ABR-201308002.R1, Cummings Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.5000 mgd; Approval Date: May 21, 2018.
5. Chief Oil & Gas, LLC, Pad ID: Garrison West Drilling Pad, ABR-201311010.R1, Lemon Township, Wyoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 24, 2018.
6. ARD Operating, LLC, Pad ID: Larry's Creek F&G Pad G, ABR-201308007.R1, Mifflin Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 29, 2018.
7. ARD Operating, LLC, Pad ID: Elbow F&G Pad D, ABR-201309013.R1, Cogan House Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 29, 2018.
8. ARD Operating, LLC, Pad ID: Kenmar HC Pad A, ABR-201309014.R1, Cogan House Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 29, 2018.
9. ARD Operating, LLC, Pad ID: Alden Evans Pad A, ABR-201805001, Cascade Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 29, 2018.
10. ARD Operating, LLC, Pad ID: MAC Pad B, ABR-201805002, Cascade Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 29, 2018.
11. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: ThomasR P1, ABR-201305005.R1, Lenox Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 29, 2018.
12. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: DiazM P1, ABR-201805003, Springville Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 29, 2018.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The FAA is announcing the process for eligible airport sponsors in two categories to notify the FAA of any supplemental discretionary funding requests. The process includes two distinct deadlines with different submission requirements. The FAA may award supplemental discretionary funding regardless of whether the airport sponsor previously identified the project through the Airports Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) process during the preceding year.
Elliott Black, Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming, APP-1, at (202) 267-8775.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) appropriated “an additional amount for “Grants-In-Aid for Airports”, to enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants for projects as authorized by subchapter 1 of chapter 471 and subchapter 1 of chapter 475 of title 49, U.S.C., $1,000,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 2020.”
• The Secretary shall distribute funds provided under this heading as discretionary grants to airports;
• The Secretary shall give priority consideration to projects at (a) nonprimary airports that are classified as Regional, Local, or Basic airports and not located within a Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area as defined by the Office of Management and Budget; or (b) primary airports that are classified as Small Hub or Nonhub airports; and
• The Federal share payable of the costs for which a grant is made under this heading to a nonprimary airport shall be 100 percent.
For grants at primary airports, the normal Federal share applies based on the airport category and project type.
The FAA administers the AIP in accordance with FAA Order 5100.38D, Airport Improvement Program Handbook.
In addition, the FAA normally relies on the ACIP process
The process outlined in this notice relates solely to the selection process. All other applicable rules and requirements apply, including, but not limited to, the requirements for project eligibility and justification, procurement processes, and other requirements as set forth in the FAA orders referenced above.
It is also important to note that this process relates solely to the supplemental discretionary funding provided by the Act and does not relieve any airport sponsor of its responsibilities under the existing ACIP process for any other category of AIP funding. If an airport sponsor has properly submitted its AIP funding requests for Fiscal Years (FY) 2018-2020 and does not want to be considered for supplemental funding, then the airport sponsor does not need to take any other steps in response to this notice. Conversely, the process outlined in this notice does not take the
The FAA anticipates issuing grants from this supplemental funding during FYs 2018, 2019, and 2020. However, the FAA cannot predict how much of the funding it will obligate in each fiscal year until the FAA receives and evaluates the requests from airport sponsors.
Any airport identified in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) report
In submitting such notifications to the FAA, the airport sponsor must include the following information via electronic mail (email):
• Name and official three-letter identifier of the airport, its location, and NPIAS number;
• Brief description of the project (no more than 50 words);
• Brief explanation (no more than 500 words) of how the project meets the evaluation criteria set forth later in this notice;
• Target timeframe for grant award and construction start;
• Brief description (no more than 250 words) explaining how the airport sponsor is using its available AIP entitlement funds.
The FAA requires an explanation of how the airport sponsor is using its entitlement funds because of a statutory requirement. Title 49 U.S.C. 47120 stipulates that the FAA “. . . shall discourage airport sponsors and airports from using entitlement funds for lower priority projects by giving lower priority to discretionary projects submitted by airport sponsors and airports that have used entitlement funds for projects that have a lower priority than the projects for which discretionary funds are being requested.” Therefore, as with regular AIP discretionary funds, an airport sponsor may request supplemental funding even if they are using their entitlements on a lower-priority project, but the FAA is required to consider that fact as part of the evaluation process.
If an airport sponsor has already carried over their available entitlements in FY 2018, the FAA may still consider a supplemental funding request for FY 2018, as long as the airport sponsor provides an explanation of their previous decision. The FAA will consider the airport sponsor's explanation including the airport sponsor's future plans for those funds.
It is not necessary to submit a completed OMB Form SF 424, Application for Federal Assistance, or any other documentation prior to Deadline #1. After evaluating all requests, the FAA may encourage an airport sponsor to prepare a final grant application if the FAA believes the project may compete well. For projects not selected in FY 2018, the FAA will retain those requests for reconsideration during FY 2019 or FY 2020.
For Deadline #1, the FAA will only consider grant applications for projects for which airports have already completed all of the required planning, airspace reviews, environmental and other permitting requirements, and engineering design. In addition, the FAA will only consider grant applications for which construction bids will be received in time for the airport sponsor to be administratively prepared to accept a grant by September 1, 2018, with construction starting within 6 months thereafter or no later than March 1, 2019.
The FAA will consider such requests in conjunction with the FAA's existing responsibility to fully obligate all other AIP funds by September 30, 2018, generally for projects that airport sponsors had previously requested through the ACIP process.
Based on the funding requests received, the FAA will consider such requests with due consideration of the FAA's existing responsibility to fully obligate all other available AIP funds by September 30 of each fiscal year, generally for projects previously requested through the ACIP process.
In submitting such notifications to the FAA, the airport sponsor must include all of the information identified under Deadline #1, plus the following additional information:
• Brief explanation (no more than 250 words) explaining the status of the proposed project, including whether the project has already been approved on the airport's current Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the status of related environmental reviews, other required permitting, and the level of engineering design completed; and
• For airports that do not meet the criteria for “priority consideration,” a brief explanation (no more than 500 words) outlining why the airport sponsor believes the FAA should consider the project for this supplemental funding.
Airports must submit the preceding information to the appropriate ADO or RO via electronic mail in order to facilitate timely review and consideration by the FAA. The FAA will consider grant applications for projects where the FAA has a high degree of confidence that the airport sponsor will be administratively prepared to accept a grant by September 1, 2020, or earlier with construction starting within 6 months thereafter
For nonprimary airports located in block grant states, the airport sponsor must also provide a copy of its supplemental discretionary funding request to the designated state aeronautical agency. The FAA will consult with state aeronautical agencies, as appropriate, before making decisions regarding requests from nonprimary airports in each state.
The FAA encourages block-grant states (and states with channeling acts regarding Federal funds) to work with
The FAA will consider supplemental discretionary funding requests based on (but not limited to) the following criteria:
• Eligibility and justification of the project pursuant to existing AIP eligibility rules;
• Ability of the project to enhance the long-term economic sustainability of the airport;
• The airport sponsor's previous track record in project delivery and grant management (including any issues related to the airport's existing Federal grant obligations);
• Likelihood of the proposed project to be ready to proceed into construction during the same fiscal year as grant award or within 6 months of grant award;
• Ability of the project to compete for regular AIP discretionary funding—
• For requests from airports that do not meet the statutory criteria for “priority consideration,” the strength of the justification for why the FAA should consider the project.
Please note that under both deadlines:
• The FAA will not make its conclusions public or announce any planned grants from the supplemental funding until after completing the required congressional notification for each proposed grant award.
• After evaluating all requests, the FAA may encourage an airport sponsor to prepare a final grant application if the FAA believes the project may compete well.
• Complete and timely grant applications (OMB Form SF 424, including all required information) will still be required as part of the final grant application package in accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of extension of comment period.
On June 5, 2018, FMCSA published a notice of exemption application for the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC), requesting an exemption from the electronic logging device (ELD) requirements for all motor carriers with fewer than 50 employees. (83 FR 26140.) Due to reported technical difficulty with the on-line filing of comments for several days, the comment period is being extended to July 16, 2018, to ensure that all commenters have an opportunity to submit their on-line comments.
Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2018-0180 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
For information concerning this notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 614-942-6477. Email:
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2018-0180), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comments online, go to
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Department of the Treasury.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The OCC announces a meeting of the Mutual Savings Association Advisory Committee (MSAAC).
A public meeting of the MSAAC will be held on Tuesday, July 24, 2018, beginning at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The OCC will hold the July 24, 2018 meeting of the MSAAC at the OCC's offices at 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.
Michael R. Brickman, Deputy Comptroller for Thrift Supervision, (202) 649-5420, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Washington, DC 20219.
By this notice, the OCC is announcing that the MSAAC will convene a meeting on Tuesday, July 24, 2018, at the OCC's offices at 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. The meeting is open to the public and will begin at 1:00 p.m. EDT. The purpose of the meeting is for the MSAAC to advise the OCC on regulatory or other changes the OCC may make to ensure the health and viability of mutual savings associations. The agenda includes a discussion of current topics of interest to the industry.
Members of the public may submit written statements to the MSAAC. The OCC must receive written statements no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, July 17, 2018. Members of the public may submit written statements to
Members of the public who plan to attend the meeting should contact the OCC by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, July 17, 2018, to inform the OCC of their desire to attend the meeting and to provide information that will be required to facilitate entry into the meeting. Members of the public may contact the OCC via email at
Attendees should provide their full name, email address, and organization, if any. For security reasons, attendees will be subject to security screening procedures and must present a valid government-issued identification to enter the building.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of Meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, August 15, 2018.
Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be held Wednesday, August 15, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Matthew O'Sullivan. For more information please contact Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, or write TAP Office, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612-5217 or contact us at the website:
The agenda will include a discussion on various special topics with IRS processes.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will conduct an open meeting and will solicit public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, August 21, 2018.
Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or (737) 800-4060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be held Tuesday, August 21, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent
The committee will be discussing various issues related to the Taxpayer Assistance Centers and public input is welcomed.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, August 21, 2018.
Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-4110.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be held Tuesday, August 21, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Antoinette Ross. For more information please contact: Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-4110, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 1509—National Office, Washington, DC 20224, or contact us at the website:
The committee will be discussing various issues related to Taxpayer Communications and public input is welcome.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, August 8, 2018.
Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be held Wednesday, August 8, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Robert Rosalia. For more information please contact Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203, or write TAP Office, 2 Metrotech Center, 100 Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, August 30, 2018.
Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Thursday, August 30, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information please contact Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523, or write TAP Office, 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242-1021, or post comments to the website:
The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving
The meeting will be held Thursday, August 9, 2018.
Otis Simpson at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3332.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be held Thursday, August 9, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Otis Simpson. For more information please contact Otis Simpson at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3332, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:
The agenda will include a discussion on various letters, and other issues related to written communications from the IRS.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, August 14, 2018.
Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be held Tuesday, August 14, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Rosalind Matherne. For more information please contact Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:
The committee will be discussing toll-free issues and public input is welcomed.
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice.
For the period beginning July 1, 2018, and ending on September 30, 2018, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bond interest rate is 1.88 per centum per annum.
Rates are applicable July 1, 2018 to September 30, 2018.
Comments or inquiries may be mailed to Sam Doak, Reporting Team Leader, Federal Borrowings Branch, Division of Accounting Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-1328. You can download this notice at the following internet addresses:
Adam Charlton, Manager, Federal Borrowings Branch, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-1328, (304) 480-5248; Sam Doak, Reporting Team Leader, Federal Borrowings Branch, Division of Accounting Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-1328, (304) 480-5117.
Federal law requires that interest payments on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds shall be “at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, except that in no case shall the interest rate exceed 3 per centum per annum.” 8 U.S.C. 1363(a). Related Federal regulations state that “Interest on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds will be at the rate as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, but in no case will exceed 3 per centum per annum or be less than zero.” 8 CFR 293.2. Treasury has determined that interest on the bonds will vary quarterly and will accrue during each calendar quarter at a rate equal to the lesser of the average of the bond equivalent rates on 91-day Treasury bills auctioned during the preceding calendar quarter, or 3 per centum per annum, but in no case less than zero. [FR Doc. 2015-18545] In addition to this Notice, Treasury posts the current quarterly rate in Table 2b—Interest Rates for Specific Legislation on the TreasuryDirect website.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administrations, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before September 7, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation will meet July 24-25, 2018. The Committee will meet at 1722 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 20006. The meetings will be held on the Third Floor in the Training Room and will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. EST. The meetings are open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The Committee is to assemble and review relevant information relating to the nature and character of disabilities arising during service in the Armed Forces, provide an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the rating schedule, and give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of Veterans relating to disability compensation.
The Committee will receive briefings on issues related to compensation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities and on other VA benefits programs. Time will be allocated for receiving public comments. Public comments will be limited to three minutes each. Individuals wishing to make oral statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. Individuals who speak are invited to submit one to two page summaries of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record.
The public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Stacy Boyd, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation Service, Policy Staff (211A), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420 or email at
| 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 |